Botched Oklahoma Execution

[ScienceRocks]

This piece of shit barried a young woman a live. Why shouldn't he suffer?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Matthew, I agree, but what you are missing is that being part of the execution process dehumanizes the individuals carrying it out.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Doesn't matter if my dog was a horse. The effective chemicals used for euthanasia, a drug that goes from an arterial vein in the arm to the heart and works within seconds, has been around for decades.

So the problem is about a bunch of fuck ups in Oklahoma who have no business running the Dept of Corrections Death Row executions.

I'd ask you to wrap your mind around that if I thought you had one.

im glad you care more about this guy than the girls he raped and killed....youre so much more morally superior than others.......wow and people like say cutting a budget item is heartless...wow

You're just as mindless as the others.

This story isn't about what the guy did or how he murdered his victim. Try reading the OP.

It's about the ineptitude of state officials in handling a state-condoned execution, ergo my analogy of my very own veterinarian who is more skilled than these neanderthals in Oklahoma. They floundered around for so long that Lockett finally died of a heart attack some 40 minutes later.

If these backwater Okie idiots had done their job correctly we would all be posting about something else. Get it?

I don't think the Okies are doing anything very different from most other states. But you make a good point imho about how this shouldn't be such a complicated procedure.

But we are human beings - we are not perfect. We make mistakes and sometimes things go wrong. It happens in everything we do. I'll bet your vet could tell you of one or two things that went sour for him/her.

It happens.

 

[martybegan]

I know I'm butting where I wasn't invited, so I'll apologize for that. But I'd like to take a stab at this one.

The difference (imho) is the justification. The law recognizes a "justifiable homicide" and outside the law, I think all of would recognize that there are times when killing another human being - in order to protect ourselves - is not immoral.

Society has deemed that in order to protect ourselves from wanton killers, that it is acceptable to kill the killer. The murderer's victim has done nothing to threaten the murderer and the victim's killing protects no one.

Now, I understand that putting someone in jail for life with no hope of parole accomplishes that protection more economically and without the risk of killing someone who is not guilty of the crime we are killing him/her for.

But there IS (imho) a big difference between state executions and wanton murder. And I have to agree that I think that difference is fairly obvious.

Execvuting someone is not for the purpose of protecting society from that person.

No, a jury tried Clayton Lockett. He had an attorney appointed for him. He had full access to the legal system's protections. The jury found him guilty. The judge sentenced him to death. He received full due process and the net result was a capital conviction for a particularly heinous murder of a total innocent.
His victim did not have the benefit of all that. His victim committed no crime, other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time. His victim did not deserve to die, nor did she deserve the torture he meted out to her.
That is the distinction.

I think you are just so accustomed to arguing with me that you felt the need to say No and then repeat about 90% of what I said.

The only difference is that you claim the underlying justification for the execution of the murderer in NOT to protect society from the murderer.

So if the justification is NOT the protection of society from any future murders that the murderer may commit, what is it. Vengeance?

Which I don't discount. I said earlier it is probably the only remaining logical justification.

All justice has to have a portion of vengeance. Without it families and friends of the victims might decide to take punishment into their own hands.

The other part is punishment. For most of the population the concept of committing a serious crime like murder is unthinkable, for those who could consider doing it, the threat of punishment probably keeps alot of those from doing it as well. Once you get to the portion of the population willing to take a life regardless of the consequences, I seriously doubt true rehabilitation is possible. at that point you punish the person "pour les encouragement des autres" you isolate them from society via incarceration or death, and you do it in such a way as to give no excuses to the survivors of the victim to come after the perp with pitch-forks and a rope.

 

[FuelRod]

I apologize for the duplicate posting of this story in a new thread. Result was the desired outcome and handed down by a jury of his peers. It could have been by leaches for all I care.

 

[HenryBHough]

Were Oklahoma to have adopted Sharia law, like our federal governent (well, at least the current regime) seems to want then this could never have happened. It would have been all over with a low-tech, low-cost stoning.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Doesn't matter if my dog was a horse. The effective chemicals used for euthanasia, a drug that goes from an arterial vein in the arm to the heart and works within seconds, has been around for decades.

So the problem is about a bunch of fuck ups in Oklahoma who have no business running the Dept of Corrections Death Row executions.

I'd ask you to wrap your mind around that if I thought you had one.

im glad you care more about this guy than the girls he raped and killed....youre so much more morally superior than others.......wow and people like say cutting a budget item is heartless...wow

You're just as mindless as the others.

This story isn't about what the guy did or how he murdered his victim. Try reading the OP.

It's about the ineptitude of state officials in handling a state-condoned execution, ergo my analogy of my very own veterinarian who is more skilled than these neanderthals in Oklahoma. They floundered around for so long that Lockett finally died of a heart attack some 40 minutes later.

If these backwater Okie idiots had done their job correctly we would all be posting about something else. Get it?

