[Closed] Botched lethal injection...has this been done yet?

"Killing people is wrong. And to make sure you understand, we reserve the right to kill you"

Is essentially the standpoint of some US states.

I can sort of understand the retribution, or even vengeance, but the capricious way that not all murderers or rapists or serial killers are treated to this punishment makes it almost wanton. It is repulsive under those circumstances

Of course deterrence works, that's why there are no crimes in the USA. Oh ... hang on a mo ...

Or maybe there'd be a lot more.

Anyway, can't plan to give these people a horrible death but if it happens by accident there are more worthy causes to worry about.

Anyway. I have a solution.

Midazolam followed by the execution suite being purged with nitrogen.

vote me not binners for minster of whatever this passes itself off as.

Didn't the current lunatic North Korean feller have someone stood on the aiming point of a zero'd mortar and drop one on him? You'd need a strong constitution to stand up to that.

Deterrents don't work.

There's serious hypothetical consequences to breaking the law several times a day.

The majority of the country couldn't give a hoot. And that's just the "Controlled substances/driving violations/domestic abuse" dalliances. Nobody cares.

nickc - Member
"Killing people is wrong. And to make sure you understand, we reserve the right to kill you"

That's how it looks to me too. If we are serious in our belief that to kill someone is wrong, then "state sponsored" killing is wrong too. Two wrongs don't make a right.

OI. WOPPIT!

Like what you did there with the "semi-independent countries" joke.

mudshark - Member

Anyway, can't plan to give these people a horrible death but if it happens by accident there are more worthy causes to worry about.

like state-sponsored killing of innocent people?

Didn't the current lunatic North Korean feller have someone stood on the aiming point of a zero'd mortar..

I'm not sure we should be looking to North Korea for Best Practise guidelines 😀

As I read it, he not only shot the girl but then watched her being buried alive :(. In these circumstances it gets really tough to not want the death penalty but it's something that has to be resisted

Back to the OP. Why didn't they call the local vet?

Again I don't believe the problem was lack of the correct drugs but rather how they were administered as it seems impossible to get medical professionals who will help with the process

like state-sponsored killing of innocent people?

yes but with lions and shit ...you know proper fun stuff

I'm not sure we should be looking to North Korea for Best Practise guidelines

Interestingly*, just reading about Lockett's crime - him and two mates robbed a truck, kidnapping the girl who owned it and two of her mates and, because she wouldn't promise not to call the rozzers, they spent 20 minutes digging a grave, stood her in it then shot her once - gun jammed, so he had to come back to the truck to fix it while she lay in the grave shouting before he could finish the job. They thought she was still alive when they buried her.

I don't think I believe in state-condoned planned tortuous retribution for heinous crimes, but I must say I don't feel particularly saddened that this one went wrong.

* It's all relative, hey?

I'm not sure we should be looking to North Korea for Best Practise guidelines

Harold Shipman , Timothy McVeigh

Harold Shipman was a psycopath or heavily traumatised. The point being that his murders were likely related to severe emotional impairment, which is rooted in biology. As for Timothy McVeigh, we will never know.

"He is much more useful to us alive," says Price, chief of neurology at Harvard-affiliated McLean Hospital in Belmont, Mass. "How does his brain function any differently than the rest of us?"

And does it?

An autopsy — which McVeigh rejected with the acquiescence of the U.S. government — would yield little science, Price says. But a functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of his live brain would be like a 3-D journey into his neurobiology.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2001-05-10-brain-remorse.htm

I believe they've been forced to change the drug combination because they can no longer get hold of phenobarbital from the Danish supplier.

Is this the world's sole manufacturer? I doubt it.

No, but the whole of the EU has also banned the export of the drug to the US.

That seems very selective to me.

Why the high ground on this?

Plenty of EU countries sell various weapons systems and "civil" defence stuff to some very dodgy countries.

The Pharmaceutical companies had a lot to do with that as funnily enough, they were unhappy with their drugs being used for lethal injections.

Despite what everyone says, Big Pharma is less evil than the defence industry as they tend to employ medics and life scientists, as opposed to people who like making and designing weaponry.

And they also tend to sell their products to people that don't like senseless killing (doctors).

Didn't the current lunatic North Korean feller have someone stood on the aiming point of a zero'd mortar and drop one on him? You'd need a strong constitution to stand up to that.

At least they had the courtesy to zero it in first!

Could make top saturday night viewing though - like an indirect fire version of 'the golden shot'

Left a bit, left a bit, down a bit.... 😈

Could make top saturday night viewing though - like an indirect fire version of 'the golden shot'

Left a bit, left a bit, down a bit....

That's how it looks to me too. If we are serious in our belief that to kill someone is wrong, then "state sponsored" killing is wrong too. Two wrongs don't make a right.

While I agree with the sentiment, this argument does kind of fall down a bit when you consider that an individual cannot take someone against their will, and keep them locked up for 20 years.

