In all likelihood, the executioner who inserted Lockett's IV—and, in Oklahoma, an IV is inserted into both arms—missed the veins or went right through them. After this likely mistake, the state, according to the protocol, would have had “three persons to administer lethal agents”—that is, to push the drugs through the IV line....That sober analysis comes from The New Republic, which illustrates the article with a stock photo of an empty gurney in a prison chamber.
After the first drug is administered, the Oklahoma protocol requires the supervising physician to confirm that the patient is unconscious. The AP says the doctor did this 10 minutes after Lockett’s execution began. The other two drugs were then being administered when the execution team recognized a problem. Lockett started clenching his teeth and trying to lift his head. At this point, the doctor inspected Lockett and recognized the blown vein. A curtain was pulled so witnesses could not see what happened next. The Department of Corrections called off the execution and even tried to resuscitate Lockett, but it was too late: He died of a heart attack.
Meanwhile, The Daily Mail has photos of the dead convict and his victim and highlights facts about the crime ("shooting a woman and watching his friends bury her alive"). There's also a photo of another man who was also scheduled for execution and what that man did to deserve it — he raped and killed an 11-month-old girl — the details of the last meals of both murderers. There are over 2000 comments at The Daily Mail, and the best-rated one, with over 6000 up votes (and only 300 down votes), is:
Considering "Lockett was sentenced to death for shooting a 19-year-old Perry woman and watching his friends bury her alive," as I have read elsewhere, I don't have much sympathy for his writhing and shaking.The next favorite is: "Hmmmm.....I don't think I care...." Followed by:
This man forced his teenage victim to watch his accomplice dig her grave, before he stood her in it and shot her. This was after he duct taped her and beat her. Her crime? She wouldn't hand over the keys to her truck. If there's an afterlife, I hope she was standing next to that gurney for those twenty minutes of agony that he laid dying, and I hope he saw her there, waiting for him.The worst-rated comment is: "End this madness. Abolish the death penalty now." Second worst-rate: "The death penalty is barbaric, cruel and unusual punishment. I am ashamed this country practices this great evil."
People support the death penalty, and I suspect they would support deliberate, extended torture if it were an option. It's enough to make you worry that there's a temptation to botch lethal injection execution intentionally. I'm sure death penalty opponents think Oklahoma's horrible incident will turn people against the death penalty, but it doesn't seem to work that way. Personally, I am opposed to the death penalty. It transforms a murderer into a victim, an object of pity... at least to some of us. Most people seem to remain focused on the murder victims (and those who loved them), and any suffering that befalls the murderer will always be deemed far out of balance with the suffering he caused.
পোস্টগুলি
১২৯টি মন্তব্য:
If you have to execute someone, use the damn guillotine. It's efficient and relatively humane. The only reason we don't use it and instead try to use drugs is to protect our (the public's) delicate sensibilities, which is stupid because we're still talking about executing someone. If your stomach can't handle a quick decapitation, then don't execute someone in the first place.
The point of the death penalty is not retribution or deterrence, but to mark the place that society accords the voice of the victim, a voice that is missing.
Intellectually, and religiously, I oppose the death penalty. I don't think it contributes to dissuading criminals, and I don't think state inflicted revenge for the victims is particularly just. But it is hard for me to get emotionally fraught over the issue, especially when those executed so richly deserve it. I just think that mercy is the greater virtue than absolute justice. And mercy, especially undeserved mercy, can serve to shame those who receive it, and reform them.
I suspect they would support deliberate, extended torture if it were an option.
I suspect this is not true except for a tiny minority. There is a huge difference between supporting torture generally and not going along with leftist hysterics who contend any discomfort is unacceptable.
I have always been skeptical of the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent to crime. In this case, as the fellow was causing the burial and death of his victim, I doubt he was doing some kind of analysis in his head...."hmm, does this state have the death penalty for what I am doing right now? Oh, that's right, they do - well, can I play the odds and get life without parole? Well, that's good enough for me. I'm going for it."
For some reason, I don't think those guys think that way.
Firing squad works well...
Take 'em out and shoot 'em. Effective and cheap!
People support the death penalty, and I suspect they would support deliberate, extended torture if it were an option. It's enough to make you worry that there's a temptation to botch lethal injection execution intentionally. I'm sure death penalty opponents think Oklahoma's horrible incident will turn people against the death penalty, but it doesn't seem to work that way. Personally, I am opposed to the death penalty. It transforms a murderer into a victim, an object of pity... at least to some of us. Most people seem to remain focused on the murder victims (and those who loved them), and any suffering that befalls the murderer will always be deemed far out of balance with the suffering he caused."
I suspect that you suspect wrongly. Most people I suspect see the death penalty as precisely that: a punishment for a sufficiently heinous crime. Nor do I suspect that those involved in executions deliberately botch an execution let alone do so with the intended purpose to cause maximum pain on the criminal being punished. Nor do I suspect that the the majority of death penalty supporters want the condemned to suffer more than what is necessary to carry out the punishment.
While a botched execution is regrettable and steps need to be taken so it doesn't occur again no one is guaranteed a painless death in this world. Cardiac arrests are not pain free, being killed in combat in service of the nation is hardly ever pain free. Practice makes perfect so perhaps the state should hire an abortionist to perform the executions.