Hey dumshit, it is about that, you stated you didnt care what he did.....well a compassionate person does care......see you dont care what he did, i do t care how he dies....see so i applaud the people of oklahoma....maybe if he assrapes someone you love youll feel, differently mr dukaukis

 

[martybegan]

Matthew, I agree, but what you are missing is that being part of the execution process dehumanizes the individuals carrying it out.

It takes much more frequent killing to de-sensitize someone in the way you are thinking. We don't execute enough people for that to be an issue. If a person can't handle it, they don't have to carry it out. Others can be found, those of a more lawful neutral bent.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Matthew, I agree, but what you are missing is that being part of the execution process dehumanizes the individuals carrying it out.

Then do a firing squad, noone will know if it was them

 

[nodoginnafight]

Execvuting someone is not for the purpose of protecting society from that person.

No, a jury tried Clayton Lockett. He had an attorney appointed for him. He had full access to the legal system's protections. The jury found him guilty. The judge sentenced him to death. He received full due process and the net result was a capital conviction for a particularly heinous murder of a total innocent.
His victim did not have the benefit of all that. His victim committed no crime, other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time. His victim did not deserve to die, nor did she deserve the torture he meted out to her.
That is the distinction.

I think you are just so accustomed to arguing with me that you felt the need to say No and then repeat about 90% of what I said.

The only difference is that you claim the underlying justification for the execution of the murderer in NOT to protect society from the murderer.

So if the justification is NOT the protection of society from any future murders that the murderer may commit, what is it. Vengeance?

Which I don't discount. I said earlier it is probably the only remaining logical justification.

All justice has to have a portion of vengeance. Without it families and friends of the victims might decide to take punishment into their own hands.

The other part is punishment. For most of the population the concept of committing a serious crime like murder is unthinkable, for those who could consider doing it, the threat of punishment probably keeps alot of those from doing it as well. Once you get to the portion of the population willing to take a life regardless of the consequences, I seriously doubt true rehabilitation is possible. at that point you punish the person "pour les encouragement des autres" you isolate them from society via incarceration or death, and you do it in such a way as to give no excuses to the survivors of the victim to come after the perp with pitch-forks and a rope.

The evidence indicates that our death penalty is not swift and sure enough to be a deterrent.

No credible evidence on whether death penalty deters, experts say - The Denver Post

And I agree about vengeance. I do not discount the value of that.
I just believe it is the only remaining logical argument in support of using a death penalty.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Matthew, I agree, but what you are missing is that being part of the execution process dehumanizes the individuals carrying it out.

Then do a firing squad, noone will know if it was them

A shooter knows if he has fired a blank or a shell.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I lived in Oklahoma for a while, and while the people there are very friendly and neighborly, they are in lockstep with the Christian Right. They see things in total black or white. They do not burden themselves with a whole lot of thinking.

In short, I am surprised that they didn't just rip a leg off a table and beat him to death with it.

 

[whitehall]

Maybe Michael Savage was right when he said "liberalism is a mental illness". Every mass shooter in modern times was a left winger from Oswald to the jihad Major. Lefties imagine themselves on death row because they think like vicious murderers and they defend their own kind.

 

[Wake]

What happened today was unfortunate. I do not believe in the death penalty, because more often than one thinks innocent people are found guilty. Juries will still screw up in the absence of the DP, but living in confinement for the rest of your life grants more time for one's innocence to be proven, unlike death. If given the choice between exoneration before death or after death, I would imagine people would choose the former.

Barbarism fortunately isn't what our death penalty currently is, and I invite anyone who believes otherwise to refute my points here. Barbaric actions are violent, bloody, and messy. In ages past a person accused of some slight could have his four limbs tied to separate horses, and then those horses spurred to gallop. Yeah, that's actual barbarity. Putting a person to sleep, then numbing the person, then killing the unconscious person with chemicals is far different than chasing after a fleeing person and hacking and stabbing away.

It would seem in this instance that the convict had a heart attack. I wouldn't rule out stress-induced heart attack, lol, because people usually get stressed when they're about to die. While I do agree that the DP isn't a good thing for America, I don't think using this instance is going to be that effective. Accidents happen within a wide range of things, including dentistry. Some times shit does happen. Or divine justice?

I wonder how many complain about the cost of having a baby given up at birth as a drain on our financial system, also complain about the cost of keeping a murderer incarcerated for life, some 50 years or longer?

It costs more to kill them, than to house them for life.

A guillotine would remedy that.

 

[buckeye45_73]

I think you are just so accustomed to arguing with me that you felt the need to say No and then repeat about 90% of what I said.

The only difference is that you claim the underlying justification for the execution of the murderer in NOT to protect society from the murderer.

So if the justification is NOT the protection of society from any future murders that the murderer may commit, what is it. Vengeance?

Which I don't discount. I said earlier it is probably the only remaining logical justification.

All justice has to have a portion of vengeance. Without it families and friends of the victims might decide to take punishment into their own hands.

The other part is punishment. For most of the population the concept of committing a serious crime like murder is unthinkable, for those who could consider doing it, the threat of punishment probably keeps alot of those from doing it as well. Once you get to the portion of the population willing to take a life regardless of the consequences, I seriously doubt true rehabilitation is possible. at that point you punish the person "pour les encouragement des autres" you isolate them from society via incarceration or death, and you do it in such a way as to give no excuses to the survivors of the victim to come after the perp with pitch-forks and a rope.

