botched execution in oklahoma...

chadwick

they really should put his head on a stake to remind his fellow scumbag idiots who want to abduct, rape & murder another that, "wow, that probably isn't the best plan"

society in the us has become soft as we cater to nasty little shits like these vile creeps here. from day one they should have been executed on the spot

but that's just me as i throughly dislike vile freaks of nature

the good news is... you do not want to be them

wolfamongwolves

gimmesometruth27 said:

seriously, wtf is up with this?? how do you botch something like this? the man was conscious and talking even after he was declared unconscious, and he clearly suffered and died of a heart attack. then he was rushed to the hospital to be revived so they can kill him at a later date. there needs to be a moratorium on all executions until they can get this stuff figured out..

The reason "you botch something like this" is that you reach a point of callous detachment where it becomes more important to get the job done than to get it done "right" (not that that word can ever be meaningful when you're talking about unnecessarily killing someone - criminal or not).

If your mechanic worked on your car with this level of ineptitude and incompetence, you'd be outraged. But when it's something as trivial as life & death for a person we've conveniently and cowardly dismissed as a "monster", it doesn't matter if you botch it. Just construct a self-serving false narrative to protect yourself from having to think about such inconveniences as ethics or human rights that might get in the way of your thirst for good old-fashioned blind vengeance.

This whole drug shortage crisis has pulled back the curtain on the practice of death penalty in the US. It's shown that for all disingenuous lip service to the Constitution, all the vacuous platitudes and bullshit about justice and "humane" execution, it is still based on the same backward, mediaeval and barbaric motivations as ever. And the revenge-speak of people tossing out the standard clichéd soundbites like "what goes around comes around. Glad he suffered" just proves the point all the more.

There needs to be more than a moratorium. There needs to be abolition. Every passing year and every new country that does away with this worthless practice shows how hopelessly on the wrong side of history the US is on this issue. Getting "this stuff figured out" is about as worthwhile as painting over rust. The death penalty has proven itself time and time and time again to be useless, gratuitous, prejudiced and not fit for purpose. Consign it to the Dark Ages where it belongs and let it rot.

polaris_x

there is already a death penalty thread where the same arguments have been discussed endlessly ...

maybe we can focus on the method by which people on death row are executed ... it seems some here are happy he suffered ... as an opponent of the death penalty - i see this instance as tragic and would hope that there would be more humane ways of ending someone's life ... if doctors who assist suicides can do this and veterinarians can do this for pets - how hard can it be to do this for someone on death row?

chadwick

i am neither happy nor sad he suffered. more like, i don't care... like speedy often says, "i don't give a rat's ass." i am not happy, i am not sad. i just am wondering why not sooner?

polaris_x

chadwick said:

i am neither happy nor sad he suffered. more like, i don't care... like speedy often says, "i don't give a rat's ass." i am not happy, i am not sad. i just am wondering why not sooner?

because like most things in the US ... the decision/timing is based on $$$ ... like how much money can the prisoner industrial complex extract from the people before finally killing him ...

wolfamongwolves

The Waiting Trophy Man said:

callen said:

Wolf, Nice post.

Notice he never mentions what true justice would be? All he said was it's not justice, it's vengeance, to kill a bad person for killing a good person. So what is true justice then?

If I didn't mention it, it's only because it should be patently obvious. 75% of the countries in the world don't use the death penalty but still manage to administer justice. So it's not just what it "would be" - it's what it already is in the great majority of the world's countries who've figured out that execution is unnecessary. Life imprisonment - without parole dependent on the circumstances. In countries where there is no option of execution, the families of murder victims in general tend to feel justice has been served by life imprisonment. I realise that doesn't sate anyone's bloodlust for vengeance, but hey - that's not the point of true justice. Does that answer your question?

callen

chadwick said:

they really should put his head on a stake to remind his fellow scumbag idiots who want to abduct, rape & murder another that, "wow, that probably isn't the best plan"

society in the us has become soft as we cater to nasty little shits like these vile creeps here. from day one they should have been executed on the spot

but that's just me as i throughly dislike vile freaks of nature

the good news is... you do not want to be them

If we kill day one we will execute many innocent people. You okay with this? You could be on GHE short end of the stick. Are we better than the vile people we kill by slaughtering them?

chadwick

because 75% of the countries on earth do something, does that make it right? norway's prison system hands out gaming systems. how many prisons have internet? ever looked at the prison systems in latin america?