Choosing the method of one's own execution.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLctf4o6feQ
I consider myself a fence-sitter on the death penalty, leaning occasionally towards being against it. There are a lot of arguments against it that I am at the very least sympathetic to, if not persuaded by.
The fact that the criminal might suffer is just not one of them. I understand that it dehumanizes us (and, as AA pointed out, makes the criminal a victim) to cause deliberately or negligently cause additional suffering, so I would think that there should be some liability for what looks like gross incompetence here, but the fact that there is some pain and/or physical discomfort to the business of punishment by death is not the least bit troubling to me.
People support the death penalty, and I suspect they would support deliberate, extended torture if it were an option.
I suspect not.
With a death penalty there is no possibility of that person ever harming another human being.
" I don't think it contributes to dissuading criminals…"
Actually, the evidence these days shows that the death penalty is a deterrent. I think you are operating under what used to be the conventional wisdom. You need to update that.
Here's a good discussion of death penalty opponents facing up to the current data on deterrence.
And mercy, especially undeserved mercy, can serve to shame those who receive it, and reform them.
Providing those you show mercy to have a conscience and therefore can be shamed.
alan markus said...
I have always been skeptical of the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent to crime. In this case, as the fellow was causing the burial and death of his victim, I doubt he was doing some kind of analysis in his head...."hmm, does this state have the death penalty for what I am doing right now? Oh, that's right, they do - well, can I play the odds and get life without parole? Well, that's good enough for me. I'm going for it."
For some reason, I don't think those guys think that way.
4/30/14, 8:59 AM"
Most criminals don't expect to get caught every time they commit a crime so using your logic we might as well abolish prisons since they don't seem to deter crime either.
Giving twenty years of appeals is not a deterrent. A lot of thugs know the system.
A society unwilling to exact the ultimate sanction is a society lacking the will to survive.
I remember that Mike Royko wrote, of the execution of an Indiana inmate who had raped and murdered a young woman and drowned her three young children, that he could be present at the execution and, then, go and enjoy a nice pizza.
It is difficult, I expect, for those who have not seen unspeakable cruelty and the lack of remorse a perpetrator to understand why many of us see a need for capital punishment. Try riding with homicide detectives in a large city and you'll see what really happens to victims, rather than relying on the sanitized versions in newspapers.
There is a thought in my head that says: "It was botched on purpose".
When considering death penalty methods, three things come to mind:
1. It is certain.
2. It is fast.
3 It is painless
Asphyxiation with an inert gas would be ideal in terms of the above three consideration and have the virtue of being less messy than a gun shot, cheaper and easier than lethal injection, hanging or guillotine, but it is not a method which is well known. It seems that the feeling of suffocation you get while holding your breath is due to CO2 build-up in the blood causing a drop in pH. Breathing an inert gas allows the CO2 to be driven-off. You just pass-out and then suffocate.
Do you think your death will be easier? Thousands die from heart attacks every year. Then there is kidney failure, cancer etc. None of it pleasant. If this convict lived out his life and died of natural causes would his passing have been easier?
If not, then isn't Foreshortening of life the punishment? That's the intent.
If you're going to do it, do it right.
They say there is no deterrent effect. I say, no executed criminal has ever gone on to commit another crime.
Some criminal acts are so heinous that the criminal needs to be permanently removed from society. The death penalty does this without the possibility of some wishy-washy parole board letting the criminal go at a later date.
As for how humane it should be, I have no problem with trying to make it as painless as possible. I don't really understand what the big deal is with the drug combos. All they need to do is get some high-grade heroin and give the condemned an intentional overdose. Quick and painless. Junkie screw-ups do it all the time accidentally.
Actually, the evidence these days shows that the death penalty is a deterrent. I think you are operating under what used to be the conventional wisdom. You need to update that.
That is why I still support the death penalty as a theoretical punishment, but I'm more on the fence about it when it comes down to the actual execution. I just want the law to be sure they've got the right criminal.
Alhouse said "Personally, I am opposed to the death penalty."
If you are against the state terminating the life of someone judged to be guilty of a crime severe enough for them to forfeit their lives, can I assume you also oppose women forfeiting the lives of completely innocent babies who have committed no crime?
Death is an appropriate punishment for some crimes. The transference of sympathy to the killer reflects badly on our society, but it does not alter the fundamental fact that some crimes richly deserve punishment by death. The crime of the killer in this cases is one of them.
The best argument against the death penalty is that trials are imperfect and some prosecutors are corrupt, resulting in guilty verdicts against innocent perpetrators. This is a strong argument. However I do not trust the claims regarding how prevalent this is.
I sort all this out by still favoring the death penalty. Some crimes are so horrible that they cry for it. But I don't think my viewpoint is likely to be the winner for long.
Althouse said:
Actually, the evidence these days shows that the death penalty is a deterrent. I think you are operating under what used to be the conventional wisdom. You need to update that.
Interesting. I have been operating under the old assumptions.
But if the death penalty is a deterrent, doesn't that infer that a more brutul, gruesome, horrifying method of execution would be even more of a deterrent?
If we're saving three lives per execution now, maybe we could up it to five lives by dumping lethal injection and going to steam rollers or starving dogs or whatever.
Well, now we've seen the needle and the damage done.
Rusty said...
And mercy, especially undeserved mercy, can serve to shame those who receive it, and reform them.
