Capital Punishment: Should the Death Penalty Still Exist In A 'Civilised Society'?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (1756 of them)

or if you're caught, say, listening to post-2004 Interpol.

guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 1 May 2014 19:49 (ten years ago) link

zzzzzzzzzz ing?

wins, Thursday, 1 May 2014 20:18 (ten years ago) link

Seriously though it's no wonder our prisons are so bad if people in America think so little of prisoners that the idea of them suffering sexual abuse is seen as funny. Attitudes need to change.

― très hip (Treeship), Wednesday, April 30, 2014 10:03 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

a lot of smart, somewhat admirable people will not hesitate to make prison rape jokes. which is really appalling IMO.

espring (amateurist), Thursday, 1 May 2014 21:10 (ten years ago) link

Apparently and unbelievably, this Oklahoma story gets worse:

Early on the morning of Clayton D. Lockett’s scheduled execution, he defied prison officers seeking to shackle him for the required walk to get X-rays. So they shocked him with a Taser, Oklahoma’s chief of corrections stated in an account released Thursday of Mr. Lockett’s final day, before his execution went awry.

Once Mr. Lockett was in an examining room, the staff discovered that he had slashed his own arm; a physician assistant determined that sutures would not be needed.

Finding a suitable vein and placing an IV line took 51 minutes. A medical technician searched both of his arms, both of his legs and both of his feet for a vein into which to insert the needle, but “no viable point of entry was located,” reported the corrections chief, Robert Patton, in a letter to Gov. Mary Fallin that her office released. A doctor, the letter said, “went to the groin area.”

A catheter was inserted into Mr. Lockett’s groin, and officials placed a sheet over him for privacy. The account did not make clear who inserted the catheter.

. . . With something clearly going terribly wrong, the doctor “checked the IV and reported that the blood vein had collapsed, and the drugs had either absorbed into the tissue, leaked out or both,” Mr. Patton wrote.

The warden called Mr. Patton, who asked, “Have enough drugs been administered to cause death?” The doctor answered no.

“Is another vein available, and if so, are there enough drugs remaining?” The doctor responded no again. Mr. Patton then asked about Mr. Lockett’s condition; the warden said that the doctor “found a faint heartbeat” and that Mr. Lockett was unconscious.

At 6:56, Mr. Patton called off the execution. Ten minutes later, at 7:06, “Doctor pronounced Offender Lockett dead,” the letter states.

Legal experts on the death penalty said they were surprised, and even shocked, by several things revealed in the new letter. “I’ve never heard of a case of an inmate being Tasered before being executed,” said Deborah Denno, an expert on execution at Fordham Law School and a death penalty opponent.

David Dow, a death penalty appellate lawyer in Texas, said that prisoners sometimes resist leaving their cells, but that “it’s not something that happens regularly.” He expressed surprise that the medical staff administering the drugs did not have a second vein ready in case of problems with the first. “For a state that executes people,” he said, “they are awfully bad at it.”

. . . Anesthesiologists said that while they sometimes use a femoral vein accessible from the groin when those in the arms and legs are not accessible, the procedure is more complicated and potentially painful.

Putting a line in the groin “is a highly invasive and complex procedure which requires extensive experience, training and credentialing,” said Dr. Mark Heath, an anesthesiologist at Columbia University. Oklahoma does not reveal the personnel involved in executions.

“There are a number of ways of checking whether a central line is properly placed in a vein, and had those been done they ought to have known ahead of time that the catheter was improperly positioned,” Dr. Heath said.

Dr. Joel Zivot, an anesthesiologist at the Emory University School of Medicine, said that the prison’s initial account that the vein had collapsed or blown was almost certainly incorrect.

“The femoral vein is a big vessel,” Dr. Zivot said. Finding the vein, however, can be tricky. The vein is not visible from the surface, and is near a major artery and nerves. “You can’t feel it, you can’t see it,” he said.