The evidence indicates that our death penalty is not swift and sure enough to be a deterrent.

No credible evidence on whether death penalty deters, experts say - The Denver Post

And I agree about vengeance. I do not discount the value of that.
I just believe it is the only remaining logical argument in support of using a death penalty.

I just think it's justice, that's enough for me, but people who fuck with it have caused it to lose value (ie libtards), it is tough because it's not applied to everyone. Trust me if it was the penalty for every first degree murder, people would get the message.we but when people say it's not a deterrent, I'll believe that when criminals want the death penalty over jail time.

 

[nodoginnafight]

All justice has to have a portion of vengeance. Without it families and friends of the victims might decide to take punishment into their own hands.

The other part is punishment. For most of the population the concept of committing a serious crime like murder is unthinkable, for those who could consider doing it, the threat of punishment probably keeps alot of those from doing it as well. Once you get to the portion of the population willing to take a life regardless of the consequences, I seriously doubt true rehabilitation is possible. at that point you punish the person "pour les encouragement des autres" you isolate them from society via incarceration or death, and you do it in such a way as to give no excuses to the survivors of the victim to come after the perp with pitch-forks and a rope.

The evidence indicates that our death penalty is not swift and sure enough to be a deterrent.

No credible evidence on whether death penalty deters, experts say - The Denver Post

And I agree about vengeance. I do not discount the value of that.
I just believe it is the only remaining logical argument in support of using a death penalty.

I just think it's justice, that's enough for me, but people who fuck with it have caused it to lose value (ie libtards), it is tough because it's not applied to everyone. Trust me if it was the penalty for every first degree murder, people would get the message.we but when people say it's not a deterrent, I'll believe that when criminals want the death penalty over jail time.

So, the fact that some inmates have opted to drop all their appeals and choose execution would change your mind? it happens.

Gary Gilmore, Jesse Bishop, Steven Judy, Frank Coppola to name four.

http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6434&context=jclc

Oregon death row inmate wants to drop appeals, paving way for first execution in 14 years | OregonLive.com

Ark. death row inmate dropping appeals again

Polk County Murderer Wants To Drop Appeals | The Times Record

 

[whitehall]

From the movie Green Mile, Warden: what the hell do you call that? Tom Hanks character: "an execution, a successful execution". Warden: "My god you call that successful"? Tom Hanks character: "he's dead isn't he"?

 

[Meathead]

The evidence indicates that our death penalty is not swift and sure enough to be a deterrent.

No credible evidence on whether death penalty deters, experts say - The Denver Post

And I agree about vengeance. I do not discount the value of that.
I just believe it is the only remaining logical argument in support of using a death penalty.

I just think it's justice, that's enough for me, but people who fuck with it have caused it to lose value (ie libtards), it is tough because it's not applied to everyone. Trust me if it was the penalty for every first degree murder, people would get the message.we but when people say it's not a deterrent, I'll believe that when criminals want the death penalty over jail time.

So, the fact that some inmates have opted to drop all their appeals and choose execution would change your mind? it happens.

Gary Gilmore, Jesse Bishop, Steven Judy, Frank Coppola to name four.

http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6434&context=jclc

Oregon death row inmate wants to drop appeals, paving way for first execution in 14 years | OregonLive.com

Ark. death row inmate dropping appeals again

Polk County Murderer Wants To Drop Appeals | The Times Record

What happened to the 4% who were innocent NoDog?

Judy, like Westley Dodd (who you forgot) were both child killers who don't do well in prison. the rest were the first in the nation or their respective states to be executed since the reinstitution of the death penalty in 1976 and wanted to make their "bones" in a sick world of the condemned.

They were all scum and the world is better without them or the others whose passing you mourn.

 

[nodoginnafight]

What happened to the 4% who were innocent NoDog?

They were executed.

And I don't mourn any of their deaths. Maybe you should read my complete posts before making assumptions and then trying to argue with your own assumptions.

(I guess that's what happens when you try to jump into a conversation between other posters without having read the WHOLE conversation)

 

[Lonestar_logic]

assuming the DP is legal, which it still is, what I don't understand is this. We have hundreds, if not thousands, of people dying in home hospice care weekly. When they say their discomfort is no longer bearable, the hospice nurse just gives them a shot of morphine that ends it. Why all this mysterious drug cocktail stuff?

If it was up to me, we would execute all criminals by rope. One rope could be used hundreds of times.

If your son was convicted (whether correctly or falsely) would you hold the same view? Would you be content with the finality of a death sentence if you and your family were personally involved? Or your sanctimonious bombast is just that, a sanctimonious bombast? Would you buy the rope for your son's execution if he was found guilty (again, correctly or falsely)?

Yes. I would hold the same view.

Yes. I would be content.

No. I'm not sanctimonious, just honest.

No. That responsibility doesn't fall on me.