south of the border on down = a free for all circus controlled by inmates

just sayin

chadwick

polaris_x said:

chadwick said:

i am neither happy nor sad he suffered. more like, i don't care... like speedy often says, "i don't give a rat's ass." i am not happy, i am not sad. i just am wondering why not sooner?

because like most things in the US ... the decision/timing is based on $$$ ... like how much money can the prisoner industrial complex extract from the people before finally killing him ...

do death row inmates have a job? sure they get tax money to feed, shelter & give health care too

hedonist

chadwick said:

"Lockett, 38, was convicted of first-degree murder, rape, kidnapping and robbery for a 1999 crime spree with two co-defendants. He was found to have shot teen-ager Stephanie Nieman and burying her alive in a shallow grave where she eventually died." - http://news.yahoo.com/oklahoma-execute-two-convicts-ending-court-case-drugs-120244142.html


suffering... he knows all about making someone suffer

fuck this guy & his dumb ass pals

Jesus...that poor girl.

Gotta say I feel more for her than the piece of shit who took her life before actually taking her life.

I'll say in the same breath that I generally respect the views of those who oppose the death penalty but also call bullshit on those who paint proponents of it as lusting for blood.

PS to wolf - there's a drug shortage crisis?! Where? Have you not seen the plethora of commercials practically begging people to partake of their pharmaceutical wares?

callen

chadwick said:

polaris_x said:

chadwick said:

i am neither happy nor sad he suffered. more like, i don't care... like speedy often says, "i don't give a rat's ass." i am not happy, i am not sad. i just am wondering why not sooner?

because like most things in the US ... the decision/timing is based on $$$ ... like how much money can the prisoner industrial complex extract from the people before finally killing him ...

do death row inmates have a job? sure they get tax money to feed, shelter & give health care too

They should work to produce something and they should receive minimum comforts to limit their expense so if little entertainment is needed to keep them out of solitary or needing special care then so be it. Then later if it's found he was railroaded on false charges he can be let go.

callen

Polaris. Yeah we have another thread for this and we've hashed this out. This story though goes to one of the main reasons death penalty sucks.

hedonist

callen said:

They should work to produce something and they should receive minimum comforts to limit their expense so if little entertainment is needed to keep them out of solitary or needing special care then so be it. Then later if it's found he was railroaded on false charges he can be let go.

I don't follow you here, callen - what is considered special care? Or little entertainment?

Maybe I AM callous (honestly, I know I'm not, but cool by me if my views would make others believe I am), but I have no problem with not providing entertainment to some sick fuck who demonstrated they have no respect for life. Let them entertain themselves.

wolfamongwolves

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

The Waiting Trophy Man said:

callen said:

Wolf, Nice post.

Notice he never mentions what true justice would be? All he said was it's not justice, it's vengeance, to kill a bad person for killing a good person. So what is true justice then?

Your question lies at the root of the death penalty debate.

For some, in this case those most directly impacted by the rape, sodomy, shooting and live burial... justice is what was levied. Steve and Susie Neiman asked jurors to give Lockett the death penalty for taking the life of their only child, who had graduated from Perry High School two weeks before her death.


They wrote: "We were left with an empty home full of memories and the deafening silence of the lack of life within its walls. ... We feel that the only thing left to do is let Clayton Lockett serve out the sentence of death that a jury sentenced him to. Anything less is a travesty of justice."

Ironically, Bornt (one of the survivors) wrote a letter Feb. 7 stating: "Clayton being put to death by lethal injection is almost too easy of a way to die after what he did to us. ... He will just be strapped to the table and will go to sleep and his heart will stop beating."


http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/courts/death-looms-for-clayton-lockett-years-after-killing-oklahoma-teen/article_e459564b-5c60-5145-a1ce-bbd17a14417b.html

You can't argue with the pain that the parents are going through. I can't imagine it, and I hope I will never have to experience it. Again, I can understand their feelings, their hurt, their anger, their demand for payback.

But as I've said to you many, many times, Thirty, justice has to be, by definition, dispassionate, balanced and equitable. If it is not those things, it is not justice, by both the legal and linguistic meanings of the word. Justice cannot be based on emotion, hurt, outrage, grief. Victims and their families, and we as individuals, may of course feel those things. But it is the duty of a justice system to not be swayed by emotion or outrage, because that would not be dispassionate and therefore cannot be justice.