Diddley Hollyberry (Phil D.), Friday, 2 May 2014 15:46 (ten years ago) link

Jesus fucking Christ, that's horrific.

Montgomery Burns' Jazz (Tarfumes The Escape Goat), Friday, 2 May 2014 15:50 (ten years ago) link

The femoral vein is right underneath the femoral artery at the spot where the femoral pulse is taken. The femoral pulse is very strong but very deeply buried--I sometimes ended up with half a hand buried in the groin, even with relatively skinny people. I couldn't imagine having to stick an IV in there.

Christine Green Leafy Dragon Indigo, Friday, 2 May 2014 16:22 (ten years ago) link

Yes, that's a horror story. But for those who think that only the worst and most evil people are executed and who relish the idea of wreaking vengeance upon them for their crimes, the fact that they suffered a painful death will not matter. They'll see it as poetic justice.

When you put the argument for or against the death penalty purely on emotional grounds, for the majority of people the suffering of the innocent victim is going to trump the suffering of the criminal every damned time, because they will identify more with the victim. If you're ever going to get rid of executions you have to convince people that it is unjust, not merely horrific.

Aimless, Friday, 2 May 2014 16:56 (ten years ago) link

I don't think that is true, neccesarily. In any case, for the death penalty to continue, you need to have a whole system in place, which horror-stories like this can help to disrupt. Doctors will have to think twice before participating, as will pharmaceutical producers, etc.

Frederik B, Friday, 2 May 2014 17:15 (ten years ago) link

wonder if they could've just used an IO line

gbx, Friday, 2 May 2014 17:45 (ten years ago) link

xp

Hanging people or guillotining them would not require the cooperation of pharmaceutical companies and the only involvement of doctors would be to sign the death certificate. The system can adjust.

I don't mind using any and every argument under the sun to sway people, but the problem with dueling horror stories is that every death penalty case has a guaranteed horror story attached in the form of the original crime, so if it becomes a matter of fighting fire with fire, the death penalty proponents have a much bigger supply of tinder.

Aimless, Friday, 2 May 2014 17:51 (ten years ago) link

Fighting fire with fire is a stupid way to fight fire.

▴▲ ▴TH3CR()$BY$H()W▴▲ ▴ (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 2 May 2014 17:57 (ten years ago) link

Tell that to Red Adair.

Diddley Hollyberry (Phil D.), Friday, 2 May 2014 18:03 (ten years ago) link

albert camus's essay on capital punishment -- one of the best things i've ever read -- begins with a description of remembering his father's disgust and lasting horror on witnessing an execution by guillotine (after having been a staunch supporter of capital punishment). i think making ppl aware that execution is rarely a simple or non-messy process is a good step toward making them rethink their views on the matter -- like, i think a lot of ppl just assume that in our hyper-advanced society blah blah we've developed clean humane non-disgusting ways to execute prisoners, which in practice isn't quite the case.

(The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Friday, 2 May 2014 18:06 (ten years ago) link

Perhaps the best way to handle the horror of execution is to emphasize that, in contrast to the original crime, we are responsible for the execution. This would be moderately similar to the argument made by vegetarians/vegans in regard to the slaughter of animals for consumption, that if you aren't willing to be the one who slits the throat, then you shouldn't be willing to let someone else slit it on your behalf.

Aimless, Friday, 2 May 2014 18:15 (ten years ago) link

i used to agree w/ camus that if the death penalty is meant as a deterrent surely we should make it a public spectacle. i think the implicit argument there is that ppl would be turned off to the death penalty if they actually saw it in practice. but now i'm not so sure and i think if we made executions public that might be a step to arenas, and lions, and crowds shouting for blood

Mordy, Friday, 2 May 2014 18:18 (ten years ago) link

It's impossible to win when the human and genuine need for revenge battles logic and an appeal to our better natures.

guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 2 May 2014 18:19 (ten years ago) link

the aggregated logic of the community should win out over individual desire for revenge, is the thing. Enshrining revenge in the law is stupid and counterproductive, just from a cost/benefits analysis (leaving aside any moral arguments).

