When did we start adopting phrases that use more words to be less meaningful and more distractingly convoluted?

Wait, I meant "Farmers' Market!"

staplermofo: Wait, I meant "Farmers' Market!"

I knew someone would beat me to it

log_jammin: I knew someone would beat me to it

IN YOUR FACE!

Site requires registration. Anyone want to post the text?

you can count on it's old, senile people providing accurate directions

Turn left at that place where Mrs. Magillycutty used to sell smelling salts, take a right where the old Capital theater was - Hey, remember when you got a double feature, news reel and cartoons for $0.05. Lordy, those where the days - people knew how to dress respectfully, too! Why, in MY day............

I'm surpremely dissatisfied with this subscription required content.

Garmin Needledrive - $399 at Best Buy

Here's the article:

Supreme Court may devise road map for states on lethal injections

By Howard Mintz
Mercury News
Article Launched: 01/06/2008 02:18:35 AM PST

With execution chambers from California to Florida idled, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday will offer an unprecedented glimpse into how the justices assess the swirling legal conflict over the grim business of administering a fatal dose of drugs to death row inmates.

The Supreme Court, faced with mounting legal chaos across the country over lethal injection, will hear arguments in a challenge to Kentucky's execution method - the same procedure favored in virtually every state that has a death penalty. The justices will directly confront the constitutionality of an execution method for the first time since the 1870s, when they upheld Utah's firing squads.

The high court is expected to rule by the end of its term in June, at the very least devising a road map for what states must do to ensure the executions they carry out are as humane as possible.

On one side, lawyers for death row inmates argue that states have grown so sloppy in executions that they should not resume unless the Supreme Court establishes strict standards. On the other side, dozens of states, the Bush administration and victim-rights groups insist that Kentucky and other states already do it right.

For legal experts, the tea leaves have never been harder to read. There is only one consensus: The conservative Supreme Court will not abolish the death penalty or outlaw lethal injection.

Outcome in question

The question is how far it will go in forcing states to fix perceived problems and whether the justices will specify what states must do to tinker with the drugs, training and medical safeguards such as monitoring inmates during executions. There is agreement that the Supreme Court must clear up a legal mess that has effectively created the first nationwide moratorium on executions since the early 1970s.

"It's very difficult to know whether this court is going to limit itself," said Elisabeth Semel, head of the University of California-Berkeley's Boalt Hall School of Law Death Penalty Clinic. As for her prediction, Semel admits: "It depends on which day of the week it is or which brief I've just read."

The Supreme Court stepped into the issue in the fall after several years of proliferating legal challenges to lethal injection, all centered on whether the three-drug combination used in most executions exposes inmates to the risk of cruel and unusual punishment. Critics argue that the combination of drugs can mask an inmate's suffering.

Conflicting rulings

Courts throughout the country have issued conflicting rulings, with some states, including California, putting executions on hold. The Kentucky case reached the high court after that state's Supreme Court upheld Kentucky's lethal injection procedures, opening the door for the justices to tackle the issue.

The outcome will have a direct impact on California, where U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel in San Jose put executions on hold in 2006, concluding that the state's execution process is "broken."

California officials have attempted to address Fogel's concerns, including constructing a new execution chamber at San Quentin.

Twenty states and the federal government, which also uses lethal injection, urged the justices to simply find that Kentucky's method passes legal muster, and not micromanage the states. California did not sign onto the brief, but the argument was similar to what the state has argued in the case before Fogel brought by death row inmate Michael Morales. Fogel has put that case on hold.

"The national consensus could not be more clear: Measured by the conduct of state governments, the American people overwhelmingly accept lethal injection by protocol similar or identical to that of Kentucky," the states wrote. "The court should conclude that Kentucky's lethal injection protocol is entirely consistent with modern standards of morality."

Lawyers for death row inmates agree that Kentucky's procedure is similar to other states, but they argue that's why the Supreme Court has to correct widespread flaws.

In one brief filed on behalf of four death row inmates, including Morales, lethal injection critics say states have "turned a blind eye" to the risks of improperly administering the drugs. "The result," they wrote, "has been botched executions that are entirely predictable and preventable."

Medical standards

In another brief, the American Society of Anesthesiologists insisted the current three-drug combination can never meet accepted medical standards, while a group of veterinarians stressed that the drugs do not even meet the standards for putting animals to death.

But legal experts doubt the justices will get too specific about the chemistry involved in executions. Instead, the Supreme Court is expected to give all the judges struggling with these challenges some guidance - and leave it to the states to come up with death chamber solutions.

Experts say if the justices leave it to the states, there is sure to be more litigation in the future.