Providing those you show mercy to have a conscience and therefore can be shamed.
4/30/14, 9:15 AM"
Kindness to the cruel is cruelty to the kind.
You can't shame the shameless. While there certainly exceptions by and large most people who are capable of committing premeditated murder don't have an underlying sense of shame or a sufficient amount of conscious to be reformed. If they had it they wouldn't have committed the crimes to begin with.
If you simply don't think of evil cretins like this guy as a victim, that fixes the whole problem of the appearing as victims, doesn't it?
I mean, why not be honest and say something like "it makes me think of the killer as a victim and I don't like that."
Jac's post about the deterrent effects was what pulled me from being against back to on the fence on this issue. I haven't taken the time to really research the issue, but if I did and became convinced that there is a clear deterrent effect, I would move myself to the pro side.
Vengeance is mine.
I only oppose the death penalty on the grounds that it is a greater punishment to make someone live in prison for the rest of their life. Why give them relief through death?
I suspect they would support deliberate, extended torture if it were an option.
I suspect that you are full of shit!
Emotions can get the best of reason.
It's enough to make you worry that there's a temptation to botch lethal injection execution intentionally.
Again irrational!
Quite an assertion!
I am in favor of the death penalty but would never support torture. I would be open to changing the standard of evidence for the death penalty, requiring a higher standard for that sentence.
As for this guy, mistakes can happen in even the most solemn events. His death was probably easier than that of most people. (And as those comments noted, MUCH easier than his victim's.)
Practice makes perfect so perhaps the state should hire an abortionist to perform the executions.
Excellent idea although I prefer a more humane clean and quick unlike the method of the abortionist or convicted murderer.
Meh, I don't care about that shit stain. I'm mildly pro death penalty but I'm opposed to it in Texas. Too many death cases for run of the mill crimes and way too much prosecutor and police misconduct.
My preference would be to use it sparely for the worst crimes.
Why not cut him up in pieces and then suck him into a giant vacuum cleaner? If it's good enough for a fetus, it ought to be good enough for a murderer!
@Ann,
That was a very interesting blog post. I honestly had no idea that so many studies have indicated that capital punishment has a deterrent effect. The fact that it is an effective deterrent to crime does not make it right, but it certainly makes banning it or opposing it an actual trade-off.
It shows a lack of imagination to say that no one deserves the death penalty. In Connecticut recently, some guy raped a child, tied her up, poured gasoline on her, and then burned her alive. There are crimes that deserve the death penalty.........The historical record shows that the death penalty has been over used and used in a discriminatory way. The historical record also shows that paroled murderers have gone on to murder other victims.....It is said that our hospital system kills about one hundred thousand patients a year because of poor infection controls, medication errors, etc. Our criminal justice system, however, is expected to operate flawlessly.......We're not perfect creatures and we're incapable of dispensing perfect justice, but perfectly despicable criminals exist.
I have mixed feelings about the death penalty but think it is still necessary. The opponents of the death penalty have some good arguments; the best is that it is almost certain that sometime somewhere an innocent person will be convicted.
Here are the reasons I'm not willing to dispense with the death penalty yet.
1. A life sentence doesn't really mean the person will be in prison for life.
2. Many killers are so dangerous that as long as they are alive they will endanger other people including other less violent prisoners and guards. If someone who is in prison escapes he/she will not hesitate to kill anyone whom he/she considers a threat since the worst that can happen to him/her is that he/she goes back to prison.
3. Even if he or she does not escape he/she will know that they can kill with impunity since society has already inflicted the maximum penalty.
I suspect those who are against the death penalty would be against it even if it was proven completely painless and 100% guaranteed to deter large numbers of murders.
"I suspect" = straw man argument. Or a way to smear your opponent when he hasn't said you anything you can smear. I.e. "I suspect all those white people would love to vote for Hitler if they could".
I support the death penalty, but I think the execution should be humane, regardless of the brutal aspects of the original crime.
The purpose of the death penalty is justice, not revenge. It's wilfull ignorance or obtuseness of those that refuse to recognize that.
The death penalty affirms the value of the victim to both their family and society. It says that we value life so much that justice obligates society to respond by exacting the ultimate penalty.
The dirtbag died. That is the purpose of an execution. Botched? No. Execution successful.
And does any else smell a rat. Is it really that difficult for a "medical team" to put an IV in a man's arm? Is it really that difficult to knock someone out with anesthesia - especially when you don't have to worry about an overdose and killing the subject?
The Doctor misjudged things and saw a grimace? The whole story seems unbelievable. How many people to these "medical team" kill a day? I doubt they were overworked or unprepared.
Agree with Brando. The best solution is the guillotine. Humane for the executed. Forces society to own up to the reality of the death penalty. These days you could even construct it to be minimally gruesome.
Rather than secretly wanting to torture murders, we seem to want to execute people in as humane a manner as possible. That's why we have execution by lethal injection, and before that the electric chair, the gas chamber, and the guillotine, all of which were touted as more humane that previous methods.
Brando said...
If you have to execute someone, use the damn guillotine. It's efficient and relatively humane.
I think the old Soviet and Chinese methods of a bullet to the back of the brain is the fastest, cheapest and likely least painful way to execute someone. Even with the guillotine, it takes the brain some 15-60 seconds to lose consciousness. The same applies to a firing squad that shoots someone in the heart. A bullet that tears the brain apart is probably quicker. Both techniques tend to be messy.