PLATYPUS OF DOOM (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 2 May 2014 18:25 (ten years ago) link

You don't have to persuade me!

guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 2 May 2014 18:26 (ten years ago) link

"The aggregated logic of the community" will lose against "He's a fucking monster whose flesh should burn in that chair"

guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 2 May 2014 18:26 (ten years ago) link

in most countries it's prevailed. not in this one, unfortunately.

PLATYPUS OF DOOM (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 2 May 2014 18:27 (ten years ago) link

Mostly just us and everyone we currently like to bomb!

▴▲ ▴TH3CR()$BY$H()W▴▲ ▴ (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 2 May 2014 19:45 (ten years ago) link

i used to agree w/ camus that if the death penalty is meant as a deterrent surely we should make it a public spectacle. i think the implicit argument there is that ppl would be turned off to the death penalty if they actually saw it in practice. but now i'm not so sure and i think if we made executions public that might be a step to arenas, and lions, and crowds shouting for blood

― Mordy, Friday, May 2, 2014 1:18 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

there is pretty much no historical support for mr. camus' argument.

espring (amateurist), Saturday, 3 May 2014 13:31 (ten years ago) link

Right. The very oldest objections to the death penalty I can recall seeing all boil down to "People have too much fun watching criminals get killed."

Christine Green Leafy Dragon Indigo, Saturday, 3 May 2014 13:56 (ten years ago) link

If a movie about a talking pig can turn people vegetarian don't lose hope

Philip Nunez, Saturday, 3 May 2014 17:43 (ten years ago) link

two months pass...

Arizona killer Joseph Wood dies almost two hours after execution began

Convicted killer 'gasped and snorted' as officials attempted to execute him, as lawyers filed an emergency motion to halt the process

mookieproof, Thursday, 24 July 2014 00:11 (nine years ago) link

these botched executions are proof positive that we as a society are not nearly as civilized as we pretend to be.

building a desert (art), Thursday, 24 July 2014 00:35 (nine years ago) link

don't get me wrong, all executions are a scourge on the public conscience but the brutality has been much more blatant lately.

we are occasionally torturing men to death.

building a desert (art), Thursday, 24 July 2014 00:42 (nine years ago) link

What's the humanitarian argument for lethal injection over firing squad again?

Nhex, Thursday, 24 July 2014 01:34 (nine years ago) link

A convicted murderer in Arizona gasped and snorted for more than 90 minutes after a lethal injection Wednesday, his attorneys said, dying in a botched execution that will probably reinvigorate the national debate over the death penalty in the United States.

Joseph Rudolph Wood III’s execution began at 1:52 p.m. at the Arizona State Prison Complex in Florence. He was declared dead at 3:49 p.m. Wood had fought in court without success for more information about the drugs that would be used and the expertise of his executioners.

mookieproof, Thursday, 24 July 2014 01:41 (nine years ago) link

A spokeswoman for the Arizona attorney general’s office, Stephanie Grisham, disputed that account. She said she witnessed the execution too and did not think Wood was gasping.

“There was no gasping of air. There was snoring. He just laid there. It was quite peaceful,” Grisham said.

mookieproof, Thursday, 24 July 2014 01:42 (nine years ago) link

fuck that

gbx, Thursday, 24 July 2014 02:32 (nine years ago) link

An individual’s opinion on capital punishment is the personal moral decision of the individual. A physician, as a member of a profession dedicated to preserving life when there is hope of doing so, should not be a participant in a legally authorized execution. Physician participation in execution is defined generally as actions which would fall into one or more of the following categories: (1) an action which would directly cause the death of the condemned; (2) an action which would assist, supervise, or contribute to the ability of another individual to directly cause the death of the condemned; (3) an action which could automatically cause an execution to be carried out on a condemned prisoner.