But the state/law can.

And nobody sees any issue with that.

That is the lesser of two evils when it comes to protecting society, a person can be released from prison. One cannot be brought back to life when found innocent.

You are right neal when you compare chalk and cheese you often find a difference 😛

You are right neal when you compare chalk and cheese you often find a difference

As I found out at lunchtime, won't make that mistake again

That is the lesser of two evils when it comes to protecting society, a person can be released from prison. One cannot be brought back to life when found innocent.

Thanks for that though.

I hadn't realised.

Well why the f....I give up.

Lethal injection is essentially an IV anaesthetic to render you unconscious, a long acting muscle relaxant to stop you breathing and Potassium to stop the heart. You will essentially die of a heart attack but you will be unconscious at the time. They've obviously not given a sufficient dose of the IV anaesthetic.

Regardless of whether you agree with it state execution is becoming more and more difficult. Its a strange situation where the state has to be able to kill someone humanely.

That is the lesser of two evils when it comes to protecting society, a person can be released from prison. One cannot be brought back to life when found innocent.

The flip side of that is that an innocent person can not be murdered by an executed felon who has served his sentence and been released .

....I give up.

That's a shame, I was learning so much.

Then place those likely to offend again in there for life.

Problem solved. Same tired old tropes.

Pain is a mechanism to remind us not to do something again.
So why worry about killing someone painfully they wont be around to remember

Its all about revenge and has nothing to do with punishment or deterrence.

So why worry about killing someone painfully they wont be around to remember

I'm sure you'll remember this when you are offered opiates on your death bed.

A FB friend and some of his (male) friends have expressed glee at the idea of Max Clifford being sexually tortured in jail when he arrives...

I've asked how this guy's experience would sit with them but haven't seen anybody willing to grasp the nettle yet.

One US state considered using propofol, the commonest IV anaesthetic agent and favourite of MJ. It was only when the EU suppliers said that if they did that they'd stop supplying all US hospitals with it they stopped.

Its a crazy situation, never mind the ethical issues of Drs being involved with executions

Then place those likely to offend again in there for life.

Problem solved. Same tired old tropes.

Well that was simple , why didn't anybody else think of that ? Of course it relies on criminal psychologists etc having a 100% success rate which until now has been lacking but don't let that stand in your way.

Ramsey Neil - Member

The flip side of that is that an innocent person can not be murdered by an executed felon who has served his sentence and been released .

Course, you don't have to execute people to achieve that. And also, if you execute the wrong person, then the actual criminal is probably still out there.

I suppose a major consideration is where you think the acceptable level is for a state to kill innocent people by mistake. Lots of people say zero, others think there's a tolerance level. Once you get into trying to offset innocent executions against potential deterrance of crime and doing some cold equation where one justifies the other, that's incredibly shaky ground. You can do some fun reductio ad absurdum there.

I'm not sure where I really stand on the morals of execution; but that's OK because I know exactly where I stand on executing the wrong dude, and that takes care of the whole question.

You are of course completely correct . If only the justice system was 100% reliable possibly things would become easier . That's a serious comment BTW not sarcasm .

No it wouldn't, then you have to make a public health based analysis.

Some of these have concluded that the death penalty increases murder rates due to the resultant loss in respect for life that the death penalty causes. Killing is seen as a socially acceptable from of revenge whether carried out by individuals or the judiciary. From a utilitarian point of view, the death penalty would therefore make no sense.

Even assuming that a swift, basically painless execution is OK, a 43-minute, drawn-out horror show because of a cock-up is pretty hard to stomach.

Its a crazy situation, never mind the ethical issues of Drs being involved with executions

I don't think they are doctors.

Anyone watched Papillon ?
Maybe an island along those lines and put all the convicted killers on it.
Isle of Man should be large enough.

Lethal injection is essentially an IV anaesthetic to render you unconscious, a long acting muscle relaxant to stop you breathing and Potassium to stop the heart. You will essentially die of a [s]heart attack[/s] cardiac arrest but you will be unconscious at the time.

FIFY

Me neither, sad as it may seem there are just folks on this planet that have no remorse nor compassion.

So someone has a dangerous personality defect. Let's kill them, shall we?

Blame is an interesting concept.

Anyone watched Papillon ?
Maybe an island along those lines and put all the convicted killers on it.
Isle of Man should be large enough.

If not Ozstralia would do it

Ethics aside: What's wrng with an eff load of heroin? Wouldn't that do the job with a very limited about of suffering?

I really dont understnd the Americans on this, what is wrong with hanging ? quick, cheap and effective.

Unfortunately Drs are involved in a fair few executions. With regards to Heroin, Its unavailable as a medicine in the US and its not an anaesthetic agent so you'd have trouble administering Potassium after it without guaranteeing unawareness.

