If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Big Story)   NEWS: Attorney of death row inmate executed last week suspended and under investigation. FARK: Guards say attorney coached client to "make a show of his death"   (bigstory.ap.org) divider line 221
    More: Followup, death row, Ohio, convicts, OPD, The Columbus Dispatch, point guards  
•       •       •

8937 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Jan 2014 at 12:22 PM (42 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



221 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-28 01:57:18 PM  

jshine: cig-mkr: Who cares that he suffered? I'm fairly sure he wasn't concerned about cruel and unusual when he was raping and killing that girl. Think about what horrors the girl was going through during the ordeal. And the bastard lived decades after he killed her. No sympathy for him.


Ideally, there should be something to separate us (acting collectively through the State) from the criminals we punish.  If we are just as bloodthirsty and willing to torture or kill as the people we are punishing, then what is it that separates them from us?  Right from Wrong?  Aside from superior fire-power, that is...

That's probably one of the reasons why the Founding Fathers wrote the "cruel & unusual" punishment prohibition into the Bill of Rights -- along with freedom of speech and the right to bear arms.


I don't believe in cruel and unusual either, but I'm willing to bet that there are people willing to pull the lever at a hanging or volunteer for the firing squad. Did they eliminate the firing squad / hanging because it was cruel and unusual ? I remember one time a lawyer said they couldn't hang a guy because he was too fat and his head would pop off. Don't remember the ruling.
 
2014-01-28 01:58:47 PM  

skozlaw: Yes, that's how arguments work. If you make a claim, it's your job to support it.


I only need to support the claims you find disagreeable or aren't common knowledge.  You actually didn't know these drugs were the same ones used in surgery and you were too stupid/lazy to google it yourself?  WTF do you think they use?  Just some random crap they find left over in a factory somewhere?

skozlaw: If you refuse to support it, it is fair for everyone else to write it off without any further consideration. You are obligated to support your own arguments, everybody else is not obligated to seek support for them.


I don't refuse to support it.  I simply want to mock your laziness in the process.  It would have taken you 2 minutes of googling to figure it out yourself.  This is a clear demonstration of your active ignorance.  You are actually attempting to remain ignorant rather than learn to figure things out for yourself.

Ohio officials used intravenous doses of two drugs, the sedative midazolam and the painkiller hydromorphone

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/16/dennis-mcguire-execution_n_ 46 10582.html

Midazolam is used to produce sleepiness or drowsiness and to relieve anxiety before surgery or certain procedures. Midazolam is also given to produce amnesia (loss of memory) so that the patient will not remember any discomfort or undesirable effects that may occur after a surgery or procedure . It is also used to produce loss of consciousness before and during surgery.

http://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/midazolam-injection-rout e/ description/drg-20064813

Hydromorphone belongs to the group of medicines called narcotic analgesics, which are medicines used to relieve pain

http://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/hydromorphone-injection- ro ute/description/drg-20074244

Dipshiat, that took me less than 2 minutes.  It's not actually about the 2 minutes and who spent what.  It's more about you actively decided to not pursue the truth.  That's ignorance and you should feel bad about yourself for it.
 
2014-01-28 01:58:54 PM  

CalvinMorallis: It goes to the heart of why we execute criminals in the first place, though. Capital punishment is supposed to be a deterrent, not punishment for punishment's sake.


Nice theory but death penalty supporters enjoy the idea inflicting pain and suffering. It's part of the authoritarian mindset.

Simply look up-thread at all the detailed, cruel fantasies
 
2014-01-28 01:58:56 PM  

orbister: CalvinMorallis: It goes to the heart of why we execute criminals in the first place, though.  Capital punishment is supposed to be a deterrent, not punishment for punishment's sake.  Now, granted, I've never been killed, so I can't say this with ABSOLUTE certainty, but dying, period, is all the deterrent I need to never commit a capital offense.

If someone given the death penalty is guilty (as opposed simply to being poor and black) then deterrence has, by definition, failed.


You can't deter someone from doing what they've already done.  That doesn't even make sense to argue.

I'm speaking of deterrence in two different senses: 1) for the general population--other, non-murdery people will think "Oh, shiat, I better not murder anyone or they'll kill me"; and 2) for the perpetrator himself--make the punishment severe enough that he won't commit the crime again.  And for some people, and some crimes so severe, the thinking is that you absolutely can't safely assume any deterrence will work, save absolute prevention--that's where capital sentences come into play.
 
2014-01-28 01:59:55 PM  

cig-mkr: jshine: cig-mkr: Who cares that he suffered? I'm fairly sure he wasn't concerned about cruel and unusual when he was raping and killing that girl. Think about what horrors the girl was going through during the ordeal. And the bastard lived decades after he killed her. No sympathy for him.


Ideally, there should be something to separate us (acting collectively through the State) from the criminals we punish.  If we are just as bloodthirsty and willing to torture or kill as the people we are punishing, then what is it that separates them from us?  Right from Wrong?  Aside from superior fire-power, that is...

That's probably one of the reasons why the Founding Fathers wrote the "cruel & unusual" punishment prohibition into the Bill of Rights -- along with freedom of speech and the right to bear arms.

I don't believe in cruel and unusual either, but I'm willing to bet that there are people willing to pull the lever at a hanging or volunteer for the firing squad. Did they eliminate the firing squad / hanging because it was cruel and unusual ? I remember one time a lawyer said they couldn't hang a guy because he was too fat and his head would pop off. Don't remember the ruling.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchell_Rupe
 
2014-01-28 02:02:01 PM  
Why don't we bring back firing squads?

No, seriously.

No arguing about drug cocktails and troubles with imports.  A high-powered rifle round will travel through the cranium faster than the nerve impulses in the brain, the trauma would destroy the brain before there was even conscious recognition of damage, they'll never even know they were dead.  Hard to be cruel when they die so fast they never even can realize they are being executed.

Is it that we try to make it clinical, medical, scientific?  We want our executions neat and clean and orderly.  Death isn't like that.
 
2014-01-28 02:04:46 PM  

cig-mkr: I remember one time a lawyer said they couldn't hang a guy because he was too fat and his head would pop off. Don't remember the ruling.


Ah, yes, the pregnant Jane Doe v. Dandelion case.  I remember it well.
 
2014-01-28 02:04:55 PM  

gja: Last I checked Max/Super-max incarceration if exorbitantly expensive for us taxpayers.


It is, but the death penalty is far MORE expensive. Because not only are you paying for the prisons, you have to pay for an army of lawyers on top of it because of all the mandatory appeals, which we have because innocent people keep getting executed.
 
2014-01-28 02:05:04 PM  

gja: Magorn: dittybopper: Magorn: It serves no financial, or legal, or even deterrent purpose, and is nothing more than revenge.

It does do one thing really well:  It prevents the person from ever committing another heinous crime.

which can be accomplished just as well, and for far less money, if you merely imprison the person for the rest of his life too

But if they are unapologetic, unprepentant, remorseless, and intent hurting others and on doing so at any possible chance, jail just contains the problem to smaller confines. Why should the poor asshole who stupidly smuggled drugs but never really committed a violent crime have to get thrown in with the guy whos' answer to "Why did you kill everyone in the house?" is "They were home".

And why should society pay for all this? Last I checked Max/Super-max incarceration if exorbitantly expensive for us taxpayers.


Nowhere near as expensive as a death penalty case.  Seriously.  The numbers don't lie.  Executing a prisoner is roughly double what keeping him locked up for the rest of his life costs.  Why? Because, and I think you as a decent person would agree with this, we have to be absolutely certain that the accused is guilty*, got the fairest trial possible, and truly deserves the death penalty (that there are no hidden mitigating factors, mental illness etc).   That takes time, it takes extensive appeals, expensive specialty lawyers etc.  When it is all added up, it costs more than simply putting them in jail for life.


So why do we persist in a death penalty? IMHO because we are desperately trying to feed an illusion most of us NEED to get through the day.  We need to believe that there is some form of justice, either in this world or the next, depending on your philosophical outlook.  The reason we keep the death penalty is the same reason so many religions have invented a concept of hell.  The idea that bad people could do bad things and face no retribution equal to the evil they did is simply unacceptable to our innate, if childish notions of fair play.

But the awful truth is that the world is an ugly, messy, and wildly unjust  place and killing the occasional random murderer won;t change that.  Why does THIS guy deserve to die, when say Jeffery Dahmer who murdered and then ate his victims not?  What makes him worse than a rapist who chopped off his victim's arms and cut out her tongue so she couldn't ID him?  Not only was he not executed (not eligible since no murder) but he's actually out of jail a free man now.  IS this guy worse than say, Sammy "the Bull" Graviano or Whitey Bulger who murdered dozens of people and not only weren't executed but actively protected by law enforcement?

*(and  unless you've worked crim law, you'd probably be shocked to learn how unreliable most "definitive" evidence really is. Eyewitnesses?  Ridiculously unreliable. Signed confession?  Even if they didn't beat it out of the subject, the instance of "false confession syndrome" where a determined interrogator can convince an innocent person they actually DID commit a crime is shockingly high.   "hair and Fiber Matching"?  Junk science.   Fingerprint "matching"? With Zero standards for what constitutes a "match" completely unreliable.  Even DNA is really on reliable to rule a suspect out, not in.)
 
2014-01-28 02:05:13 PM  

moike: lennavan: I swear everyone involved here is stupid.

To the anti-death penalty people - The drugs used are the same ones used during surgery.  10 minutes in he wasn't struggling for breath, he was unconscious.  When a brain dead person on life support makes an audible gasp or something like it, the doctors explain it's a reflex, not a conscious breath.  So no, this guy making a noise 10 minutes later doesn't mean he suffocated to death.  He didn't suffer, he had the same medications surgery patients get.  He died quite peacefully.

To the pro-death penalty people - The drugs used are the same ones used during surgery.  10 minutes in he wasn't acting, he was unconscious.  When a brain dead person on life support makes an audible gasp or something like it, the doctors explain it's a reflex, not a conscious breath.  So no, this guy making a noise 10 minutes later doesn't mean he was acting.

For farks sake people.  Lots of reasons to be pro or anti death penalty.  But stop making shiat up.

The first time I read the story of him gasping for breath so long after the drugs were administered I just assumed it was reflex.  I've seen enough videos on LiveLeak of the exact same type of reflex...  And in some of those videos the majority of the brain of the featured individual was several feet from the body so there was no question that they were quite dead.   But what remained of the body was still running on autopilot and attempting to gasp for breath.

As far as capital punishment goes I don't understand why someone who raped and murdered a pregnant newlywed does not get tossed feet first into a wood chipper minutes after the gavel bangs with a guilty conviction.


I'm all for capital punishment and I find a particular disgust for people worried about making sure a guy who anally raped and stabbed a pregnant lady to death doesn't feel any pain.  But holy shiat, this is not that example.  This guy went more peacefully than anyone not being executed ever will.  He died ODing on a surgical sedative, while high on morphine.  That's supposed to be considered inhumane.  For a guy who stabbed a pregnant lady to death after he raped her anally because she was so pregnant, the vaginal route was difficult to get to.

McGuire sought sex from Joy Stewart but she refused and he raped her. According to court documents, McGuire said that "because she was so pregnant it was difficult to engage in sex with her, so he anally sodomized her. Joy then became 'hysterical,' which made McGuire nervous. He ended up killing Joy for fear that he would go to jail for raping a pregnant woman."

We are arguing about whether or not high on morphine ODing on surgical sedative is human enough for this guy.  It's farking sick.  Be against the death penalty.  But this is not the case to hang your hat on.
 
2014-01-28 02:06:07 PM  

jaytkay: CalvinMorallis: It goes to the heart of why we execute criminals in the first place, though. Capital punishment is supposed to be a deterrent, not punishment for punishment's sake.

Nice theory but death penalty supporters enjoy the idea inflicting pain and suffering. It's part of the authoritarian mindset.

Simply look up-thread at all the detailed, cruel fantasies


Mine is detailed, but I don't think cruel.  In fact, it's as painless and quick as it could possibly be.

/Not really a fantasy, either.
 
2014-01-28 02:06:12 PM  

lennavan: moike:

We are arguing about whether or not high on morphine ODing on surgical sedative is human enough for this guy.  It's farking sick.  Be against the death penalty.  But this is not the case to hang your hat on.


Whoops, by the way this wasn't meant to be targeted at you or anything.  More agreeing and discussing with you.
 
2014-01-28 02:06:24 PM  

dittybopper: CrazyCracka420: I tend to think this would be the most humane way to go (if done correctly):

Head lives on for a long-ish time.  There is evidence of conscious action of a severed head from a guillotine for up to 20 seconds or so, and the amount of time the severed head can still perceive their surroundings is likely to be even longer.


Guess I didn't realize that.  I just thought if you got decapped close to your brain stem it was an instant death.  I'd also have thought that would cut off any sensory perceptions (like sight).

I'm sure there are actually humane ways to kill someone, our lethal injections don't really seem to fit that bill however (from the accounts I've read about). 

Silverstaff: Why don't we bring back firing squads?

No, seriously.

No arguing about drug cocktails and troubles with imports.  A high-powered rifle round will travel through the cranium faster than the nerve impulses in the brain, the trauma would destroy the brain before there was even conscious recognition of damage, they'll never even know they were dead.  Hard to be cruel when they die so fast they never even can realize they are being executed.

Is it that we try to make it clinical, medical, scientific?  We want our executions neat and clean and orderly.  Death isn't like that.


That's pretty much what I was going for with the decapitation.  But I don't know how accurate it really is (if it's a quick and clean death, even if done perfectly).   I imagine there's ways we can completely knock a person out with gas, and then stop their breathing or heart functions while they stay knocked out.  Or like others have said, when we put animals to sleep, they are out very peacefully and very quickly (I've seen it happen to two of my pets).  At least I assume it's peaceful based on their reactions.  Just looks like they are going to sleep.
 
2014-01-28 02:08:01 PM  

lennavan: That's ignorance and you should feel bad about yourself for it.


You seem to have a certain knack for missing the point, don't you? I already knew what you were talking about, that's why I simply mocked your hypocrisy before moving on to the factual inaccuracy of the statements. What I know isn't relevant, however, since your original comment wasn't directed at me, but at the thread as a whole. It's not that I needed you to tell me that, it's that you had the gall to make those unsupported claims, directed at everyone, while claiming the same "everyone" was just making things up on their own.

And since you finally decided to look up some evidence for those claims, was it really that hard? I mean, not counting all the effort you put into surrounding the links with all those childish insults.

I also assume, since you didn't bother responding to it, that you've accepted the fact that your claims about the drugs' suitability for execution are not supportable solely based on their suitability for sedating medical patients?
 
2014-01-28 02:08:10 PM  
Silverstaff: Why don't we bring back firing squads?

No, seriously.

No arguing about drug cocktails and troubles with imports.  A high-powered rifle round will travel through the cranium faster than the nerve impulses in the brain, the trauma would destroy the brain before there was even conscious recognition of damage, they'll never even know they were dead.  Hard to be cruel when they die so fast they never even can realize they are being executed.

Is it that we try to make it clinical, medical, scientific?  We want our executions neat and clean and orderly.  Death isn't like that.


Long drop hanging, severs the brain stem between the base of the skull and C1, out like a light switch before you know you hit the bottom.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-01-28 02:10:24 PM  

jaytkay: CalvinMorallis: It goes to the heart of why we execute criminals in the first place, though. Capital punishment is supposed to be a deterrent, not punishment for punishment's sake.

Nice theory but death penalty supporters enjoy the idea inflicting pain and suffering. It's part of the authoritarian mindset.

Simply look up-thread at all the detailed, cruel fantasies


So, "you people are all the same" argument?
Nice bigotry and generalization.

I support it, in a very limited sense. Reserved for only those who are as I have described in prior posts.
 
2014-01-28 02:11:38 PM  

dittybopper: Mine is detailed, but I don't think cruel. In fact, it's as painless and quick as it could possibly be.

/Not really a fantasy, either.


You daydream about killing people. Think about that.
 
2014-01-28 02:12:15 PM  
From the full article: "McQuire said that he understood Lowe as saying "if he started to choke or jerk in any way" the governor would put a stop to the execution." What? I thought the condemned had their arms and hands strapped down. I can certainly understand him not wanting to put on a show if his daughter was present,however.
 
2014-01-28 02:13:35 PM  

skozlaw: You seem to have a certain knack for missing the point, don't you? I already knew what you were talking about, that's why I simply mocked your hypocrisy before moving on to the factual inaccuracy of the statements.


At this point, I have provided 3 citations to back my arguments.  You have provided 0.  Guess which one of us wrote:

Yes, that's how arguments work. If you make a claim, it's your job to support it. If you refuse to support it, it is fair for everyone else to write it off without any further consideration. You are obligated to support your own arguments, everybody else is not obligated to seek support for them.

SPOILER ALERT:  it was you!

skozlaw: And since you finally decided to look up some evidence for those claims, was it really that hard? I mean, not counting all the effort you put into surrounding the links with all those childish insults.


No, it really wasn't.  That's why it's so odd to me that you didn't bother to do it yourself.  Or that you still haven't bothered to cite a single one of your claims.  It's almost as if you're actively ignorant here.

You should feel bad about yourself.  Seriously.  If you felt bad about yourself, there would be hope for you.  Sadly, there is no hope for you.

skozlaw: I also assume, since you didn't bother responding to it, that you've accepted the fact that your claims about the drugs' suitability for execution are not supportable solely based on their suitability for sedating medical patients?


Wait, you want a citation now that the guy died?
 
2014-01-28 02:13:45 PM  
Catch-22.  The only way he could fake a struggle is if the drugs weren't suitable for an execution.
 
2014-01-28 02:14:19 PM  

walktoanarcade: cig-mkr: jshine: cig-mkr: Who cares that he suffered? I'm fairly sure he wasn't concerned about cruel and unusual when he was raping and killing that girl. Think about what horrors the girl was going through during the ordeal. And the bastard lived decades after he killed her. No sympathy for him.


Ideally, there should be something to separate us (acting collectively through the State) from the criminals we punish.  If we are just as bloodthirsty and willing to torture or kill as the people we are punishing, then what is it that separates them from us?  Right from Wrong?  Aside from superior fire-power, that is...

That's probably one of the reasons why the Founding Fathers wrote the "cruel & unusual" punishment prohibition into the Bill of Rights -- along with freedom of speech and the right to bear arms.

I don't believe in cruel and unusual either, but I'm willing to bet that there are people willing to pull the lever at a hanging or volunteer for the firing squad. Did they eliminate the firing squad / hanging because it was cruel and unusual ? I remember one time a lawyer said they couldn't hang a guy because he was too fat and his head would pop off. Don't remember the ruling.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchell_Rupe


Thank you for that didn't realize it was 20 years ago.
 
2014-01-28 02:21:23 PM  
McGuire was completely f*cking unconscious. He didn't feel pain, he didn't make a scene, it just took a while for him to die.
 
2014-01-28 02:23:29 PM  

cptjeff: gja: Last I checked Max/Super-max incarceration if exorbitantly expensive for us taxpayers.

It is, but the death penalty is far MORE expensive. Because not only are you paying for the prisons, you have to pay for an army of lawyers on top of it because of all the mandatory appeals, which we have because innocent people keep getting executed.


Not to worry.  It'll get cheaper when we offshore it.
 
2014-01-28 02:24:02 PM  

dittybopper: client


The attorney-client privilege protects the client, not the attorney.
 
2014-01-28 02:24:21 PM  

Oldiron_79: Silverstaff: Why don't we bring back firing squads?

No, seriously.

No arguing about drug cocktails and troubles with imports.  A high-powered rifle round will travel through the cranium faster than the nerve impulses in the brain, the trauma would destroy the brain before there was even conscious recognition of damage, they'll never even know they were dead.  Hard to be cruel when they die so fast they never even can realize they are being executed.

Is it that we try to make it clinical, medical, scientific?  We want our executions neat and clean and orderly.  Death isn't like that.

Long drop hanging, severs the brain stem between the base of the skull and C1, out like a light switch before you know you hit the bottom.


The only cruel and stressful part about hanging, head chopping, or even firing squad is the thoughts of "oh shiat i'm about to be killed".

My solution? After the lengthy process of appeals (there are no do-overs when someone is dead, gotta make 100% sure you've got the right guy) is complete, have the equivalent of ceiling cat open a tile and laser aim a small/medium caliber rifle/pistol at the head and shoot 'em in the middle of the night when they are asleep.  Be nice to the other prisoners and use something sub-sonic so it can be properly suppressed.  230grn 45 slug moving at 850 fps, use a single shot or a bolt gun so there is no gas escape and no noise once a *good* suppressor is fitted.

No notice of "sorry, appeals are up, you have a week".  That is a weeks worth of stress and anxiety out of the way.  No notice of "last meal, you got an hour".  Just "oh, another day in prison waiting to find out..." and then *pfft* in the middle of the night, call the medical examiner/mortician/funeral home in the morning.
 
2014-01-28 02:25:33 PM  

cig-mkr: walktoanarcade: cig-mkr: jshine: cig-mkr: Who cares that he suffered? I'm fairly sure he wasn't concerned about cruel and unusual when he was raping and killing that girl. Think about what horrors the girl was going through during the ordeal. And the bastard lived decades after he killed her. No sympathy for him.


Ideally, there should be something to separate us (acting collectively through the State) from the criminals we punish.  If we are just as bloodthirsty and willing to torture or kill as the people we are punishing, then what is it that separates them from us?  Right from Wrong?  Aside from superior fire-power, that is...

That's probably one of the reasons why the Founding Fathers wrote the "cruel & unusual" punishment prohibition into the Bill of Rights -- along with freedom of speech and the right to bear arms.

I don't believe in cruel and unusual either, but I'm willing to bet that there are people willing to pull the lever at a hanging or volunteer for the firing squad. Did they eliminate the firing squad / hanging because it was cruel and unusual ? I remember one time a lawyer said they couldn't hang a guy because he was too fat and his head would pop off. Don't remember the ruling.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchell_Rupe

Thank you for that didn't realize it was 20 years ago.


You're welcome, and yeah, wow time flies. Sometimes when I look at a video game from 1994 my brain still classifies it as "newish."
 
2014-01-28 02:26:43 PM  
i42.photobucket.com
 
2014-01-28 02:32:32 PM  

dittybopper: CalvinMorallis: Capital punishment is supposed to be a deterrent, not punishment for punishment's sake.

No, it isn't.

The purpose of any punishment isn't to deter, per se.  The honest and moral people don't need such things to keep them on the straight and narrow, and the people that are liable to commit crimes generally don't think about the potential consequences of their actions in the first place.

Certainly, there is very little evidence that increased penalties lower crime rates via deterrence, and some evidence that they lower crime rates by removing those people who are predisposed to commit crimes from society for a longer period.

The purpose of all legal punishments, as least as far as incarceration goes, is to remove a dangerous person from society.   We make some effort to "rehabilitate" those who we feel can be rehabilitated, and sometimes it actually works for non-violent criminals (but rarely for the really violent ones), but that's a secondary consideration.

I don't know where this idea that a prison sentence or the death penalty is supposed to be a deterrent came from, but no matter what you feel the answer is, it's the wrong question in the first place.

Violent criminals (the type that get the death penalty), almost by definition, have poor impulse control.  They live in the moment.  They might plan a crime, but they don't look towards the future consequences of getting caught, going to trial, and being convicted and punished.

They just don't think that far ahead.

So the idea of any particular set of legal punishments being a deterrent to that sort of person is simply laughable when you actually *THINK* about it.


You are only talking about violent criminals that get caught.

The ones that don't get caught may be a lot different than the ones that end up in prison.
 
2014-01-28 02:33:21 PM  
The context here is a lawsuit that the executed man's family is contemplating against the state of Ohio for violating his Eighth Amendment rights.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2014/01/17/lawsuit-fil ed -over-execution.html

Sounds to me as if someone in the state government is trying to influence the prospective jury pool.  I for one doubt that the condemned man was even conscious after the first drug, midazolam, was pumped into him, and I don't think that he could have made a show of anything even if he had wanted to.
 
2014-01-28 02:34:47 PM  

jaytkay: dittybopper: Mine is detailed, but I don't think cruel. In fact, it's as painless and quick as it could possibly be.

/Not really a fantasy, either.

You daydream about killing people. Think about that.


Hell, I think about all sorts of nefarious things.  *ALL* sorts of nefarious things.  And non-nefarious things, of course.

Doesn't mean anything, any more than it makes Stephen King a monster for using his imagination to come up with horrific novels.

And I don't *daydream*, I *THINK*.  Big difference.  In this case, at some time point years ago, my mind was set to thinking about efficient, painless ways of executing people.  Probably engendered by an online discussion such as this.  So I bounced a few ideas around in my head, did a little research as an intellectual exercise, and came up with the 'implode the head' method as the most humane possible method for the person being executed.

It's not like I salivate at the thought of setting such a thing off myself.  It's just given the parameters (a person to be executed), and the limitations imposed by society and the law (mustn't be cruel to the person being executed), I found a more optimal solution to the problem.
 
2014-01-28 02:41:51 PM  

mcreadyblue: You are only talking about violent criminals that get caught.

The ones that don't get caught may be a lot different than the ones that end up in prison.


Generally, they mostly get caught.  The violent criminal who never gets caught has to be a very, very small fraction.

How do we know that?

Well, take murder:  Something like 75 to 90% of the people arrested on murder charges have an adult felony arrest record*.  The percent with juvenile arrests would probably push that over 90%, but those records are sealed and unavailable once the person is an adult.

They may not get immediately arrested for every crime they commit, but a person who is consistently violent is usually going to get caught at some point.


*Interestingly, so do most homicide victims.  The sort of people killing and dying on our streets are atypical of society in general
 
2014-01-28 02:43:11 PM  

dittybopper: And I don't *daydream*, I *THINK*. Big difference. In this case, at some time point years ago, my mind was set to thinking about efficient, painless ways of executing people. Probably engendered by an online discussion such as this. So I bounced a few ideas around in my head, did a little research as an intellectual exercise, and came up with the 'implode the head' method as the most humane possible method for the person being executed.


Like you said though, implode the head is messy and doesn't allow for open casket funerals and whatnot.    Honestly, this current method of execution is amazingly humane.  You're not ever going to get better, there really is no better way to go.  He was not clinically dead for 15 minutes doesn't mean he was in pain for 15 minutes or suffering for 15 minutes.  He was passed out, head in the clouds, high on morphine.

The only reason this method of execution remains argued about is because if we all agree it is humane, that's one significant method of arguing against the constitutionality of the death penalty gone.  It's like pro-life people saying abortion clinics should keep up to hospital level standards.  They don't actually think that's necessary, but they'll pretend to think whatever you want if it gets them their way.
 
2014-01-28 02:48:01 PM  
"He wants me to put on this big show in front of my kids, all right when I'm dying!" McGuire is reported as having told one guard. "I ain't gonna do this. It's about me and my kids, not him and his cause!"

I wonder if the raped pregnant woman was thinking this too as he murdered her. But no, he had to have his cause .getting off on raping someone and then killing her to hide the fact, or out of pure sickness.

People sort of don't care about the suffering of POSs like this guy.
 
2014-01-28 02:56:11 PM  

Prof. Frink: zimbomba63: In the course of my duties, I discovered evidence of bribery and turned the said evidence over to the proper authorities, which lead to the disbarment of an attorney who was a buddy/pal of the then governor of my state.  That gave me a warm, tingly feeling all over.

That was the taser.


Oh, I guess that's why I woke up on the ground and bourbon wasn't involved.
 
2014-01-28 02:57:43 PM  

lennavan: Like you said though, implode the head is messy and doesn't allow for open casket funerals and whatnot.


Well, yes.  And I certainly wouldn't want to be the guy who has to clean up afterwards.
 
2014-01-28 03:09:52 PM  

zimbomba63: I find it odd that, where ethical suicide is allowed, they give the patient an overdose of barbiturates and they simply nod off, with their families around them.  But, when the same is done to these scumbags, it's inhumane torture.  Garbage like this needs to go, I don't care if it's a bullet to the back of the head.


I'm all for that. Except use one of these. There's not a chance of it not killing them.  There's nothing left above the neck.

img.fark.net

When we removed my mom from life support the DRs waaay upped her morphine drip. There was some gasping for a few seconds, but it was far more peaceful than anyone who had a heart attack and far more than I'd give to a man who raped and murdered a pregnant woman.

\I wonder if the DRs upped her morphine to levels that ensure a quick death. If that's the case, good. I'll never ask. Cancer is a cast iron biatch.
\\These people are getting deaths far more painless than the vast majority of the population get.
\\\I hope the original cocktail provider feels better that they're giving people more painful deaths because of their morals because they're not stopping any executions
 
2014-01-28 03:22:52 PM  

lennavan: At this point, I have provided 3 citations to back my arguments


No, you didn't. Not one of those links attested to the efficacy of that drug cocktail for the purposes of execution. You've gotten yourself so twisted up in your own bullshiat you don't even know what we're talking about anymore. Maybe next time it would be in your interest to spend less time exercising your brain on inane insults and a little more time following the thread of the discussion.

lennavan: Wait, you want a citation now that the guy died?


I suppose you think that was very clever, hm?
 
2014-01-28 03:34:34 PM  
It shouldn't take 25 years to kill someone. If we're gonna have a death penalty, then accept we will kill innocent people sometimes and get on with it. If that responsibility can't be accepted then, there should not be a death penalty.

/society should not be on the financial hook for criminals for decades and decades
 
2014-01-28 03:42:47 PM  
Strangely unmoved. I wonder how long that fetus gasped for breath once it's mother died. I hope his death was as cruel as possible. It's not a deterrent; it's a punishment, and the ultimate deterrent to recidivism.
 
2014-01-28 03:47:38 PM  

i.r.id10t: Oldiron_79: Silverstaff: Why don't we bring back firing squads?

No, seriously.

No arguing about drug cocktails and troubles with imports.  A high-powered rifle round will travel through the cranium faster than the nerve impulses in the brain, the trauma would destroy the brain before there was even conscious recognition of damage, they'll never even know they were dead.  Hard to be cruel when they die so fast they never even can realize they are being executed.

Is it that we try to make it clinical, medical, scientific?  We want our executions neat and clean and orderly.  Death isn't like that.

Long drop hanging, severs the brain stem between the base of the skull and C1, out like a light switch before you know you hit the bottom.

The only cruel and stressful part about hanging, head chopping, or even firing squad is the thoughts of "oh shiat i'm about to be killed".

My solution? After the lengthy process of appeals (there are no do-overs when someone is dead, gotta make 100% sure you've got the right guy) is complete, have the equivalent of ceiling cat open a tile and laser aim a small/medium caliber rifle/pistol at the head and shoot 'em in the middle of the night when they are asleep.  Be nice to the other prisoners and use something sub-sonic so it can be properly suppressed.  230grn 45 slug moving at 850 fps, use a single shot or a bolt gun so there is no gas escape and no noise once a *good* suppressor is fitted.

No notice of "sorry, appeals are up, you have a week".  That is a weeks worth of stress and anxiety out of the way.  No notice of "last meal, you got an hour".  Just "oh, another day in prison waiting to find out..." and then *pfft* in the middle of the night, call the medical examiner/mortician/funeral home in the morning.


Thats not too dissimilar to execution method in Russia before they did away with it. The death row cells had solid doors and one day when your food tray slot opened a pistol barrel came through instead of a food tray.
 
2014-01-28 03:48:08 PM  

NickelP: I keep asking this and not getting an answer.  When you take your pet to the vet it takes about 15 seconds and they die with a smile and don't seem uncomfortable at all.  It took this dude 20 minutes+ to suffocate.  What are they teaching at vet school that these folks are ignoring?


From what I remember from another fark thread, the vet folks have access to better drugs, because the companies making them won't supply it to prisons.
 
2014-01-28 03:55:11 PM  
PsiChick:
From what I remember from another fark thread, the vet folks have access to better drugs, because the companies making them won't supply it to prisons.

Can't say I blame them one bit.  What sporadic amounts prisons would order now and the don't even come close to comparing to the potential liability.  One "botched" execution and the ACLU has its lawyers pointed right at you.  For what?  A customer a few times a year?  Not worth it.
 
2014-01-28 04:04:16 PM  

nekom: PsiChick:
From what I remember from another fark thread, the vet folks have access to better drugs, because the companies making them won't supply it to prisons.

Can't say I blame them one bit.  What sporadic amounts prisons would order now and the don't even come close to comparing to the potential liability.  One "botched" execution and the ACLU has its lawyers pointed right at you.  For what?  A customer a few times a year?  Not worth it.


Well, I figure it's at least partly the medical-ethics side of things...
 
2014-01-28 04:09:50 PM  

PsiChick: nekom: PsiChick:
From what I remember from another fark thread, the vet folks have access to better drugs, because the companies making them won't supply it to prisons.

Can't say I blame them one bit.  What sporadic amounts prisons would order now and the don't even come close to comparing to the potential liability.  One "botched" execution and the ACLU has its lawyers pointed right at you.  For what?  A customer a few times a year?  Not worth it.

Well, I figure it's at least partly the medical-ethics side of things...



Pharmaceutical manufacturers don't have to take a Hippocratic oath; they may be PhD's, but not MD's.  Hell, I'm not even pro death-penalty, but if indemnified by the State from liability lawsuits, I'd whip them up a batch of Nembutal for the right price.

/ chemical engineer
// it's an easy & ancient synthesis that traces back to the 1800s, IIRC
 
2014-01-28 04:12:23 PM  

jshine: PsiChick: nekom: PsiChick:
From what I remember from another fark thread, the vet folks have access to better drugs, because the companies making them won't supply it to prisons.

Can't say I blame them one bit.  What sporadic amounts prisons would order now and the don't even come close to comparing to the potential liability.  One "botched" execution and the ACLU has its lawyers pointed right at you.  For what?  A customer a few times a year?  Not worth it.

Well, I figure it's at least partly the medical-ethics side of things...


Pharmaceutical manufacturers don't have to take a Hippocratic oath; they may be PhD's, but not MD's.  Hell, I'm not even pro death-penalty, but if indemnified by the State from liability lawsuits, I'd whip them up a batch of Nembutal for the right price.

/ chemical engineer
// it's an easy & ancient synthesis that traces back to the 1800s, IIRC


No, but presumably you go into pharmacuetics with some idea of ethics. Plus, doctors might get pissed if you don't play nice.
 
2014-01-28 04:25:25 PM  

lennavan: a particular individual: nekom: only the clearly guilty beyond any shadow of a doubt should be taken to the gallows and hanged immediately after that guilt is determined.

Every single person who has been released from death row for false conviction was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

So the extensive, lengthy appeals process works?


If by "works," you mean it "gives Project Innocence time to do their job," yes. Barry Beach in Montana is back in prison after being released for 18 months to prepare a defense for a new trial. Everyone knows he's innocent, including the asshole prosecutor (who is now the governor of Montana). Of course, Bullock won't admit he screwed up, and still clings to the coerced confession as "proof" of Beach's "guilt." It doesn't help that the Tea Party managed to get a couple of right-wing zealots on the Supreme Court, which overturned the lower court's decision to release him.
 
2014-01-28 04:31:54 PM  
PsiChick:
No, but presumably you go into pharmacuetics with some idea of ethics. Plus, doctors might get pissed if you don't play nice.

Pharmacists yes.  Chemical manufacturers?  Ask the people in Bhopal how much they value human life.  It's all about money.  Though most doctors won't participate in executions at all, not even to pronounce death and the AMA takes that stance as well IIRC.  But the people making the chemicals?  All about $$$
 
2014-01-28 04:40:03 PM  

nekom: PsiChick:
No, but presumably you go into pharmacuetics with some idea of ethics. Plus, doctors might get pissed if you don't play nice.

Pharmacists yes.  Chemical manufacturers?  Ask the people in Bhopal how much they value human life.  It's all about money.  Though most doctors won't participate in executions at all, not even to pronounce death and the AMA takes that stance as well IIRC.  But the people making the chemicals?  All about $$$



Bhopal was a pesticide plant owned by Union Carbide (IIRC) and had nothing to do with pharmaceuticals.

/ it's a (rightly) infamous incident among chemical engineers
 
2014-01-28 04:42:53 PM  

skozlaw: lennavan: At this point, I have provided 3 citations to back my arguments


No, you didn't.

Yes I did.  My claim:

lennavan: The drugs used are the same ones used during surgery


Your reply:

skozlaw: you supported absolutely none of your claims with citations


My citation:

lennavan: Midazolam is used to produce sleepiness or drowsiness and to relieve anxiety before surgery
http://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/midazolam-injection-rout e/ description/drg-20064813


You dick.

skozlaw: You've gotten yourself so twisted up in your own bullshiat you don't even know what we're talking about anymore. Maybe next time it would be in your interest to spend less time exercising your brain on inane insults and a little more time following the thread of the discussion.


YOU STILL HAVENT PROVIDED A SINGLE CITATION YOURSELF.  But you keep biatching about mine not being good enough.

You dick.
 
2014-01-28 04:50:01 PM  

a particular individual: lennavan: a particular individual: nekom: only the clearly guilty beyond any shadow of a doubt should be taken to the gallows and hanged immediately after that guilt is determined.

Every single person who has been released from death row for false conviction was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

So the extensive, lengthy appeals process works?

If by "works," you mean it "gives Project Innocence time to do their job," yes. Barry Beach in Montana is back in prison after being released for 18 months to prepare a defense for a new trial. Everyone knows he's innocent, including the asshole prosecutor (who is now the governor of Montana). Of course, Bullock won't admit he screwed up, and still clings to the coerced confession as "proof" of Beach's "guilt." It doesn't help that the Tea Party managed to get a couple of right-wing zealots on the Supreme Court, which overturned the lower court's decision to release him.


I agree with what I assume your point is - the capital punishment system is flawed and capital punishment should be immediately ceased until significant reforms are enacted.  But what you replied to was a comment where you should have assumed he also wanted significant reforms to remove all possibility of doubt.  For instance, requiring actual video footage.  If we have actual video footage of the crime in question, which isn't so unreasonable in today's cell phones with video cameras age.

You want to use the people taken off death row as an example of how the initial stages of the process (the first trial) fail.  Perhaps, though keep in mind many of those cases are not "innocent" people but rather doubt has re-entered.  They still may be guilty.  But your evidence that the first stage is faulty could be my evidence that the entire process as a whole works.  See, look at all these people we release later when even the teensiest bit of doubt comes up!
 
Displayed 50 of 221 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report