Physician participation in an execution includes, but is not limited to, the following actions: prescribing or administering tranquilizers and other psychotropic agents and medications that are part of the execution procedure; monitoring vital signs on site or remotely (including monitoring electrocardiograms); attending or observing an execution as a physician; and rendering of technical advice regarding execution. In the case where the method of execution is lethal injection, the following actions by the physician would also constitute physician participation in execution: selecting injection sites; starting intravenous lines as a port for a lethal injection device; prescribing, preparing, administering, or supervising injection drugs or their doses or types; inspecting, testing, or maintaining lethal injection devices; and consulting with or supervising lethal injection personnel.

The following actions do not constitute physician participation in execution: (1) testifying as to medical history and diagnoses or mental state as they relate to competence to stand trial, testifying as to relevant medical evidence during trial, testifying as to medical aspects of aggravating or mitigating circumstances during the penalty phase of a capital case, or testifying as to medical diagnoses as they relate to the legal assessment of competence for execution; (2) certifying death, provided that the condemned has been declared dead by another person; (3) witnessing an execution in a totally nonprofessional capacity; (4) witnessing an execution at the specific voluntary request of the condemned person, provided that the physician observes the execution in a nonprofessional capacity; and (5) relieving the acute suffering of a condemned person while awaiting execution, including providing tranquilizers at the specific voluntary request of the condemned person to help relieve pain or anxiety in anticipation of the execution.

Physicians should not determine legal competence to be executed. A physician’s medical opinion should be merely one aspect of the information taken into account by a legal decision maker such as a judge or hearing officer. When a condemned prisoner has been declared incompetent to be executed, physicians should not treat the prisoner for the purpose of restoring competence unless a commutation order is issued before treatment begins. The task of re-evaluating the prisoner should be performed by an independent physician examiner. If the incompetent prisoner is undergoing extreme suffering as a result of psychosis or any other illness, medical intervention intended to mitigate the level of suffering is ethically permissible. No physician should be compelled to participate in the process of establishing a prisoner’s competence or be involved with treatment of an incompetent, condemned prisoner if such activity is contrary to the physician’s personal beliefs. Under those circumstances, physicians should be permitted to transfer care of the prisoner to another physician.

Organ donation by condemned prisoners is permissible only if (1) the decision to donate was made before the prisoner’s conviction, (2) the donated tissue is harvested after the prisoner has been pronounced dead and the body removed from the death chamber, and (3) physicians do not provide advice on modifying the method of execution for any individual to facilitate donation. (I)

gbx, Thursday, 24 July 2014 02:34 (nine years ago) link

one month passes...

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/03/us/2-convicted-in-1983-north-carolina-murder-may-be-freed-after-dna-tests.html

In 1994, when the United States Supreme Court turned down a request for review of the case, Justice Antonin Scalia described Mr. McCollum’s crime as so heinous that it would be hard to argue against lethal injection.

ie a case used by Scalia to defend the death penalty is now being overturned

Immediate Follower (NA), Tuesday, 2 September 2014 20:52 (nine years ago) link

It feels facile to tut-tut this but what a fucking travesty

Nhex, Tuesday, 2 September 2014 20:55 (nine years ago) link

tbf wasn't Scalia saying "whoever done this should be executed?"

fuck him anyway, but let's be fair

Daphnis Celesta, Tuesday, 2 September 2014 20:59 (nine years ago) link

Joe Freeman Britt, the original prosecutor, told The News & Observer last week that he still believed the men were guilty.

anonanon, Tuesday, 2 September 2014 21:09 (nine years ago) link

tbf wasn't Scalia saying "whoever done this should be executed?"

handily ignoring the problem of the courts inability to determine with any certainty who did it

Οὖτις, Tuesday, 2 September 2014 21:10 (nine years ago) link

making a purely logical point, fuck Scalia and fuck a death penalty

Daphnis Celesta, Tuesday, 2 September 2014 21:15 (nine years ago) link

Interesting point made in a Guardian article about this that about a third of people who have been exonerated through DNA evidence had either incriminated themselves or actually confessed to the crime they didn't commit.