Ann Althouse said...
" I don't think it contributes to dissuading criminals…"
Actually, the evidence these days shows that the death penalty is a deterrent. I think you are operating under what used to be the conventional wisdom. You need to update that.
Fear of punishment deters many, perhaps most, people from committing crime. No punishment will deter everyone or we wouldn't have people still robbing banks and committing other crimes. It's called "capital punishment" for a reason. The goal is not to deter others but to punish someone with the most extreme punishment allowed for committing the most extreme crimes.
I just read an item in the Daily Beast about the crucifixions in Syria. There's a splinter group of Islamists who were thrown out of AQ because of their extremism (WTF). They have taken to crucifying people they regard as criminals. The crucifixions are happening in Christian areas so there may be an element of anti Christian feeling involved.......The bet here is that these crucifixions will not arouse as much outrage as the botched Oklahoma execution or past cases of water boarding on our part. If capital punishment has sometimes been applied in a capricious and discriminatory way, so has the protest against it.
Personally, I am opposed to the death penalty.
Dog bites man.
Judicial hanging is effective and painless. Trained and experienced executioners can be hired from Japan or India.
For that matter, when our Constitution was written, no-drop or short-drop hanging was usual and not considered cruel--As was the common British penalty of burning alive of women for "petite treason".
Most people seem to remain focused on the murder victims (and those who loved them), and any suffering that befalls the murderer will always be deemed far out of balance with the suffering he caused.
Well, yes. It's called being human, though the word "always" goes a bit far. I think a lot of us can picture ourselves going through our daily lives and suddenly being attacked and killed through no clear fault of our own. We might just be innocently walking past the sort of people Crack's bullshit whips up, and then suddenly we're dead.
Personally, I am opposed to the death penalty. It transforms a murderer into a victim, an object of pity... at least to some of us.
A "some of us" that, perhaps fortunately and perhaps not, is growing ever smaller. The people who try to blame whitey for black crime and who blamed "society" for criminal activities have had their day but that day is past.
My own personal view is that the death penalty has been and in places still is overused. But don't bother asking me for sympathy for either of these two monsters.
And no one sane should ever leave a person alive with nothing left to lose. I think the death penalty should be mandatory for anyone committing murder while already serving a sentence of life imprisonment. I think Illuninati would agree.
The only way to show that we, as a society, respect the sanctity of human life, is to have a death penalty for the taking of it.
If you allow murder to happen without an ultimate penalty, then you're saying human life just isn't that important. Not that big of a deal.
I can't get over the fact that they blew the vein and didn't know it. I say this as a person who has given lethal IV injections hundreds of times (to animals.) it's not at all hard to test your IV catheter and you don't inject the lethal drug without doing so.
But more to the topic of the post, I think a "becoming that which we hate" tag would be fitting.
“Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image." Gen. 9:6
God Himself made some exceptions, so perhaps it isn't a hard and fast rule, but I think the justice argument of valuation of the victim's life is the best argument. General deterrence doesn't do it for me, though the "no repeat offenders" argument is a good supporting one.
I think our evidence standards need to be higher (my beloved state of Texas has problems in this area), and I would never support torture, though I am not going to get overwrought about the discomforts of the executed. As some have pointed out, most of them undergo an easier death than most of the rest of us will.
I would not support deliberate torture (extended or not), but for a guy like this (and it would be my hope that most death row inmates are "guys like this"), I don't have a moment of sympathy if it happens. In short, fuck him.
My only hesitation about the death penalty is the (always-inherent) imperfection in the criminal justice system (i.e., executing the innocent); even then, I can't quite let go.
The death penalty's value as a specific deterrent is unquestionable.
When I interviewed with my current prosecutor's office 28 years ago, it was standard to inquire as to the interviewee's willingness to try a death case. One fellow responded "I'm in favor of electric bleachers!"
Let's take the Althousian observations, one by one:
"People support the death penalty, and I suspect they would support deliberate, extended torture if it were an option."
Yes they do support the death penalty, and for good reason. And it is probably true that most Americans find the endless wrangling about execution methods and procedures as too precious by half, given that the basic objective of every execution is to kill the monster. Nothing supports your "suspicion" about a preference for slow, deliberate torture, other than perhaps a generally low regard for the moral fiber of most Americans.
"It's enough to make you worry that there's a temptation to botch lethal injection execution intentionally."
No it's not. Any such 'worry' is ridiculous on its face.
"I'm sure death penalty opponents think Oklahoma's horrible incident will turn people against the death penalty, but it doesn't seem to work that way."
That's a bit incoherent, don't you think? You are "sure" something is the fact that you say turns out not to be a fact. OK, let's move on.
"Personally, I am opposed to the death penalty."
Nice. As your post observed at the beginning, most Americans are not. We live in a democracy. Get used to it.
"It transforms a murderer into a victim, an object of pity... at least to some of us."
Perhaps so, for those who are opposed to the death penalty. But you were already opposed to the death penalty because it and those who support it are [pick your favorites] barbaric, medieval, republican, red-neck, racist, immoral, ineffective, non-deterring .... Must be tough having to live in a world filled with moral cretins.
"Most people seem to remain focused on the murder victims (and those who loved them), and any suffering that befalls the murderer will always be deemed far out of balance with the suffering he caused."
