GOP

mickeyrat said:

mrussel1 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

oftenreading said:

Gern Blansten said:

I really don't understand why we don't just sedate the person being executed and then do a lethal injection.  Why do we have to go through the drama of electrocution, gas, firing squad, etc?  How stupid.

Because the pharmaceutical companies have increasingly refused to allow their drugs to be used for execution.

Can't we just do what Kevorkian did?

You want this process to be even less lawful and ethical than it already is?

I had zero problems with what Kevorkian did.  The ethics of that is either you agreed with him or didn't.

Lawfulness is in question how though?  If the death penalty is legal then why not do it in a way that the least amount of suffering occurs?

I have zero problems with what Kevorkian did either, but he did it with willing individuals that sought him out. How are you possibly comparing that to killing individuals in prison? Are you suggesting that they be forced to kill themselves? Are you arguing that the drug companies be forced to sell their product so that it can be used to execute people? Your analogy doesn't make any sense.

Inmates kill themselves?  Who said that?  Let the corrections department administer the drugs used in carrying it out just like they would have before.

If corrections can buy the components to make a lethal gas why can't they buy components to make a sleep agent, heart stopping agent?

Because drug companies are different than gas companies?

they are all chemical compounds

mrussel1 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Hobbes said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Remember a few short years ago we were debating “how it couldn’t happen here,” and how outraged some were for the comparison?

From the WaPo:

Arizona is taking steps to use hydrogen cyanide, the deadly gas used during the genocide perpetrated by the Nazis at Auschwitz and other extermination camps, to kill inmates on death row.

Corrections officials have refurbished a gas chamber that hasn’t been used in more than 20 years and have procured ingredients for the lethal gas, also known as Zyklon B, according to partially redacted documents obtained by the Guardian. Invoices show that the state purchased a brick of potassium cyanide, sodium hydroxide pellets and sulfuric acid, and a report details the considerable efforts taken to deem the gas chamber at a prison in Florence, Ariz., “operationally ready.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/06/01/arizona-gas-chamber-execution/

I might have built that prison in Florence...

Death Penalty is a death Penalty.  

So what is the outrage here?

Is this a serious question? JFC!!!

mrussel1 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Remember a few short years ago we were debating “how it couldn’t happen here,” and how outraged some were for the comparison?

From the WaPo:

Arizona is taking steps to use hydrogen cyanide, the deadly gas used during the genocide perpetrated by the Nazis at Auschwitz and other extermination camps, to kill inmates on death row.

Corrections officials have refurbished a gas chamber that hasn’t been used in more than 20 years and have procured ingredients for the lethal gas, also known as Zyklon B, according to partially redacted documents obtained by the Guardian. Invoices show that the state purchased a brick of potassium cyanide, sodium hydroxide pellets and sulfuric acid, and a report details the considerable efforts taken to deem the gas chamber at a prison in Florence, Ariz., “operationally ready.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/06/01/arizona-gas-chamber-execution/

I might have built that prison in Florence...

Death Penalty is a death Penalty.  

So what is the outrage here?

Bad optics I suppose, to use Zyklon B.  The gas chamber was used for years in the US but I wonder if it used that gas during that time. 

Bad optics to me.  We use 9mm bullets to this day and the Nazis used them too.

It's also called Hydrogen Cyanide.  Look, if the state of Arizona wants to execute inmates because the Nazis used this gas and it's a homage to that then people are either out of their damn minds or someone/s in the AZ Corrections department is even further out of their minds and should be investigated if that is the perceived reasoning.

Meh.  A more apt analogy would be if SC decided that their new "execution by firing squad" used an MG42.  9MM is just a size. 

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

oftenreading said:

Gern Blansten said:

I really don't understand why we don't just sedate the person being executed and then do a lethal injection.  Why do we have to go through the drama of electrocution, gas, firing squad, etc?  How stupid.

Because the pharmaceutical companies have increasingly refused to allow their drugs to be used for execution.

Can't we just do what Kevorkian did?