Wristy Hurlington (ShariVari), Wednesday, 3 September 2014 07:16 (nine years ago) link

nine months pass...

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/a-governor-threatens-to-execute-prisoners-out-of-spite/394949/

Under Eighth Amendment caselaw, Glossip is a hard case. But the legalities fell away when Justice Samuel Alito asked this question: “Is it appropriate for the judiciary to countenance what amounts to a guerilla war against the death penalty which consists of efforts to make it impossible for the States to obtain drugs that could be used to carry out capital punishment with little, if any, pain?”

Justice Antonin Scalia elaborated that the approved “drugs have been rendered unavailable by the abolitionist movement putting pressure on the companies that manufacture them so that the States cannot obtain those two other drugs. And now you want to come before the Court and say, well, this third drug is not 100 percent sure. ... [ T ]he abolitionists have rendered it impossible to get the 100 percent sure drugs, and you think we should not view that as—as relevant to the decision that—that you're putting before us?”

Scalia’s colloquy, along with Alito’s evident fury, was among the most bizarre I have ever seen in the Court chamber. Even The Washington Post’s George Will felt obliged to reprove his fellow conservatives: “The answers are: Public agitation against capital punishment is not relevant to judicial reasoning,” he wrote. “And it is not the judiciary’s business to worry that a ruling might seem to ‘countenance’ this or that social advocacy.” Ken Jost of Jost on Justice wrote that “Alito’s critique wrongly conjures up images of massive civil disobedience or direct action by death penalty opponents.” That hasn’t happened. In Jost’s column, University of Richmond Professor James Gibson (who has written a detailed article on the drug shortage) rejected the idea of “guerrilla warfare.” In an email, Gibson elaborated that the current shortage is “caused by political speech and foreign legislation.”

Under the First Amendment, criticizing the death penalty, even effectively, is as protected as, say, corporate electioneering expenditures. Judges have no right to expect “abolitionists” to be silent—as long as they remain within the law. And on that point, I can’t find a single documented case of threatening or harassing speech by “abolitionists.” In a 2012 brief, the Texas Department of Criminal Safety called the British non-profit Reprieve “authoritarian ideologues who menace and harass private citizens” and compared them to a Texas prison gang. The TDCJ warned that “Reprieve's unrestrained harassment will escalate into violence against a supplier.”

those authoritarian guerrillas, trying to force the state not to do what's right and kill people

j., Friday, 5 June 2015 17:19 (nine years ago) link

tbf, using economic warfare to destabilise a foreign country's governance is something no true American cd tolerate

turly dark (Noodle Vague), Friday, 5 June 2015 17:37 (nine years ago) link

Had no idea the pharmaceutical industry was so susceptible to ground roots activism.

©Oz Quiz© (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 5 June 2015 17:41 (nine years ago) link

lol @ Nino calling death sentence opponents "abolitionists" as if this is a witty and deserved slur.

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 5 June 2015 17:47 (nine years ago) link

xp yeah when it's the having the drugs that kills and not the withholding of them

j., Friday, 5 June 2015 17:47 (nine years ago) link

one month passes...

rachel aviv deserves a byline on that

mookieproof, Wednesday, 8 July 2015 00:54 (eight years ago) link

her article was linked and yeah also we'll worth a read

wisdom be leakin out my louche douche truths (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 8 July 2015 01:25 (eight years ago) link

eight months pass...

@the_intercept
Clinton's vow to feel relieved when others finally win the fight against the death penalty isn't exactly courageous. http://interc.pt/1pBLjEN

we can be heroes just for about 3.6 seconds (Dr Morbius), Monday, 21 March 2016 11:44 (eight years ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.