Why, yes, most people are sensible enough to focus on the victim, and those who support the death penalty certainly agree that the harm to the victim merits the punishment meted out to the perp. It's not that "any suffering" is OK, but that a too precious focus on parsing the perp's "suffering" seems morally out of place. Killing someone is bound to cause suffering, a reality in understanding what happened to the victim and also a reality in dealing with any execution. Save the tears for a better cause.
The “botch” apparently occurred due to lack of reliable IV access, a not infrequent problem in criminals who have used IV drugs and have damaged their veins. This can be resolved in the medical setting essentially 100% of the time with a central IV access, which requires the skills of a physician or specially trained nurse. Despite the fact that the medical profession exists as a result of government privileging, the AMA considers participation in legal execution to be unethical, so it's hard to find a doc who will just go in and do it right. The AMA represents a small minority of practicing physicians, but does still have undue influence, at least in government circles. The AMA relies financially on the federal govt for its financial survival, so once again the govt is stupid.
An executed murderer is 100% guaranteed never to murder again. He cannot kill a guard or another prisoner. He cannot rape a weaker inmate. He cannot escape or be let out by a soft-headed judge or governor.
I'm willing to see a one-time murderer get another chance, but two murders really says all that society needs to know about you.
Here in West Virginia we did away with the death penalty decades ago, even though we're a very socially conservative state. I'm not exactly sure why it was done. We had a low crime rate back then and still do. At any rate, I would be in favor of the death penalty for really heinous murders if there was such a thing as proof positive. But we had a case several years ago where the State Police crime lab got caught faking evidence in a great many cases. At that time I said I sure was glad we didn't have the death penalty. Outside of having a good clear video of the crime, we need to remember that many open and shut cases can still be bad convictions. Witnesses lie, and so do the police, prosecutors, and CSI techs.
"Firing squad" seems to be the answer to me, but it need not even involve marksmen. Clearly our technology is sufficient to stand someone up and have sensors / computer aim precisely, if diversely, at the head.
More Than 4% of Death Row Inmates May Be Innocent
David Dow, a law professor at the University of Houston Law Center and founder of the Texas Innocence Network, a group of lawyers that represents death row inmates and works to reveal false convictions, says the number doesn’t surprise him. “This is really the number that people who have spent a lot of time doing capital work have intuited,” he says. “The larger hope is that it finally reaches people who have been resisting the acknowledgement of this reality, which is that we make a somewhat significant number of mistakes.”
http://news.sciencemag.org/social-sciences/2014/04/more-4-death-row-inmates-may-be-innocent
I wish the people who want a rigid interpretation of the Constitution felt that way about amendments beyond the second. The fourth and fifth amendments basically no longer exist. And if a man writhing in agony for 40 minutes doesn't violate the eighth, I don't know what does.
I am pro death penalty and I do not care if it deters anyone. It is punishment for a crime heinous enough that society is better off with your removal. I find murder to be a crime where this could be true.
“This is really the number that people who have spent a lot of time doing capital work have intuited,” he says.
"intuited" i.e. "have no factual basis to stand on and so just made shit up".
it's not as if the failing to inject properly is part of the procedure. if done right, it's supposedly "humane." Frankly, I'd prefer the gas chamber, noose, guillotine or firing squad...or the same manner of death as the victims received. Just because the convict feels pain for a seconds or minutes is not torture. Shit happens. It's punishment. They're supposed to feel some pain, right? They need to feel it. They deserve to feel it. Fuck 'em. They're dead. Society is better without them.
First, we need to ensure that guilt is established with a high degree of accuracy,
Second, off with their heads.
Third, what's good for the innocent baby is good for a guilty murderer, right?
We need a Planned Criminal, or perhaps recruit Planned Parenthood, to ensure a high quality murder. The latter already has experience carrying out the efficient and "humane" execution of tens of millions of wholly innocent human lives. They and society should have no moral qualms to add murderers and other capital criminals to their business plan.
Why are we still killing people again?
Oh yeah - because killing is wrong,...
Mike:
Abortion/murder of over one million wholly innocent human lives annually.
That said, the circumstances of his death are accidental. The intention was to humanely execute a vicious murderer.
More Than 4% of Death Row Inmates May Be Innocent
Name one innocent person executed in modern times--as absolutely proved by evidence. Every time the Left thinks they've found one, the evidence bites them in the ass. Of course that gets little play in the Left-leaning press.
(1) Ban/restrict/increase legal liability chemicals used in executions.
(2) Muscle doctors that participate, have professional organizations harass them.
(3)Say executions can be no longer performed without problems so they must be stopped.
Why are we still killing people again?
Oh yeah - because killing is wrong,...
Why are we still discriminating against people based on race through Affirmative Action again?
Oh yeah..because discrimination is wrong.
The Wolf:
"I only oppose the death penalty on the grounds that it is a greater punishment to make someone live in prison for the rest of their life."
Not saying you're wrong, but why do the overwhelming majority of them fight like hell, using every possible judicial avenue, to get life in prison without parole? What's the average delay between sentence and execution these days - about 12 years? I've heard of 20 or more.
Althouse: "Personally, I am opposed to the death penalty. It transforms a murderer into a victim, an object of pity... at least to some of us."
I suspect for most of the "some of us" the chicken comes before the egg. That is, "I am opposed to the death penalty THEREFORE it transforms a murderer into a victim, an object of pity ...."
