Oklahoma Execution Botched

[klunderbunker]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/29/us/oklahoma-botched-execution/

Short version: Oklahoma tried to execute two people but the first one went badly and the man had a seizure. They tried to get him to a hospital but he died about an hour later. The second execution has been postponed.

This kind of stuff makes my head hurt. Not that there are executions or anything like that, but why would you try to save him IF YOU WERE GOING TO KILL HIM ANYWAY??? If you're going to end someone's life, it's pretty clear that you don't mind doing them harm, so what difference does it make if the person isn't nice and comfy when they're dying? Save some money and cut the guy's head off with a guillotine already, but stop acting like this is some horrible tragedy that a man who you were going going to be kill anyway in like an hour didn't die the way you planned. It's ok to leave someone on death row for years and years, but it's not ok that this final part went badly? That doesn't make sense.

 

[The Butcher]

It's just good to know that the original Sin Cara found work.

 

[Galvatron]

It's just good to know that the original Sin Cara found work.

The poor bastard probably got a seizure from the special lighting original Sin Cara needed to see in the room.

 

[X]

The court shouldn't sentence people to death to begin with, but that's another issue. They can't be crass about it I suppose KB.

 

[klunderbunker]

The court shouldn't sentence people to death to begin with, but that's another issue. They can't be crass about it I suppose KB.

I agree for the most part but that is indeed an issue for another thread.

 

[Con T.]

Bah Gawd Almighty, They Killed Him!

 

[Shocky]

Considering he buried a woman alive, I won't weep for this fuck.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

I've seen The Green Mile, these things happen.

Shame it didn't happen to the guy who was supposed to have his turn after.

 

[Lee]

Wait the execution was botched because he died?

 

[Danger Burger]

I imagine giving a guy a seizure and significant amount of pain falls under the scope of 'cruel and unusual'. Its likely more a bureaucratic issue than one of sympathy.

 

[nightmare]

That just seems like one of those moments where you just look at the guy next to you, shrug your shoulders & say 'I guess that still that counts?'- then just move on as planned. End result and all, you know, was to kill him- so why further keep the guy going? To what end would they stop with a person- as in, how many times do you get to try and kill a guy before you stop trying to save him?


Say you happen to fuck up again & whatever method does not work. Besides being the shittiest person at your job-ever, what is your procedure here for # of tries? Do you switch it up & try another method this time? Seriously, what does the handbook say on this?

 

[klunderbunker]

Wait the execution was botched because he died?

He didn't die the right way.

 

[Danger Burger]

Say you happen to fuck up again & whatever method does not work. Besides being the shittiest person at your job-ever, what is your procedure here for # of tries? Do you switch it up & try another method this time? Seriously, what does the handbook say on this?

I remember hearing some old tale of there being a rule where after three attempts at a hanging, you were let go. In truth, it would be a pretty harsh thing to have to go through three times, but I assume the justice system as rethought this one since.

 

[Rayne]

Wait the execution was botched because he died?

The execution was botched because he was executed in a cruel and unusual way, violating both his Eighth Amendment rights under the Constitution, and the general moral code which states that one should avoid causing unnecessary pain.

His Constitutional rights being revoked as a result of his sentence is not an issue here. When he was sentenced, he was sentenced to die by a jury of his peers under the laws of the state of Oklahoma, subordinate to the laws of the United States of America, which state that no man may be sentenced to a punishment termed cruel and unusual, which, well, is exactly what happened last night.

It's tempting to say that because he was convicted of a monstrous crime, that his rights are unimportant. That's a decision for the Supreme Court. One of the things that keeps us from being a loose confederation of warlords and peons is that we have rights that are considered inviolable by the government. Once you start letting that slip, it's a slippery slope.

On the personal side? I can't say I'm really upset at all of this, because I'm not anti-death penalty. This was simple human fuckery, which throughout history has had consequences both small and drastic. You punish those responsible for the fuckery, and hopefully move them into positions where later fuckery can't fuck things up further. You develop systems designed to prevent the same fuckery to occur, and for the next several years guard very heavily against that specific type of fuckery.

 

[HBK-aholic]

I could not care less. I read the headline of a newspaper report about this and my first reaction was not of sorrow but rather wondering why I should care that terrible human beings had a bit of pain. I'm sure they're all against that now with their 'human rights' and 'it's against the constitution' but when they were the ones causing unknown amounts of pain to their victims and the victims families, they were fine with it.

 

[Rayne]

I could not care less. I read the headline of a newspaper report about this and my first reaction was not of sorrow but rather wondering why I should care that terrible human beings had a bit of pain. I'm sure they're all against that now with their 'human rights' and 'it's against the constitution' but when they were the ones causing unknown amounts of pain to their victims and the victims families, they were fine with it.

Ah, message board logic. Because there are people who believe in 'rights', or 'the Constitution', that means they're totally fine with people who break the law because we don't want to break the law ourselves. Yes, if you believe people convicted of murder still have rights under the laws that they are sentenced under, you're in favor of murderers killing children and burying them alive.

Or- alternate solution here- maybe, maybe, we recognize that one person breaking law and moral code is not an excuse to do it ourselves, and that if we don't have people who follow the law even when it's been violated, the whole legal system doesn't work.