"Avoiding true clarity may be the only way they get a majority opinion," said Douglas Berman, an Ohio State University law professor. "I think there will be a 'clearish' standard for lower courts to apply, but that doesn't make things easy. The devil will still be in the details."

"Avoiding true clarity may be the only way they get a majority opinion," said Douglas Berman, an Ohio State University law professor. "I think there will be a 'clearish' standard for lower courts to apply, but that doesn't make things easy. The devil will still be in the details."


That's the way it's supposed to be; in fact, that's the way it already it. Nothing 'cruel and unusual'. A vague description is still better than completely legislating from the bench, however. Could you imagine if they actually named specific drugs, dosages, etc? That would be waaaay too much for me to be comfortable with.

States should simply legalize the use of Nitrogen asphyxiation for executions. Then the "cruel and unusual punishment" people can STFU and go do something else.

It is physically impossible to botch a Nitrogen asphyxiation execution. OK maybe it is possible, but you you would really have to be an idiot to botch it. You basically just pump pure nitrogen into a room until the prisoner is dead.

Killing with kindness - capital punishment by nitrogen asphyxiation (new window)

Nitrogen asphyxiation is a unique way to die. The victim is not racked by a choking sensation or a burning urge to breathe, because as far as his body knows, he is breathing normally. Carbon dioxide is not building up in his bloodstream, so he never realizes that anything is wrong, nor does he experience any discomfort; he simply passes out when his blood oxygen falls too low.

Nitrogen asphyxiation is therefore a perfect method of execution. It uses a cheap and universally available working medium that requires no special environmental precautions for its storage and disposal. Its first symptom is loss of conscious sensation, a primary goal in a humane execution. It involves no physical trauma, no toxic drugs; the executed man's organs will even be suitable for donation, a factor cited in a recent stay of execution for a Georgia killer.

Assuming that the prisoner's guilt has been sufficiently proved, nitrogen asphyxiation is perhaps the most gentle way to deal with him. A condemned man awaiting death by nitrogen asphyxiation would experience no more pain or suffering than he created in his own mind.

so that means us U.S. Americans will finally have a map that The Iraqs and The China will have?

I believe!

My state doesn't need a road map for anything, thanks though.

/would say the same if I didn't live in Texas

Crosshair: States should simply legalize the use of Nitrogen asphyxiation for executions. Then the "cruel and unusual punishment" people can STFU and go do something else.

Not really, given that the American death penalty itself is now most definitely unusual in the first world. Unique, in fact.

I wonder if subby is aware of the fact that the clerks of S.C. justices are the brightest of the bright recent graduates of the very best law schools. THEY do the detail work.


Not that reality should intrude upon a headline on Fark or anything.

Gavino: Not really, given that the American death penalty itself is now most definitely unusual in the first world. Unique, in fact.

They said the same thing about our Representative Democracy. No one else is doing it, it must be wrong!

The United States Surpreme Court may devise a road map for states on lethal injections.
Man, that's a really crummy vacation. For some reason this headline gave me the image of the whole family piling into the station wagon on some sort of disgusting road trip.
"...And this kids is the Stateville Correctional Center, where John Wayne Gacy was executed. He used to perform as a clown at block parties. He would pick up young men and then kill them. Then he buried them in the crawlspace. Nine of them were so decomposed when discovered they have yet to be identified.
Your Grandpa actually worked with him back at the box fan factory. What was a he like Dad?"

Gavino: Not really, given that the American death penalty itself is now most definitely unusual in the first world. Unique, in fact.

Better read that 8th amendment again there.

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Note the presence of AND and not OR. You can certainly have unusual punishments as long as they aren't excessively cruel. All punishments are cruel by their nature so we HAVE to go by degree and not by black and white. If a punishment wasn't cruel to a degree then there would be no point of carrying out the punishment. So we have to find the balance of cruelty that the society finds acceptable.

As for the rest of the world, it isn't unique when you look at it. The only difference between life without parole and the death penalty is that the state simply uses time as the execution method rather than hanging, firing squad or whatever. Nobody has to do anything but keep the prisoner locked up so it gives the illusion of being more humane. By the time the prisoner dies people have forgotten about him and few really care.

I don't really under stand why people protest the execution of people like Timothy McVeigh. Probably because you can't go and protest against death on behalf of people who got life without parole.

There is no "humane" method to end a life.

Smash their heads with a pile driver. Its fast, almost painless, and people can make bets on how far brain matter will splatter.

Crosshair: Gavino: Not really, given that the American death penalty itself is now most definitely unusual in the first world. Unique, in fact.

Better read that 8th amendment again there.