You want this process to be even less lawful and ethical than it already is?

I had zero problems with what Kevorkian did.  The ethics of that is either you agreed with him or didn't.

Lawfulness is in question how though?  If the death penalty is legal then why not do it in a way that the least amount of suffering occurs?

I have zero problems with what Kevorkian did either, but he did it with willing individuals that sought him out. How are you possibly comparing that to killing individuals in prison? Are you suggesting that they be forced to kill themselves? Are you arguing that the drug companies be forced to sell their product so that it can be used to execute people? Your analogy doesn't make any sense.

Inmates kill themselves?  Who said that?  Let the corrections department administer the drugs used in carrying it out just like they would have before.

If corrections can buy the components to make a lethal gas why can't they buy components to make a sleep agent, heart stopping agent?

Anaesthetics are more complicated than you realize. You can’t just whip one up. 

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

oftenreading said:

Gern Blansten said:

I really don't understand why we don't just sedate the person being executed and then do a lethal injection.  Why do we have to go through the drama of electrocution, gas, firing squad, etc?  How stupid.

Because the pharmaceutical companies have increasingly refused to allow their drugs to be used for execution.

Can't we just do what Kevorkian did?

You want this process to be even less lawful and ethical than it already is?

I had zero problems with what Kevorkian did.  The ethics of that is either you agreed with him or didn't.

Lawfulness is in question how though?  If the death penalty is legal then why not do it in a way that the least amount of suffering occurs?

I have zero problems with what Kevorkian did either, but he did it with willing individuals that sought him out. How are you possibly comparing that to killing individuals in prison? Are you suggesting that they be forced to kill themselves? Are you arguing that the drug companies be forced to sell their product so that it can be used to execute people? Your analogy doesn't make any sense.

Inmates kill themselves?  Who said that?  Let the corrections department administer the drugs used in carrying it out just like they would have before.

If corrections can buy the components to make a lethal gas why can't they buy components to make a sleep agent, heart stopping agent?

Anaesthetics are more complicated than you realize. You can’t just whip one up. 

They seem to be able to make a gas that causes death pretty easily but I am not a chemist and am talking out loud.

Any chemists here?

Executions are legal processes that are highly regulated and monitored. At a bare minimum they require licensed pharmaceuticals to ensure that the effect predictably leads to death without unexpected suffering such as respiratory paralysis while the inmate is still conscious. This is why you can’t just whip up a chemical in a lab. 

tempo_n_groove said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

oftenreading said:

Gern Blansten said:

I really don't understand why we don't just sedate the person being executed and then do a lethal injection.  Why do we have to go through the drama of electrocution, gas, firing squad, etc?  How stupid.

Because the pharmaceutical companies have increasingly refused to allow their drugs to be used for execution.

Can't we just do what Kevorkian did?

You want this process to be even less lawful and ethical than it already is?

I had zero problems with what Kevorkian did.  The ethics of that is either you agreed with him or didn't.

Lawfulness is in question how though?  If the death penalty is legal then why not do it in a way that the least amount of suffering occurs?

I have zero problems with what Kevorkian did either, but he did it with willing individuals that sought him out. How are you possibly comparing that to killing individuals in prison? Are you suggesting that they be forced to kill themselves? Are you arguing that the drug companies be forced to sell their product so that it can be used to execute people? Your analogy doesn't make any sense.

Inmates kill themselves?  Who said that?  Let the corrections department administer the drugs used in carrying it out just like they would have before.

If corrections can buy the components to make a lethal gas why can't they buy components to make a sleep agent, heart stopping agent?

Anaesthetics are more complicated than you realize. You can’t just whip one up. 

They seem to be able to make a gas that causes death pretty easily but I am not a chemist and am talking out loud.

Any chemists here?

Executions are legal processes that are highly regulated and monitored. At a bare minimum they require licensed pharmaceuticals to ensure that the effect predictably leads to death without unexpected suffering such as respiratory paralysis while the inmate is still conscious. This is why you can’t just whip up a chemical in a lab. 