It is for that very reason that we have courts to administer justice removed from those individual biases. It is for that very reason that courts, not victims' families, determine sentences. If justice is about giving the victims' families the payback they decide, why would we even need courts? Why not let them do it themselves? Why? Because that's not what justice really is. Because that would undermine the social fabric. The courts exist precisely to maintain order and reason in the face of often overwhelming passions. If they defer to those passions, they have failed, and justice is impossible. And when think it's okay to use criminals as guinea pigs because they're nasty people anyway, then they have become dysfunctional and are perverting the very notion of justice.

And that's why I am not convinced by arguments for the death penalty that rely on graphic descriptions of crimes or references to the parents' grief. It's not because I don't feel just as horrified or just as moved as you. It's not because I'm taking the side of the criminal. It's simply because that approach always misses the entire point of what justice is.

even flow - question mark

Am I missing the point that an execution can be botched if the person ends up dead. Now I don't want to get into a pissing match with people who think that he should rot in jail forever or that he can find god and become a good citizen, but when you are involved in a b&e, shoot the owner when they arrive home and then bury the body, ahhhhhhh I don't really care that he was gasping for air and looked like he was dying a bad death.

callen

hedonist said:

callen said:

They should work to produce something and they should receive minimum comforts to limit their expense so if little entertainment is needed to keep them out of solitary or needing special care then so be it. Then later if it's found he was railroaded on false charges he can be let go.

I don't follow you here, callen - what is considered special care? Or little entertainment?

Maybe I AM callous (honestly, I know I'm not, but cool by me if my views would make others believe I am), but I have no problem with not providing entertainment to some sick fuck who demonstrated they have no respect for life. Let them entertain themselves.

Right and I agree. Let me clarify. If a tv will allow inmates to chill so you can house more of them together thereby reducing costs, provide it. If we gave no mental enrichment and that then results in inmate losing ones mind, requiring separate cells , food, more staff etc give them tv. So minimal creature comforts to minimize costs.

unsung

I share the same amount of sympathy for him that he had for his victim.

hedonist

callen said:

hedonist said:

callen said:

They should work to produce something and they should receive minimum comforts to limit their expense so if little entertainment is needed to keep them out of solitary or needing special care then so be it. Then later if it's found he was railroaded on false charges he can be let go.

I don't follow you here, callen - what is considered special care? Or little entertainment?

Maybe I AM callous (honestly, I know I'm not, but cool by me if my views would make others believe I am), but I have no problem with not providing entertainment to some sick fuck who demonstrated they have no respect for life. Let them entertain themselves.

Right and I agree. Let me clarify. If a tv will allow inmates to chill so you can house more of them together thereby reducing costs, provide it. If we gave no mental enrichment and that then results in inmate losing ones mind, requiring separate cells , food, more staff etc give them tv. So minimal creature comforts to minimize costs.

Fair enough.

If we're talking cost reduction, I'd say provide books, crayons, paper. TV doesn't necessarily provide mental benefits or salvage sanity. When I was a kid, I found and was provided with non-TV ways to entertain myself (hell, even as an adult I still do). So let those convicted of heinous crimes do the same.

unsung

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

The guy who raped and killed an 11 month old was spared his execution that was scheduled afterwards given the drug wasn't working as expected.

Go back to the firing squad.

wolfamongwolves

chadwick said:

because 75% of the countries on earth do something, does that make it right? norway's prison system hands out gaming systems. how many prisons have internet? ever looked at the prison systems in latin america?

south of the border on down = a free for all circus controlled by inmates

just sayin

No of course it doesn't make it right per se. And you're thinking of it back to front - discarding the death penalty isn't right because majority have done it. The majority have done it because it is right, as they've found through years and centuries of experience.

Also, when you look a little deeper, beyond just focusing on that top line statistic, look at which countries have abolished it and which ones haven't, when you look at the condition of their societies, levels of violent crime and homicide, you start to see pretty hard evidence for how and why the death penalty is such an abject failure. Not the least of which is that those countries have found that effective justice - in most cases more effective justice - is achievable without having to execute. In other words, you find that the death penalty is entirely unnecessary. No country has found it necessary to reinstate the death penalty once it abolished it. Why? Because those 75% of countries abolished it because it was right (and has proven to be so) - it is not right because so many of them abolished it.

As for whatever you have to say about gaming systems or internet in prison that is a different discussion entirely - it is a superficial tangent that has zero relevance to whether it is ethically permissible to kill prisoners. In the same way, ineffective prison control in Latin America has nothing to do with whether the state has the right to kill anyone.