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Note the presence of AND and not OR. You can certainly have unusual punishments as long as they aren't excessively cruel. All punishments are cruel by their nature so we HAVE to go by degree and not by black and white. If a punishment wasn't cruel to a degree then there would be no point of carrying out the punishment. So we have to find the balance of cruelty that the society finds acceptable.

As for the rest of the world, it isn't unique when you look at it. The only difference between life without parole and the death penalty is that the state simply uses time as the execution method rather than hanging, firing squad or whatever. Nobody has to do anything but keep the prisoner locked up so it gives the illusion of being more humane. By the time the prisoner dies people have forgotten about him and few really care.

I don't really under stand why people protest the execution of people like Timothy McVeigh. Probably because you can't go and protest against death on behalf of people who got life without parole.

Execution is a bit final. There is always a chance for new evidence to be uncovered and the verdict to be overturned with a life in jail.

It happened in Canada recently, a man who served over 40 years in jail was freed.

DirtyDeadGhostofEbenezerCooke: Garmin Needledrive - $399 at Best Buy

Damn! I've only got $20 left on my gift card.

Shaggy_C: Gavino: Not really, given that the American death penalty itself is now most definitely unusual in the first world. Unique, in fact.

They said the same thing about our Representative Democracy. No one else is doing it, it must be wrong!

Actually, they were reqired to study history in those days, so most of them were thinking more along the lines of "crap, I know where this is going. Think they'll leave us alone if we cede our own imperial territories in the western hemisphere?"

//Rome. It was... kind of a big deal.

Bored Horde: Execution is a bit final. There is always a chance for new evidence to be uncovered and the verdict to be overturned with a life in jail.

It happened in Canada recently, a man who served over 40 years in jail was freed.

You can look at that as only a partial execution. Those 40 years lost are final and non-refundable. 40 freaking years? The only thing the he has to look forward to is old age, though he probably will get a large payout. Starting your life over after 40 years in the clink isn't exactly a good or nice thing to do.

Again, as I said before, life without parole only gives the illusion of being more humane with the slight bonus that police farkups will be slightly more readily discovered.

Crosshair:
The only difference between life without parole and the death penalty is that the state simply uses time as the execution method rather than hanging, firing squad or whatever.

This is, by far, the most retarded analysis of the Capital Punishment debate that I have EVER heard.

The only difference between life and death is time. Wow. There is oversimplification, and then there is Crosshair.

Crosshair
Nobody has to do anything but keep the prisoner locked up so it gives the illusion of being more humane.

You're calling the idea that it's more humane to allow a prisoner to live out their natural lifespan rather than being killed by the state an illusion? It might not seem so illusory if you were one of the people the government has decided to kill.

Crosshair: It is physically impossible to botch a Nitrogen asphyxiation execution. OK maybe it is possible, but you you would really have to be an idiot to botch it. You basically just pump pure nitrogen into a room until the prisoner is dead.

Better than Zyklon B?

/would rather not be gassing people

Gavino: Not really, given that the American death penalty itself is now most definitely unusual in the first world. Unique, in fact.

You don't consider Japan "first world"? They have 107 people on death row and the last three executions were in early December.

mrexcess: You're calling the idea that it's more humane to allow a prisoner to live out their natural lifespan rather than being killed by the state an illusion? It might not seem so illusory if you were one of the people the government has decided to kill.

If such an event were to happen, I would be dead either way. As I said before people have this fantasy that locking up someone in a small cell for 60 years until they die of natural causes is more humane that just offing them. Fundamentally they are the same as they have the same end effect, the prisoner is permanently removed from a society.

If a government really wants someone "eliminated" they don't really care either way. A good example is the Branch Dividians At Waco, TX. 5 of the surviving defendants were found guilty of "aiding and abetting voluntary manslaughter". This carried a 10 year sentence. However the judge at sentencing tacked on another 30 year sentence for the possession of illegal machine guns, despite being found not-guilty on this charge. This also meant that they were to be placed in higher security prisons with greater restrictions plced upon them.

In 2000 the sentence of these 5 was cut in half by a higher court. Still, these people were effectively "eliminated" by the government wishing to cover their very big farkup at Waco. I'm not saying Koresh was a perfect guy, just that the government did its best to cover their ass on behalf of THEIR screwups. If this meant jailing a few people for 40 years to effectively silence them, that was fine by them.

Alien Robot: Gavino: Not really, given that the American death penalty itself is now most definitely unusual in the first world. Unique, in fact.

You don't consider Japan "first world"? They have 107 people on death row and the last three executions were in early December.

Well I didn't know that, though the reinstatement was recent. Must be OK then if the Japanese do it.