 

[Lee]

The execution was botched because he was executed in a cruel and unusual way, violating both his Eighth Amendment rights under the Constitution, and the general moral code which states that one should avoid causing unnecessary pain.

His Constitutional rights being revoked as a result of his sentence is not an issue here. When he was sentenced, he was sentenced to die by a jury of his peers under the laws of the state of Oklahoma, subordinate to the laws of the United States of America, which state that no man may be sentenced to a punishment termed cruel and unusual, which, well, is exactly what happened last night.

It's tempting to say that because he was convicted of a monstrous crime, that his rights are unimportant. That's a decision for the Supreme Court. One of the things that keeps us from being a loose confederation of warlords and peons is that we have rights that are considered inviolable by the government. Once you start letting that slip, it's a slippery slope.

On the personal side? I can't say I'm really upset at all of this, because I'm not anti-death penalty. This was simple human fuckery, which throughout history has had consequences both small and drastic. You punish those responsible for the fuckery, and hopefully move them into positions where later fuckery can't fuck things up further. You develop systems designed to prevent the same fuckery to occur, and for the next several years guard very heavily against that specific type of fuckery.

I think getting killed is a cruel punishment, it doesn't matter how it's done. Surely that's in breach of the 8th amendment.

 

[klunderbunker]

I think getting killed is a cruel punishment, it doesn't matter how it's done. Surely that's in breach of the 8th amendment.

I'd be somewhere around this, especially putting them on a table and sticking a needle full of poison into them. That's "usual"?

 

[Rayne]

I think getting killed is a cruel punishment, it doesn't matter how it's done. Surely that's in breach of the 8th amendment.

Not according to the Supreme Court of the United States of America. (Various state courts have decided differently for themselves, but the United States can still execute a prisoner in those states, like they're gearing up to do with Dzokhar Tsarnaev in Massachusetts.) What's been decided is that the method of execution should not cause unnecessary suffering. This is why you get the gas chamber, the firing squad, and lethal injection, instead of being drawn and quartered and dragged via horse through Austin.

Convince 5 out of 9 judges, and you can get that changed.

 

[HBK-aholic]

Ah, message board logic. Because there are people who believe in 'rights', or 'the Constitution', that means they're totally fine with people who break the law because we don't want to break the law ourselves. Yes, if you believe people convicted of murder still have rights under the laws that they are sentenced under, you're in favor of murderers killing children and burying them alive.

Or- alternate solution here- maybe, maybe, we recognize that one person breaking law and moral code is not an excuse to do it ourselves, and that if we don't have people who follow the law even when it's been violated, the whole legal system doesn't work.

Um, no. The murderers who had no issue killing, torturing and causing pain to other people and yet now call for their rights to be maintained and fight for the constitution are laughable at best and hypocritical scumbags at worst. I would assume those non-murderers arguing against this penalty are neither of those 2, nor did I allude to the fact they were. So don't try and twist my post to fit your agenda.

 

[Lee]

Not according to the Supreme Court of the United States of America. (Various state courts have decided differently for themselves, but the United States can still execute a prisoner in those states, like they're gearing up to do with Dzokhar Tsarnaev in Massachusetts.) What's been decided is that the method of execution should not cause unnecessary suffering.

Convince 5 out of 9 judges, and you can get that changed.

Being on death row for 15 years is cruel.

If your argument is that the Supreme Court argues what is cruel and they didn't label this method as cruel. Therefore it's constitutional.

By the way I'm genuinely asking as I haven't a clue on how it's determined. I live in a country that hasn't had the death penalty since the 60s.

 

[Rayne]

Um, no. The murderers who had no issue killing, torturing and causing pain to other people and yet now call for their rights to be maintained and fight for the constitution are laughable at best and hypocritical scumbags at worst. I would assume those non-murderers arguing against this penalty are neither of those 2, nor did I allude to the fact they were. So don't try and twist my post to fit your agenda.

One could be forgiven if your heartfelt writhes of internet angst could be easily misunderstood. Murderers are bad people, we can all agree with this.

 

[Rayne]

Being on death row for 15 years is cruel.

If your argument is that the Supreme Court argues what is cruel and they didn't label this method as cruel. Therefore it's constitutional.

They've decided in the past that methods of execution should not cause unnecessary suffering. The body is still warm, so I don't think this has had time to go through any courts yet- but it will be up for the courts to decide again, when the next prisoner on death row sues, whether this combination of drugs satisfies the threshold for unnecessary suffering. There's been the recent controversy over shield laws which prohibit people from disclosing the drugs used in executions in a few states, which is an end run around the whole 'cruel and unusual' argument. Oklahoma could simply declare that they've changed the execution method to a different combination of drugs and proceed. (Which, again, the constitutionality of those shield laws is being contested and likely won't stand up.)

It's way too soon to say, concretely, "this was __constitutional". That's for the courts to decide. Based on past precedent, it almost certainly did violate his Eighth Amendment rights.

 

[Shocky]

Being on death row for 15 years is cruel.

If your argument is that the Supreme Court argues what is cruel and they didn't label this method as cruel. Therefore it's constitutional.

By the way I'm genuinely asking as I haven't a clue on how it's determined. I live in a country that hasn't had the death penalty since the 60s.

The 15 years has more to do with the appeal process for the convicted.

 

[Richard Blonoff]

You fucked up! You fucked up! You fucked up!