But they are literally doing just that.  

Something is lost on me.  The corrections department bought components to make a gas.  If they are allowed to do that then they should be able to make a sleep agent too?

Gern Blansten said:

oftenreading said:

Gern Blansten said:

I really don't understand why we don't just sedate the person being executed and then do a lethal injection.  Why do we have to go through the drama of electrocution, gas, firing squad, etc?  How stupid.

Because the pharmaceutical companies have increasingly refused to allow their drugs to be used for execution.

Really?  Is that why?

tempo_n_groove said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

oftenreading said:

Gern Blansten said:

I really don't understand why we don't just sedate the person being executed and then do a lethal injection.  Why do we have to go through the drama of electrocution, gas, firing squad, etc?  How stupid.

Because the pharmaceutical companies have increasingly refused to allow their drugs to be used for execution.

Can't we just do what Kevorkian did?

You want this process to be even less lawful and ethical than it already is?

I had zero problems with what Kevorkian did.  The ethics of that is either you agreed with him or didn't.

Lawfulness is in question how though?  If the death penalty is legal then why not do it in a way that the least amount of suffering occurs?

I have zero problems with what Kevorkian did either, but he did it with willing individuals that sought him out. How are you possibly comparing that to killing individuals in prison? Are you suggesting that they be forced to kill themselves? Are you arguing that the drug companies be forced to sell their product so that it can be used to execute people? Your analogy doesn't make any sense.

Inmates kill themselves?  Who said that?  Let the corrections department administer the drugs used in carrying it out just like they would have before.

If corrections can buy the components to make a lethal gas why can't they buy components to make a sleep agent, heart stopping agent?

Anaesthetics are more complicated than you realize. You can’t just whip one up. 

They seem to be able to make a gas that causes death pretty easily but I am not a chemist and am talking out loud.

Any chemists here?

Executions are legal processes that are highly regulated and monitored. At a bare minimum they require licensed pharmaceuticals to ensure that the effect predictably leads to death without unexpected suffering such as respiratory paralysis while the inmate is still conscious. This is why you can’t just whip up a chemical in a lab. 

But they are literally doing just that.  

Something is lost on me.  The corrections department bought components to make a gas.  If they are allowed to do that then they should be able to make a sleep agent too?

OnWis97 said:

Whenever I see/hear talk about the methods to execute and how we use less-than-optimal ways because of availability of chemicals, the elephant in the room is that the most important thing is that the state finds a way to kill people. To be honest, I used to be for the death penalty and I still believe there are people that we're better off without. But there's one key reason why I cannot support it: https://innocenceproject.org/ledell-lee-what-you-should-know-about-his-case-and-execution/. Was this guy innocent? I don't know.  But it's not realistic to think that nobody would ever be executed for something they didn't do.

And the whole "tough on crime" thing causes more problems than it solves.

HughFreakingDillon said:

oftenreading said:

Gern Blansten said:

I really don't understand why we don't just sedate the person being executed and then do a lethal injection.  Why do we have to go through the drama of electrocution, gas, firing squad, etc?  How stupid.

Because the pharmaceutical companies have increasingly refused to allow their drugs to be used for execution.

of course. big pharma is worried more about the bottom line and optics than human suffering. 

tempo_n_groove said:

oftenreading said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

oftenreading said:

Gern Blansten said:

I really don't understand why we don't just sedate the person being executed and then do a lethal injection.  Why do we have to go through the drama of electrocution, gas, firing squad, etc?  How stupid.

Because the pharmaceutical companies have increasingly refused to allow their drugs to be used for execution.

of course. big pharma is worried more about the bottom line and optics than human suffering. 

So are you trying to argue that they should be compelled to allow their drugs to be used for executions with the argument that this will avoid suffering? You’re taking the utilitarian stance that it’s going to happen anyway and there’s no point in trying to object to executions? 

I don't object to executions if done properly.  I am to the point though where the red tape that it causes just isn't worth it to the tax payer anymore.