As before its a macabre science working it all out

sssss-CHONK!

I think the French have a reliable humane system. It was even used on its inventor. Karma?

The only problem is...

Northwind - Member
...I'm not sure where I really stand on the morals of execution; but that's OK because I know exactly where I stand on executing the wrong dude, and that takes care of the whole question.

I'm with Northwind.

Decapitation seems sensible - the guillotine was a fine tool for the job.

I've wondered for a while now (ever since I heard a guy mention it at a wedding reception in fact) why we don't just outsource our criminal "rehabilitation" system to China or some such place....count them out, count them back in and pay the Chinese (or whoever) a £ per person per day to serve out their sentence. Seems to me that these long term criminals very rarely rehabilitate until they grow out of it and decide to become part of society (or get diagnosed with a mental illness). Obviously there'd need to be some sort of audit to ensure it's humane (no need for Sky tv though IMHO). Only downside is to the crim's family....but I think it's a freedom / right you give up when you run the risk of committing a crime. Would probably house people on shorter sentences here though (to save on airfares!). I bet the thought of being sent to a jail in the far east would put people off certain illegal activities.....maybe it would benefit the host country too....it worked for Australia after all :-p

EDIT - doh! too slow...mental note to read all pages next time.....sorry

deleted didn't read the previous post properly...

[i]I'm not sure where I really stand on the morals of execution; but that's OK because I know exactly where I stand on executing the wrong dude, and that takes care of the whole question. [/i]

Well written.

Lets not mention [url= http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates ]this.[/url] or [url= http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/us-death-penalty-facts/the-death-penalty-and-deterrence ]via amnesty.[/url]

That backs up the research I've read in other papers, that the death penalty is not an effective public health tool but rather the opposite.

Shame that there are to many morons on this planet that will never listen to data or reasoned argument.

Supporters of the death penalty should bare in mind it a) does not act as a deterrent b) actually appears to increase the murder rate and c) there is fairly strong evidence that it reduces the conviction rate so more murders walk free.

The death penalty is a rubbish sentence before you even begin to debate it's ethics.

Thing is though, none of those things really effectively counter the main argument for the death sentence, ie, vengeance. Lots of people seem totally happy with the idea of increasing crime, as long as criminals are treated worse.

(after all, this is why so many people are in favour of being "tough on crime" while not in favour of actually helping criminals rehabilitate- it's not limited to executions.)

And that's why we have representative democracy.....because the plebs should never ever be allowed anything close to direct democracy.

Killing is wrong, that's why we're having you killed.

And that's that.

What was it TJ used to say, 'an eye for an eye leaves us all blind'.

He didn't half talk some bollix.

If someone kills someone else, purposely, with no mitigating circumstances, unprovoked, without good reason, & no doubt, just cos they wanted to etc etc, then they should lose the right to life. IMO.

I did mention 'mitigating circumstances' didn't I?

Some people have posted Lockett shot his 19yr old victim. He didn't killer her just wounded her but he did watch his accomplices bury her ALIVE.......karma it's a bitch 😯

But..... If [i]"someone kills someone else, purposely, with no mitigating circumstances, unprovoked, without good reason, & no doubt, just cos they wanted to"[/i] then they are quite likely to seriously mentally ill.

Seems odd to say you'd put them to death whilst sparing the people who callously plotted a murder in cold blood but had a "good reason".

Tom_W1987 - Member

And that's why we have representative democracy.....because the plebs should never ever be allowed anything close to direct democracy.

I'd say that's why it sucks that we've had successive governments who'll play to base instincts because it's easy, rather than try and make a more complicated argument because it's hard.

Just to clarify, are you saying you'd rather have direct democracy? That would be far far worse in terms of politicians trying to pander to base instincts, especially without the checks and balances the Americans have.

Deliberative democracy, sure. Though how practical that is... Probably we're back at the "worst system, except for all the others".

Thanks for the English lesson Graham, I realise that 'without good reason' wasn't a good phrase. Is there ever a good reason to kill someone else?

Thanks for the English lesson Graham

I wasn't trying to be picky. A "good reason" could simply mean "a motive".

e.g. is a "motiveless" killing by a nutter worse than someone plotting to bump off their parents for the life insurance money?

Is there ever a good reason to kill someone else?

There are lots of "good" (as in "compelling") reasons. But few "good" (as in "virtuous") ones.

Mercy killing maybe?

If a 'nutter' kills someone then 'mitigating circumstances' may be involved. If theyr'e not 'of sound mind' for instance or have a recorded history of mental health problems?
You could say that anyone who kills someone else must have mental health problems but I dunno about that.

I do know that say, if I had a daughter & she was raped (for instance) I'd be ****in livid to say the least & may not be held accountable for my actions!

And holding you not accountable would probably be the right thing to do, due to your state of mind and the fact that the state would have failed in it's duty to protect you and the accused.