Perhaps not for Althouse, but for most of the "some."
As a former prosecutor, who had my share on death row, I can't see any of them as victims. Nevertheless, whoever botched this execution should be fired.
More Than 4% of Death Row Inmates May Be Innocent
I skimmed through the report suspecting that this would be another case where the headline doesn’t match the data reported by the study. My suspicions were proven correct and this one can be pitched in the round circular file along with “Half of all Bankruptcies are Medically Related” and “Medicare has lower administrative costs than private insurance.”
I am a bit of a fence sitter on the death penalty too. But when I hear of a particularly terrible crime, it usually pulls me back towards supporting it. All the logical arguments aside, it feels right in some cases. Admittedly, that isn't much of a legal argument.
The one argument that I think is most favorable to banning the death penalty is false convictions. However, is it really more humane to lock a falsely accused person up for life, or other extended period of time, than to execute him/her? Maybe, but I certain would prefer execution over spending most/all of my life in prison.
"More Than 4% of Death Row Inmates May Be Innocent."
Possibly, but none of them are "not guilty." So who can say?
Moreover, the people who offer such statistics are the same type of people who promoted the "no deterrent" nonsense. They are interested in their cause and not very interested in the truth or in the potential victims of killers who are not deterred. Why believe them?
Well, Crack, locking a guy up in your basement against his will is wrong, so let's abolish prisons. Taking someone's property while threatening them with armed men is wrong, so let's abolish taxation.
And so forth.
I am not a Ph. D but even the abstract of the article seems "off"...
In the United States, however, a high proportion of false convictions that do come to light and produce exonerations are concentrated among the tiny minority of cases in which defendants are sentenced to death.
"a high proportion of false convictions" What constitutes a high proportion? Anything greater than zero?
This makes it possible to use data on death row exonerations to estimate the overall rate of false conviction among death sentences.
Would not the "data on death row exonerations" BE the likely maximum rate of false convictions among death sentences? What is there to extrapolate or estimate? The rate is the rate. In the article discussing the paper, they say the rate is 1.6%: Although only 1.6% of defendants who had been sentenced to death were actually exonerated between 1973 and 2004, they then drift into "make shit up land" and follow with 4.1% of defendants were likely falsely convicted. Likely? Isn't it more "likely" that some of those exonerated had their sentences converted from a death sentence to life because doubt was uncovered, not that they were shown to be not guilty? The authors assume the opposite. That all exonerated were innocent and that those whose sentences were converted to life could have also been found not guilty if only people continued to look but stopped after the threat of death was removed. They then use some estimating techniques to inflate 1.6% to 4.1%.
I looked but could not locate the raw data that they used to drive their model but again, the raw data is the data. Some of those exonerated may have been because they truly were innocent but others may have due to procedural errors. Some states and some judges look for reasons to not carry out the sentence. The only real information they have is the 1.6% number which does not include details to say how that 16 per 1000 was derived (really innocent verses procedural). This is an example of why those two words don't belong together "social science".
And if a man writhing in agony for 40 minutes doesn't violate the eighth, I don't know what does.
=============
Torture and cruel and unusual punishment generally means the deliberate INTENTIONAL,not ACCIDENTAL, infliction of excess pain.
Meaning a car accident victim may writhe in pain for 40 minutes then die or have amputations...but it isn't a violation of law.
A hero cop could shoot some Islamoid trying to kill him and instead leave him in agony paralyzed from the chest down..not torure, not the cop violating the 8th..
Good, I hope the worthless piece of shit suffered.
Still a much less painful and more dignified death than his victim.
Fuck him.
This is why we should only execute criminals using humane and supreme court approved methods of execution. Thus, the person to be executed should have his brain punctured with surgical scissors, his brain contents sucked out through the puncture hole, and his skull collapsed when empty. I understand this method is both quick and painless. Also, the execution should only be carried out by a licensed MD, for we are a civilized people.
Exonerated does not equal innocent. It simply some judge found a reason to get someone off Death row. Could be the trial had some taint too it, or it could be the Judge is just making shit up because he's against the Death Penalty.
Justice Bird in California was famous for doing that.
As someone stated, just use the Guillotine - instant death. Oh wait, the head rolls around, and some people have claimed they heard the executed say a word or grimace in pain - doubtful given what we know through medical science.
I have always been skeptical of the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent to crime
I respectfully disagree. Once that killer is dead, he will never kill anyone again.
100% deterrence rate.
JPS:
That's simple. There is a lingering doubt that life will not end with death, and they may stand in final judgment for leading an immoral life.
No one actually knows what happens after death. All that we know, all that we can possibly know, is that our consciousness becomes incoherent, and eventually the matter and energy which composes our body becomes disordered.
Anyway, if it does not concern people when they are young, strong, and healthy, then it becomes a concern for many when they approach death or are on their deathbed. The lingering doubt, that humans do not know, cannot possibly know, begins to creep into people's minds causing a progressive anxiety. What if this life was just a trial, and I performed miserably.
. And if a man writhing in agony for 40 minutes doesn't violate the eighth, I don't know what does.
And if a girl standing in her own grave waiting to get her brains blown out doesn't violate a few of her rights, I don't know what does.
The guy got off easy.
"More Than 4% of Death Row Inmates May Be Innocent."
That's odd. 100% of them say they're innocent. Was the 4% figure arrived at by applying the "96% of murders are full of shit" Rule?
I'm with Ron White: If kill someone, you must be killed right back.
The most important factor in transforming murderers into "victims" is the delay between them raping, mutilating, and killing their victims and the day they are executed. It allows the anti-DP Left the opportunity to forget about the crime and point to poor Johnny and wail, "He didn't deserve that!"
I am against the death penalty. That said, it always bothers me how the media turn the perp into a hero or at least a victim.
This was very incompetent government at work. They couldn't kill him properly and couldn't revive him either.
The Crack Emcee said...
Why are we still killing people again?
Oh yeah - because killing is wrong,...
Does that pass for wisdom in your circles? It's lame. Up your game.
Sometimes criminals commit murders so heinous that the only justified response is the death penalty. It's not for the victim, it's for us.
Most people will experience a great deal of pain, possibly over many months or years, before death. Just wanted to point that out. I think our culture is generally in denial about mortality.
We will all die. It will hurt for most of us.
I always find it the height of irony when people rabidly oppose the death penalty, but think abortion is their god-given right...
I am ok with the death penalty mostly because I think there are too many people on the planet and I am for thinning the herd.
tits.
"More than 4% of death row inmates may be innocent"- So at least 96% of death row inmates are unquestionably guilty. What's the hold up on their sentences being executed? As commenter TODD pointed out, the very numbers, 4%, that these liars are using is a fabricated extrapolation, and the actual number is less than half, 1.6%. So the actual truth is "More than 98% of murderers on death row are guilty as charged, and deserve to be put to death ASAP".
" It transforms a murderer into a victim, an object of pity..."
Small price to pay. No system of justice will be without small imperfections.
The gas chamber is still the most humane method of execution.
cubanbob said... Personally, I am opposed to the death penalty.
I suppose you were horrified at what happened to poor bin Laden then...not even a trial to sift the evidence...
...Hitler made that sort of thing easier by taking his own life.
How did Mao and Stalin die? Were they swaddled in comfort until the end?
Why are the feelings of this poor girl's family irrelevant to the cause of justice. Suppose your kid had been tortured to death by John Wayne Gacy. Couldn't his selling of sad clown portraits be considered a form of cruel and unusual punishment. Richard Specht, who murdered all those nurses, gave an interview about the great drugs and sex he was getting in jail. The families of those poor murdered nurses were driven half mad by that interview......Why do only anomalies like a botched execution count in our pursuit of perfect justice. What about botched parole board hearings? Don't they count?
Charles said...
"I am pro death penalty and I do not care if it deters anyone. It is punishment for a crime heinous enough that society is better off with your removal. I find murder to be a crime where this could be true."
I don't know, Charles. "Society being better off with your removal" is a mighty low bar.
My feeling -- and I'm afraid it is just a feeling -- is that if I were the victim's father, I would need for this man to die. And I would have a right to demand that the law kill him, or stop pretending to be any friend of mine.
This article:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/the-recipe-for-failure-that-led-to-oklahoma-s-botched-execution-20140430
Brought up some issues I was unaware of surrounding current day capital punishment. There is controversy apparently over procurement of the drugs, with pharmacists wanting to remain anonymous if they participate.
It also says that the "blew the vein" account is under dispute.
Some interesting things to consider regarding parallels with abortion and conscientious objectors. I guess health care workers are supposed to cede their conscience to their medical boards; AMA says that abortion is ethical, no problem. Participating in executions in order to ensure humane treatment of the convict in a manner that could only be overseen by someone with medical expertise...nope, can't do it!
BTW, I'm skeptical that any kind of punishment deters Murders. I think we need to admit that out "War on Homicide" has been a failure, and simply legalize it.
I can imagine many crimes for which criminals should be removed from society forever, but I don't believe in the death penalty.
Naturally, many victims' families want to see their relatives' murderers dead. Our criminal justice system isn't designed to step in and say, don't do that, we'll kill him for you. It is to prosecute the offense against the laws of society.
As to deterrence, I don't know. I have read of inmates facing life in prison who have asked for execution instead. And the many appeals available to death penalty candidates seem to me to make them more famous as the worst of the worst; for these terrible people, this is the most attention and recognition they will ever receive. Why give it to them?
I say let them live out their lives in anonymity in situations where they never can injure others again.
"I say let them live out their lives in anonymity in situations where they never can injure others again."
I'm all for that with politicians. Murderers, I think most are better off dead. Except in Illinois. There they should execute the governor and free the murderer. Some sense of proportion is needed.
Wait a second. The Death Penalty doesn't transform the person. People opposed to the Death Penalty transform the person into an object of sympathy for their own ends.
Crazy Jane
in situations where they never can injure others again.
Where would that be? Even prisoners on death row interact with people ... guards, healthcare providers, clergy, lawyers.
Not only potential victims but guaranteed victims.
Death penalty is the ultimate justice for the most heinous crimes.
I thought Joe Stalin taught us all how to do this. 9 grams of lead from a pistol in the base of the brain in a basement corridor in the Lubyanka always worked. Swift, sure--and if the first 9 grams didn't do it, then a second shot would finish it. All over in 20 seconds or less.
Can some one Puhhllleeeez explain to me why tens of thousands of animals are 'put down' every day with no drama but the execution process is fraught with uncertainty and risk?
There have been any number of cases where prisoners with "life" sentences have killed others. What then?
There have also been cases where murderers have killed policeman trying to arrest them. I mean if all your going to do is get "life" no matter what, why not keep on killing?
Third, "Life" is never "Life". Look at any number of killers. Some judge or parole board frees them, or they decide that after 20-30 years they're a "harmless old Man" and they get released.
Some relatives of course, don't care if their children or parents are murdered and the killer walks away scot free or spends the rest of his life enjoying good food and watching TV.
Many however, want justice. In ye olden days families took justice into their own hands. Then the state, stepped in and said in effect, "we'll do justice for you".
The state is not doing its job.
I would against the death penalty except for certain crimes.
Multiple murderers should not be in the general prison population. Either execute them or give them solitary confinement for life, without possibility of parole.
If they are proven to be insane, as some shooters have been, solitary confinement in an institution for the criminally insane would get my vote. They would never ever be deemed 'harmless' by any board, committee or institution. The mentally impaired and even common criminals should be protected from such extreme pathologies.
Extremely heinous crimes, such as the murder's in question, would be given capital punishment.
But this is in the context of a 'perfect world,' as I see it, not reality. In the real world stupid parole boards do the unthinkable and the definition of "heinous" and "insane" could be circumvented on appeal.
Also, it should all be relegated to the states.
Therefore I'm satisfied with the status quo.
Can some one Puhhllleeeez explain to me why tens of thousands of animals are 'put down' every day with no drama but the execution process is fraught with uncertainty and risk?
4/30/14, 10:42 PM
I've been puzzled by this too. The National Journal article I linked to at 8:32 pm goes into the problems states are having in procuring drugs for executions, and yet the drugs we use for veterinary euthanasias are readily available. I assume, but don't know, that the problem there is that the drugs aren't licensed for use in humans...but it seems that the states would order the compounding pharmacies to use the same cocktails of barbiturates that we know are effective and human for this use in animals. Instead there seems to be this experimentation going on, which states constantly changing their formulas,
I oppose the death penalty, but if it is to be done I feel strongly that it should be done as humanely as possible.
One use of the death penalty is in plea bargaining. For some reason, most would prefer life in prison without parole over a (usually) quick death.
Whether that's good or not might depend on what you think of plea bargaining in general. After all, there are surely cases where an innocent accused pleads guilty in order to avoid the possibility of a long sentence. Although it's harder to make that case when the alternative offered is Life Without.
In any case, this botching is inexcusable. After all, nurses routinely start IVs in doctor's offices and hospitals every day; surely it's a skill that can be learned.
A firing squad is 100% effective, and quick, but I suppose it is too graphic for much of the public.
There is no reason they could not use a knock-out PILL, or local anaesthetic, and the STICK THE NEEDLE IN HIS HEART.
Simple, no?
After all, nurses routinely start IVs in doctor's offices and hospitals every day; surely it's a skill that can be learned.
And they occasionally botch them, too. Just had surgery for a subdural hematoma back on the eleventh of this month. When admitted to the ER the nurse punched through my lower arm vein twice and said to the other nurse, "I just screwed this up twice. Could you do it please?" They switched the procedure to my upper arm. The inside of my lower arm was black and blue from the internal bleeding.
100 percent of aborted fetuses were innocent.
He buried someone alive? He deserves whatever he got.
They should have just buried him alive.
@grackle (9:23 am)- the first nurse knew that she had blown the vein, and knew that injections could not be administered until a catheter was seated properly. The point isn't that it's rare to miss or mess up- it's that anyone who does this for a living knows when that happens and would not inject into that port. When this happens, it is obvious.
To CStanley; A point well taken. Had not looked at it that way. Through the pain from the hematoma headache I admired her honest and plain admission of the screw-up.
It's enough to make you worry that there's a temptation to botch lethal injection execution intentionally.
I know others here think this is an irrational worry, but that's exactly why we don't do firing squads any more - the executioners were thought to be firing to wound.
Too bad there was no review or outcry or investigation after the botched execution of Sarah Brown. Two attempts at lethal injection left her blind, mute, mentally disabled, and unable to walk. She lingered for five years before her death.
She'd been given no due process: No representation, no trial, no appeal. Her crime was being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Here executioner was "hero" abortionist George Tiller.
A jail employee with a pistol should be assigned to every execution to prevent such suffering, if the drugs don't work as desired. Even the Russians and Chinese shot those executed under their regimes.
I frequently give platelets and it is always a possibility that the needle - the vein will be infiltrated as I believe they call it, and then you have a problem. It may not be noticed for a while and then your arm is one big bruise. Also a perfectly good stick into a perfectly good vein can still have pressure build up inside... I've got a lot of scar tissue cause I donate frequently and sometimes you can get a terrible lot of pain going on inside and that's with the ace phlebotomists at NYBC-
O BTW,
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT:
GIVE BLOOD!
THANKS ANN
I suppose that if you're not getting to do it all the time - I mean they're not doing a dozen lethal sticks a day - trust me there are complications. It's a pity that highly qualified medical personnel aren't available.
I would think maybe veterinarians might be a choice but really I would shoot them, or actually if you want to think outside the box a little how bout those cattle bolt stunners like Javier Bardem used in No Country For Old Men?
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন