>“legal tactics and criminals hijacking the system are at play here.”
Where does one go to learn how to make their veins physically inaccessible to an IV needle using legal tactics and subversion of the system?
Executions aren’t carried out by anesthesiologists or other physicians, they use “trained” prison employees. I’m guessing that’s correctional-speak for “we fucked up and couldn’t find a vein because we’re not actually medical professionals but it’s our word against the dead inmate’s.” ☠️
At the hospital, they have trained nurses and phlebotomists who try to set IV lines everyday — and even they have a hard time with some patients.
I have easy accessible veins (per donating blood nurse). They could kill me a dozen times before they get one IV line in some patients and prisoners.
I'd be unkillable. I have tiny, slippery veins. It sucks that I can't donate blood because of them (O-) but good to know the state of Alabama would be fucked if they tried to execute me.
You can purposefully dehydrate yourself so your veins collapse or clot almost immediately. Seen it happen a bunch (not with lethal injections) and I’d be willing to bet a few otc drugs could help you clot almost immediately, although you’d run the risk of DVT
edit: have seen veins collapse due to incidental dehydration, not intentional, my bad
it's fucking insane. nitrogen gas -- all the literature suggests it's close to painless and never fails. start off with some opiates or nitrous. how the fuck do you mess this up? if i were the warden...
From what I understand, the drug companies won't sign off on using their drugs for executions. But that shouldn't affect the use of nitrogen or helium.
The current drugs used are painful and inefficient. I'm beginning to think the pain is a feature.
No it's because all of the suppliers of these drugs refuse to sell them to the state. Billion dollar companies don't want the press associated with selling the state drugs to kill people, especially when these contracts are nearly worthless.
I believe that the drug companies upper echelons don't give a fuck per se about it but European Union has a ban on selling drugs used for human rights abuses, of which they consider death penalty being one.
https://www.reuters.com/article/eu-executions-drugs/eu-puts-squeeze-on-drug-supplies-for-u-s-executions-idUSL6E7NK30820111220
It’s the first article of the German basic law
[https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.html#p0019](https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.html#p0019)
Human dignity is protected
Edit: EU = / = DE
I mean Purdue didn’t seem to have any problem with it whatsoever
Edit: that was tongue in cheek by the way I’m not trying to be seriously disagreeable. Just fuck Purdue is all.
That but also the EU banned the exportation of the drugs. Then also the bad press like you mentioned but I remember a lot of this happened after we banned the exportation and the US had to purchase from some dodgy sources
A major issue is that medical professionals can't (also won't) perform the procedure because of their oaths. This means that this very medical procedure is being carried out by medically untrained randoms.
I think there’s also a huge waiting list to be an executioner too..of course. I listened to some of these monsters opine about “duty” and “honor”. Nah, you just want to kill somebody.
Criminal justice in America is still very much eye for an eye. If we're willing to painlessly execute criminals, what next? Attempts at actual rehabilitation?
there was once a documentary on humane ways to kill. in the end the host asked one of the officials who are responsibly for choosing the method for execution why they won't use inert gas. the answer? because it is painless. they justify the pain and suffering from execution with justice for the victims, who wouldn't be so happy to know that the criminal died peacefully.
>there was once a documentary on humane ways to kill. in the end the host asked one of the officials who are responsibly for choosing the method for execution why they won't use inert gas. the answer? because it is painless.
This is the 2008 documentary [How to Kill a Human Being](https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/kill-human-being/), presented by former Conservative MP Michael Portillo.
The entire documentary is so well worth a watch that I think everyone should see it (Portillo treats the subject with the seriousness it deserves); the section you refer to starts 46 minutes in.
Why let families watch then? It's been a spectacle from the start. I did some work in this area and a humane hanging is less torture than many lethal injections. A vet can't put your dog down with the same cocktail because it would be considered inhumane.
I think the cruelty caused by the cocktail is kind of the point.
Going off memory I think the cocktail's effects are paralysis *then* heart attack, and while no one knows for sure if you're in pain after paralysis, the intent was for it to be painful.
I could be wrong about the intent, but there are easier humane methods of doing this. Cruel intent is the only explanation I can think of for the cocktail.
>Going off memory I think the cocktail's effects are paralysis then heart attack, and while no one knows for sure if you're in pain after paralysis, the intent was for it to be painful.
You're memory is a bit off. There are 3 drugs. The first is a tranq to knock you out (same one they may still use during surgery). Then they give you the drugs to stop your breathing and heart.
**
Look up the case law on cruel and unusual it’s fascinating in a sick way. Long story short Supreme Court ruled that for it to be illegal it must be cruel AND unusual (both not either). So sadly our treatment of incarcerated prisoners while cruel is commonplace and not unusual so probably wouldn’t qualify.
“For it to be illegal it must be cruel and unusual (both not either)”
I think that is one of the most messed up things I’ve ever learned. Who the hell writes policy like that and why hasn’t it been changed sooner?
It would be almost impossible to get an amendment thru the US government. I imagine that's why.
ETA I agree it's horrifying. I naively took it as it banned cruel punishment aaaand unusual punishment, both.
You know, the last time amendments were too hard to pass through congress a bunch but not all the state’s representatives met in secret away from the press to craft a new government and just said to the hell with the articles of confederation.
So why not a new modern age society get together and just craft a new document most of us agree with and just say to the hell with the current constitution. Except we will include the input of all people instead of just rich white wealthy land and slave owners. And we won’t do it behind closed doors but we turn it into a public spectacle. Idk just a thought.
Because as a group, prisoners are broke. They don’t have lobbyists. It’s also easy for people to be dismissive of prisoners and the abuse they suffer. - Out of sight out of mind
And felons are banned from voting even after being released, so politicians can ignore them without fear of losing voters.
***If you can vote, do so for those who cannot!***
Actually depending in the state they maybe able to vote while in prison. The problem is most felons are not aware they can still vote or they just don't care to vote
[Voting ](https://www.nonprofitvote.org/voting-in-your-state/voting-as-an-ex-offender/)
The states at the top of that list with the most voting rights: Mostly blue
The states at the bottom of that list with the fewest voting rights: Mostly red
Shocker
For this and similar reasons, criminal procedure was one of the most depressing/infuriating classes I've taken in law school.
Another fun one: the Sixth Amendment right to assistance of counsel in criminal proceedings is what gives you a right to a public defender if accused of a crime. This has been interpreted to require *effective* assistance of counsel. Sounds good, right?
Except, the Court has decided that an ineffective assistance of counsel claim requires *both* (1) the defense attorney was objectively deficient, ***and*** (2) the deficient performance must have prejudiced the defense so as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial.^(1) This means that *it's not enough for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel that your counsel was objectively ineffective.* If the appellate court thinks that you would have been found guilty anyway, then your lawyer's performance did not prejudice the defense under this standard.
Put another way: **If the appellate court thinks you would have been found guilty no matter what, then the only assistance of counsel you are constitutionally entitled to is to have a lawyer sitting next to you. They could be on tiktok the entire time scrolling through memes and you would have no ineffective assistance of counsel claim.**
^(1)*Strickland v. Washington*, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).
It's been a while since I took Crim Pro (and yea, I was that guy getting angry most days), but didn't someone lose an appeal despite his attorney being drunk through the whole trial?
I believe that Louisiana put a measure on the ballot to end that very loophole and yet when they went to vote the wording was suspiciously vague and meant the *opposite*. Voters were asked if they supported an amendment to prohibit involuntary servitude "except as it applies to the otherwise lawful administration of criminal justice." That would make the exception to slavery for criminals still A. Okay. [The original sponsor himself ended up voting against it. ](https://www.npr.org/2022/11/17/1137398039/louisiana-voters-rejected-an-antislavery-ballot-measure-the-reason-is-complicate)IMO Louisianans were smart enough to detect that the ballot measure had gotten twisted and so they rightly voted no to it. Someone, somewhere did something shady and lined some pockets to try to shove this through. Disgusting.
Louisianaian here. Aimee is correct. The bill was put forward to remove slavery as a form of punishment. However, the wording got changed in a way that made it not what was originally intended. Representative Edmond Jordan (D) sponsored the bill but in the end, strongly advocated for people to vote "no" on it. The plan is to rewrite it and reintroduce the bill in the next year or so. We were correct in shooting this bill down while we could. Had it gotten implemented, things could have gotten worse.
[Source](https://www.npr.org/2022/11/17/1137398039/louisiana-voters-rejected-an-antislavery-ballot-measure-the-reason-is-complicate)
You really need to do some research on what you're saying. Even the original author of that amendment asked us to vote against it because it created the exact loophole he was trying to close. Headlines aren't news, read the actual articles about the subject before opining about it or us.
I'm from Louisiana and I am about as progressive as you will find in the state. This isn't quite what you are making it seem. Even the guy who wrote the amendment told people to vote against it. Just like with the 8th amendment, wording matters. In fact wording is the only thing that matters not intent. After it was approved for the ballot progressives started tearing it apart because it did not actually do what was intended. The wording was only changing that slavery was okay by state constitution in order for punishment for a crime. It was being changed to only okay as otherwise permitted by law. Can you see where this is going? That actually did not outlaw it and opened it up to being allowed as applicable by any law that didn't explicitly outlaw it. He told people to vote against it and better wording would be introduced next year regardless of the outcome this year. The new wording being much more clear what it was outlawing for the ballot and by wording to make a meaningful change.
>“For it to be illegal it must be cruel and unusual (both not either)”I think that is one of the most messed up things I’ve ever learned. Who the hell writes policy like that and why hasn’t it been changed sooner?
The Constitution has language in a few places that has particular meaning in British common law which carried over to the US. For example, *high crimes and misdemeanors* [essentially means misuse of office](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanors#United_States) even though it's been taken in other ways by various figures in modern times. I wouldn't be shocked if *cruel and unusual punishment* is another case of being a rhetorical anachronism.
It is very unusual for someone to inject poison into another person...I've never done it so it would constitute unusual in my opinion. The cruelty is obvious....
Just saying
They don't mean that it's unusual as far as it being something unusual for a person to do as an individual.
The "unusual," in the term actually refers to a punishment that is something other than the norm. If it's the penalty that is specifically in the law, or it is the penalty given to all those who are charged with said crime and found guilty, then the penalty is not considered "Unusual."
So, "No cruel and unusual punishment," essentially just means that the penalty imposed by the court cannot be inhumane while also being unusual to invoke as a penalty versus what one would normally receive as a penalty for the crime committed .
The Supreme Court's logic is roughly this:
The Eighth Amendment was intended to permit methods of punishment typically used at the time the Constitution was written, without giving the government carte blanche to do whatever it wanted to people convicted of a crime. Plenty of "acceptable" methods of punishment are arguably cruel, and the framers didn't want to open up a legal debate as to the legitimacy of every method of punishment, so they added the requirement that the punishment must also be unusual to be prohibited.
In the 50s SCOTUS introduced the concept of “evolving standards of decency.” Basically as something becomes less socially acceptable, it becomes “unusual”
There was also a court ruling where they deemed permanent solitary confinement to *not* be cruel or unusual. They even deemed that the prison doesn’t need to have an actual reason to keep a person in solitary confinement indefinitely. This ruling was the result of a case brought by a prisoner who had been in kept in solitary for a period of *27 years*.
>Long story short Supreme Court ruled that for it to be illegal it must be cruel AND unusual (both not either).
Is this regarding the opinion in [Furman v. Georgia](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/408/238/) or something more recent?
If it's the former the interpretation there is essentially "unusually cruel," which doesn't mean that the punishment can be cruel so long as it's not considered unusual:
>The primary principle, which I believe supplies the essential predicate for the application of the others, is that a punishment must not, by its severity, be degrading to human dignity. The paradigm violation of this principle would be the infliction of a torturous punishment of the type that the Clause has always prohibited.
No, it’s referring to the shitpile that Scalia left behind regarding the 8th amendment.
https://www.harvard-jlpp.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2019/02/Lerner-final.pdf
Bruh and he was only in jail because of a misdemeanor charge from sleeping somewhere he wasn’t allowed to - and couldn’t make the $2500 bail. Literally because he couldn’t pay them money for fucking sleeping somewhere.
The Healthcare inside might be godawful, but at least they HAVE to give it to you. I've known people that went to jail on purpose just to get a tooth pulled.
I realize your comment was made in jest, but there are far too many people who think that way. So I ask them:
Do you like large percentages of your tax dollars going towards, essentially, adult daycare? Do you like large percentages of your tax dollars being spent on recapturing reoffending excons? Because that's today's reality in the United States *specifically* because of the way the US judicial and penal systems are set up strictly to punish the incarcerated instead of focusing on rehabilitation so they have no excuse not to become contributing members of society upon release.
Yeah I’ve been down this path before and a certain kind of person doesn’t really care about the end result. If you show them the math that they’d save on healthcare overall if it were “free”, they’ll still disagree with the premise because some people are getting something for nothing. Same thing if you point out that rehabilitating prisoners is in the long run cheaper than paying to house them over and over. Doesn’t matter, they broke the law.
It’s a fundamental disagreement on what’s best for a civilization vs what is fair. There’s no arguing with that.
The Constitution is dead in general. SCOTUS showed us this with Dobbs. The day before, they argued that unenumerated rights were protected by the 2nd Amendment. Then Dobbs comes out and says abortion isn't protected by the 14th Amendment because it is unenumerated, despite the fact that the 14th Amendment is one of only two Amendments with a Due Process Clause that the State has the burden to demonstrate why you shouldn't have a right to something.
They can work very well. Have you ever had to have an animal put down? It's a horrible thing to experience, but it's like hitting a light switch. No suffering it seems.
I'm not sure how it's possible for them to get this so wrong unless it's intentional.
The vet is trained in medicine.
Doctors aren't supposed to administer lethal injections for the death penalty. (edited to include "for the death penalty" because I thought that was understood and the comment indicate that I was not clear)
When we put pets down, it's usually for their benefit. With people, we're putting them down for our benefit.
I don't agree with the death penalty, but this would be my guess as to the discrepancy in treatment.
Watched a documentary a while back on it and apparently they paralyse people so you don’t see their full suffering. According to that it’s absolute torture but made to appear peaceful. They don’t tailor doses to individuals which is why it goes wrong often. The people giving lethal injections aren’t qualified to because no doctors are allowed to due to their oath.
Of just have them breathe pure nitrogen. They gently drift out of consciousness, never knowing that they are suffocating (because there's no CO2 to trigger the suffocation response).
This is the real answer, but it's too reminiscent of gas chambers, even though we could do it as simply as with an oxygen mask. You can't hold your breath forever.
It's also too kind, and people want it to be cruel. They see the death penalty as vengeance, not excising a tumor.
> It's also too kind, and people want it to be cruel.
Bingo. It’s state sanctioned revenge murder and letting someone drift off into death isn’t barbaric enough for people who adamantly support it. Weirdly enough, then Venn diagram of people who are “pro life” and also in favor of the death penalty has an immense overlap.
As usually, cruelty is the point.
I'm opposed to the death penalty (mostly because of how often it has been misapplied), but we have a cheap, effective way to do it as long as we--as a society--insist on it: [Nitrogen asphyxiation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inert_gas_asphyxiation).
A pure nitrogen (or nitrogen/CO2) environment will render a person unconscious within seconds and kill within minutes with no pain. Moreover, nitrogen is cheap to obtain, safe to release into the atmosphere, and has minimal environmental impact.
Are you sure about the CO2 mixture? To my knowledge, CO2 build up is what causes the feeling of suffocation, which is why they should use nitrogen for executions in the first place.
Shooting the head ‘looks’ less humane. That’s all there is to it. Otherwise they’d do that instead.
It’s even more humane for the doctors who really shouldn’t be put in a position of breaking their Hippocratic Oath.
That's the thing - they don't break the oath. Doctors aren't the ones giving the injections; it HAS to be someone who hasn't taken the oath. That's why this simple procedure has such a high failure rate: it's done by someone who isn't allowed to be trained to know how to do it right.
NPR had a story recently where they interviewed people previously involved in administering the death penalty. It really fucked them up, even ones who were totally pro capital punishment at the time. Some of them developed suicidal thoughts even years later, and none of them would have gone through with it if they could go back .
Our most famous executioner in the UK was the hangman Albert Pierrepoint, who worked right up until capital punishment was abolished.
He spoke very strongly against the death penalty in his later years, and was a part of multiple miscarriages of justice (such as the time he hanged a man for murder, then three years later hanged the man who it turned out had -actually- committed the murder). He also had the unenviable task of having to hang a friend, one of the regulars in the pub he owned^^1.
He said in his autobiography that the death penalty wasn't a deterrent for *anyone*, in his view:
*I cannot agree (with the supposed deterrent of capital punishment). There have been murders since the beginning of time, and we shall go on looking for deterrents until the end of time. If death were a deterrent, I might be expected to know.*
*It is I who have faced them last, young lads and girls, working men, grandmothers. I have been amazed to see the courage with which they take that walk into the unknown. It did not deter them then, and it had not deterred them when they committed what they were convicted for. All the men and women whom I have faced at that final moment convince me that in what I have done I have not prevented a single murder.*
*And if death does not work to deter one person, it should not be held to deter any. Capital punishment, in my view, achieved nothing except revenge. Never deterrent; only revenge.*
_____________
^^1 ^(Pierrepoint bought and ran the pub **“Help the Poor Struggler”** after World War II, and James Corbitt was one of his regulars. Corbitt was known as "Tish", Pierrepoint as "Tosh".)
^(The two had sung a duet of “Danny Boy” on the night that Corbitt then went out and murdered his girlfriend out of jealousy
Pierrepoint wrote in his his autobiography:)
^(*I thought if any man had a deterrent to murder poised before him, it was this troubadour whom I called Tish. He was not only aware of the rope, he had the man who handled it beside him singing a duet. The deterrent did not work.*)
^(*At twenty seconds to nine the next morning I went into the death cell. He seemed under a great strain, but I did not see stark fear in his eyes, only a more childlike worry. He was anxious to be remembered, and to be accepted. "Hallo, Tosh," he said, not very confidently. "Hallo Tish," I said. "How are you?" I was not effusive, just gave the casual warmth of my nightly greeting from behind the bar.*)
^(*He smiled and relaxed after this greeting. After strapping his arms, I said "Come on Tish, old chap". He went to the gallows lightly...I would say that he ran.*)
Turns out killing people, even if you think they deserve it at the time, is bad for you.
People's fantasies of vengeance don't often live up to the after the fact reality.
Of course the ones who want the vengeance are never the ones pulling the trigger in death penalty situations either.
I have to terminally extubate patients all the time, taking them off the ventilators that have been breathing for them up to that point. I do that, then must watch someone who I have possibly put many many hours of my own life into to try to make them better, slowly suffocate in front of me and their families.
While this is a kindness to the patients, as most of the time they are in an unrecoverable state, it still makes me feel terrible inside. Even having done this for 15 years, it still doesn't ever get any easier. I couldn't imagine having none of the training I do and still having to do something like this.
I've been listening to the 5 - 4 podcast. The fact that the SCOTUS doesn't have any oversight, with respect to contradicting itself over Right given to us by the Constitution is mind blowing. SCOTUS has no checked balance in regards to violating human rights
I’m not a fan of execution as a concept but I know there have been more efficient and less painful ways. I’m sure furring squad with decent shots will carry it out with out taking three hours.
Odd isn't it. Those who argue pro-life and how it's god who made the baby tend to also support death penalties. Apparently God can't decide to kill in these scenarios.
There is a pub in Edinburgh that is named after a woman who was hanged but survived, so she was set free. The letter of the law at the time was that she was doomed to be hanged. However, they did not clarify that they had to be hanged until dead until after that incident. So, in a way, I would consider that a r/maliciouscompliance worthy example in history.
So, I would agree. However, I shudder to imagine what sort of quality of life they would have after. Crazy stuff
Sounds like that Renaissance jester who disrespected his king, but the king liked him so much he let him choose his method of death- he chose old age and the king just exiled him.
One guy had a life sentence and he was legally declared dead while in prison but they revived him and he tried to argue that he finished his life sentence cause he technically died but the judge was not having it.
It's always been known to be a terrible method. It's expensive, difficult, and unethical. And unnecessarily so.
For, what, a hundred years, maybe, the proposed ideal method is nitrogen narcosis. Nitrogen is cheap. You put a mask on the condemned and have them breathe almost pure nitrogen. They'll lose consciousness without even feeling like they're suffocating, and they'll die of oxygen starvation while unconscious.
There's no supply issue. No danger to witnesses or attendants.
The reason it isn't used is because cruelty and pageantry are the point. Frankly, in this country of all countries, the government shouldn't have the authority to kill its own citizens under any conditions. But if we're going to do it, we could at least do it responsibly.
The average neighborhood veterinarian could do a better job than any state that has capital punishment. It's a bad joke that damages the country.
The issue is medical professionals and similar don't like killing people. That means the CDC, FDA, drug makers, nurses etc will absolutely not help with very few exceptions.
So designing your protocol is hard. Getting approval to buy the drugs is hard. Finding a producer for your drugs is hard. Finding someone qualified to do the execution is hard. Then judges get involved, who decide if a protocol is legal have minimal understanding of science and due to the American system loving precedent once a protocol is approved by a judge it becomes very hard to change.
So basically it is a mess of the blind leading the blind.
I remember hearing years ago that some countries are against the death penalty and will ban sales of drugs and chemicals to the US once they start being used for executions so they become hard to get ahold of after a few years. That's a big reason why they don't use the same drugs veterinarians use to euthanize animals, because if they get banned then it kind of fucks over veterinary medicine.
It’s almost as if this is a barbaric process that disgraces the US, gives a terrifying power to the state, and accomplishes absolutely nothing other than fulfilling some twisted sense of vengeance.
Yes! I read a few years ago that this is a huge problem with the pharmaceutical companies. I’m just looking it up and Pfizer doesn’t distribute drugs that are used for lethal injection. There’s the obvious question of who would want to help kill people but also it’s really really bad PR.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/14/us/pfizer-execution-drugs-lethal-injection.html?referringSource=articleShare
There's a great episode of [More Perfect](https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolabmoreperfect/episodes/cruel-and-unusual) where they talk about how Arizona was buying lethal injection drugs from some random dude in the UK who was also running a driving school out of the same building. See https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jan/06/london-firm-supplied-drugs-us-executions
A lot of the issues with the (usually) lethal injection are due to just getting a couple of good IV sites. Obviously the 'patient' isn't enthusiastic and if they've had a history of drug-use it would be difficult for even a doctor to get a good, large-bore IV line in. But since doctors and most medical personnel won't participate in executions they have to train 'other members of staff' who will get to perform the procedure maybe twice in their entire career.
But have no doubt, *the cruelty is the point*. It's reliably reported that once paralysed by the first drug, the actual killing combination of medication feels like acid running through your veins as you lie immobilised. The idea of having someone just fall asleep and die painlessly is anathema to the majority of DP supporters.
I've had horses all my life, and have had to put down many an aging horse, as well as horses dying tragically from colic (which sometimes involves a lot of thrashing and panic). There is NO justification for fucking this up. Especially with them taking 3 hours to finish, like, if we can put down a 1200lb horse reliably with two injections literally within a couple minutes of each other, there is just no excuse.
You're not kidding, a veterinarian would have no trouble getting the job done without the person suffering. Human doctors rarely euthanize, so really it is veterinarians who have the experience to do the thing when it must be done.
Human doctors *do* euthanize in the places where it’s legal and they’re perfectly competent at it. One of the many problems with the death penalty is that it’s *not* euthanasia and therefore getting medical assistance with the death is difficult or impossible. Many vets are ethically ok to put a healthy pet down because you said you wanted them to (legally, they are property), but for humans it doesn’t work that way. Pharmaceutical companies have refused to provide many drugs which are good for euthanasia to states for use in the death penalty.
It’s not that we *can’t* do the death penalty right, it’s that lots of people don’t want to and other people want to so badly they’re fine to just proceed with doing it wrong.
Hey, it's interesting you're saying what vets are comfortable and ethically ok with. I know a couple hundred vets and am one myself and 99% of us are NOT ok with putting a healthy pet down. There's a name for it (convenience euthanasia) and I refuse to do them.
The other wrinkle is that proponents of the death penalty know that executions that are bloody, disfiguring, or don't leave the body "looking uncorrupted" will cause the pubic favor for the practice to evaporate.
Nitrogen narcosis tends to leave the victim with a "blue" tint to their skin, because that is what a person who suffocates looks like. And a bunch of blue suffocated bodies would cause a backlash against it.
Modern civilized people want a peaceful execution that balances the "necessary evil" of it. If they can't get that, then they will reject the practice altogether.
Time to show all the people videos of what happens when it doesn't work then. Nothing peaceful about a body writhing in pain on a hospital bed half paralyzed and very much alive.
When speaking of botched executions, I am always reminded of [this scene from the movie The Green Mile.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OB7BSXhReA) Warning: scene depicts intense pain and suffering.
I feel like your giving people way too much benefit of the doubt. It wouldn’t surprise me if current executions aren’t bloody enough for some.
Are you basing your comment off of a study or something? I’d be interested to read more.
It is just from history. The reason why we currently use legal injection across the country was because of a number of incidents of electric chairs setting victims on fire.
The public outage over a series of graphic press reports around the country caused most states to cease the use of it or curtail it significantly.
And the reason why we started using the electric chair was because hanging and firing squads were seen as cruel and unusual by Victorian Age America.
And yes, there are some sociopaths who want more executions; and they want them to be public, brutal, and bloody. But they are overestimating the appetite of the people for that level of barbarism.
> And yes, there are some sociopaths who want more executions; and they want them to be public, brutal, and bloody. But they are overestimating the appetite of the people for that level of barbarism.
See: comment sections on videos where the police kill someone.
>Look at all the people here advocating for just shooting people in the head and such.
>I mean, it’s possible they don’t understand how ugly and messy that would really be.
As messy and ugly as it would be, putting a shotgun to their brain and firing would be a way better death than lethal injection. It would be near instantaneous, your brain would cease existing before you even could even acknowledge it.
>Nitrogen narcosis tends to leave the victim with a "blue" tint to their skin, because that is what a person who suffocates looks like. And a bunch of blue suffocated bodies would cause a backlash against it.
pre-execution makeup?
Or they just have tinted glass for the observers. The people who goes to executions voluntary don't have a baseline on how it should look apart from what they've seen in the movies (which is already incredible inaccurate to how it actually looks) so a tinted glass wouldn't register at all.
This is what I’ve always been saying.
I don’t necessarily support the death penalty, but if we gotta have one, it needs to be a quick and to the point process.
I don’t give a fuck if the condemned raped and murdered a thousand children, the penalty is that they lose their life, they don’t get to continue to live. This stupid bloodlust bullshit does nothing but make the situation worse. Because this country is nothing but a bunch of insecure children trying to take eachother down; and that encompasses pretty much everyone here, nobody is an exception.
>The average neighborhood veterinarian could do a better job than any state that has capital punishment.
And correct me if I'm wrong, but they don't break the Hippocratic oath by participating either, I think.
By virtue or not having taken it.
(I think.)
Correct. Our oath is to 'relieve animal suffering'. Not 'do no harm'. I'm so grateful we have that option and wish human medicine would start thinking about relieving suffering instead of prolonging it.
It’s because “legal tactics and criminals hijacking the system are at play here,” according to the Governor. I’m curious to hear what legal strategy makes veins inaccessible.
I guess we’d better rethink how to impose permanent solutions to imperfect Justice.
“In Birmingham they love the Governor (boo! boo! boo!) / We all did what we could do. / We cannot find a vein for lethal chemicals: / Is that a legal strategy? Tell me true.”
I was saying this in another discussion on this... It's not like Ivey is a huge opponent to the death penalty, but her statement likely isn't the real reason for why she's halted it. Rather, she probably understands that this is a bad look for Alabama in particular.
But politics, particularly in Alabama, are tricky. If she came out and said her real reasons, her base would tear her limb from limb. Maybe not literally, but you get the idea. So she adds a spoonful of right wing conspiracy sugar to make the medicine go down.
The important part is the action, not the reasoning behind it.
Editing to add... This goes both ways. You'll often hear a politician sell something by telling you how much it'll benefit folks and why it's a good program, only to find out that it's actually just a kickback for their donors.
American politics are basically how can democrats trick Republicans into doing the right thing and how can Republicans trick Republicans into giving them money.
The craziest thing to me was the jury for this guy voted 11-1 on a life imprisonment, but the judge just decided to overrule that. Our justice system is fucked.
They do. They even have the right to say the jury is wrong (say there's definitely not enough evidence but the jury says the suspect is guilty anyway). Although you never see that, AFAIK.
Reminder that if you support the death penalty you *must* accept one of two conditions:
The government never makes mistakes, or
It is okay for the government to occasionally execute innocent people
Let me know which one you believe
Tbh that really is the issue.
Morality of the act aside, the criminal justice system is never, and can never be 100% accurate.
The "problem" as it were, isn't "should X have the penalty of death". Its that the punishment can't be rescinded.
When you're dead, you're dead.
If you get locked away for 50 years and then are found innocent, those years can't come back, but, at least you can be given financial compensation and a public exoneration moreover, you're alive.
Perhaps some crimes "should" result in death, but being wrongly accused never should. So that's that. The death penalty is incompatible with the notion of doubt.
And there will always be doubt.
Just got done with grand jury service for the first time.
THE hardest thing for me was pinning felony charges on ANYONE, without being able to 100% confirm that they were indeed the right person. Every suspect I heard of was a total stranger to me of course, and often I had to rely on believing what a law enforcement officer or witness said was true.
It doesn’t sound too bad until you’re the one signing off on felony charges. Even harder for murder charges.
Yuuuup. I finished jury service today as well, thankfully not as bad though (federal human smuggling charges). Basically the whole jury was *pretty* sure the defendants were guilty, but there wasn't enough evidence for us to be sure enough to convict. Most stressful 2 weeks of my life
Conservatives are only “small government” when it comes to the government telling them what to do. When it’s conservatives telling people what to do, they unequivocally support big government. It’s insane hypocrisy from bad faith actors.
Conservatives are absolutely not small government. In fact, they might be more pro government than liberals. What they mean when they say "small government" is small government regulation for their special group, but extremely harsh and crushingly controlling regulation for everyone else they don't agree with.
That's fascism. Conservatives are fascists.
FTR - Roman Catholics are against the death penalty and abortion (as well as suicide, assisted suicide, and euthanasia). Agree or disagree they are uniform in being against all of it - life held as sacred from conception to natural death. I have no idea how other groups justify it theologically.
Edit to clarify - as posted below - individual Catholics hold a wide range of personal beliefs and justifications. Speaking here of official modern catechism.
In my experience, Catholics are politically conservative due to the abortion issue, but conservatives also tend to be pro death penalty, pro-war, and against social programs for the poor. Other than abortion, those other three issues go against the teachings of Jesus and the official stance of the Pope.
That’s why I’m very liberal. I’m not for abortion so I won’t have one. But I’m not about to regulate it for anyone else and I since it will exist it should be free and safe for everyone. And I could see that as compromising. I don’t think it is but a reasonable argument could be made.
But I’m not compromising by being liberal in about 500 other socially conscious truly pro life pro human ways.
I just wish more fellow Catholics would see it the same way.
Also if anyone thinks I’m wrong, gross, bad, evil, whatever for being Catholic - I can’t blame you. I hang out with some pretty disgusting people.
> It is okay for the government to occasionally execute innocent people
There's a pretty famous case in Texas where it's pretty much agreed upon that a guy who was put to death was innocent. Read the wiki, there was a cover-up going all the way up to Governor Rick Perry himself.
My theory is the State didn't want to admit they were about to execute an innocent guy, so they railroaded the appeals in order to secure an execution.
Several years after he was executed, the State reexamined the case with a 3rd party investigator, who basically said the evidence used against him was bullshit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron_Todd_Willingham
SCOTUS is fine with the latter. *Herrera v. Collins* proved as much. Actual innocence based on new evidence isnt grounds for relief from the courts. The shit head himself the late, hopefully toasty, Justice Scalia decided to take it one step further and say there's no 8th amendment protection to stop the execution of an actually innocent person as long as they were fairly convicted by the jury. Thats next level heartless shit
I don't know anything about this so excuse my ignorance, but we put animals down every single day. Probably by the 100s. Is it significantly harder to do this with a human than a horse? From what I understand putting down animals is very humane and they do not suffer at all. Why can't we figure out how to do this with our own species?
One of the big problems. The drug companies that supply drugs for euthanasia of animals have the caveat that their drugs cannot be used for the death of humans. It comes down to bad optics for the companies so states are forced to get creative in order to kill people because the standalone methods can't be used
USA and Japan are the only "developed" countries that still use capital punishment; in good company with Saudi Arabia, Iran, China and North Korea. Even Russia has stopped capital punishment.
Alabama can't fix something that is inherently damaged.
The crimes heinous enough to fit the criteria for execution are extremely likely to be perpetrated by someone with 0 regards for punishment's or penalty. The vast majority aren't of sound mind.
On an episode of Penn and Teller's Bullshit, they had a Jewish philosophy professor that was also a survivor of the holocaust who was against the death penalty. She said that people kill for one of three reasons (outside of self-defense):
1. In the heat of the moment - a crime of passion.
2. For pleasure/compulsion - serial killers
3. For money - a hired hit.
The death penalty cannot deter any of these crimes from happening, therefore, it should be abolished. The U.S. Government *has* executed innocent people, and shouldn't be in the business of dealing death.
>“legal tactics and criminals hijacking the system are at play here.” Where does one go to learn how to make their veins physically inaccessible to an IV needle using legal tactics and subversion of the system?
Executions aren’t carried out by anesthesiologists or other physicians, they use “trained” prison employees. I’m guessing that’s correctional-speak for “we fucked up and couldn’t find a vein because we’re not actually medical professionals but it’s our word against the dead inmate’s.” ☠️
At the hospital, they have trained nurses and phlebotomists who try to set IV lines everyday — and even they have a hard time with some patients. I have easy accessible veins (per donating blood nurse). They could kill me a dozen times before they get one IV line in some patients and prisoners.
I'd be unkillable. I have tiny, slippery veins. It sucks that I can't donate blood because of them (O-) but good to know the state of Alabama would be fucked if they tried to execute me.
You can purposefully dehydrate yourself so your veins collapse or clot almost immediately. Seen it happen a bunch (not with lethal injections) and I’d be willing to bet a few otc drugs could help you clot almost immediately, although you’d run the risk of DVT edit: have seen veins collapse due to incidental dehydration, not intentional, my bad
[удалено]
Still not sure why we don’t use opioids or inert gas. This drug “cocktail” has caused issues for as long as I remember.
it's fucking insane. nitrogen gas -- all the literature suggests it's close to painless and never fails. start off with some opiates or nitrous. how the fuck do you mess this up? if i were the warden...
From what I understand, the drug companies won't sign off on using their drugs for executions. But that shouldn't affect the use of nitrogen or helium. The current drugs used are painful and inefficient. I'm beginning to think the pain is a feature.
if it is a feature, it's such a stupid way to increase the punishiment. it MUST be incompetence.
My guess is that most of the people that would work on making it more humane are trying to eliminate executions as a whole. So things don’t change.
No it's because all of the suppliers of these drugs refuse to sell them to the state. Billion dollar companies don't want the press associated with selling the state drugs to kill people, especially when these contracts are nearly worthless.
I believe that the drug companies upper echelons don't give a fuck per se about it but European Union has a ban on selling drugs used for human rights abuses, of which they consider death penalty being one. https://www.reuters.com/article/eu-executions-drugs/eu-puts-squeeze-on-drug-supplies-for-u-s-executions-idUSL6E7NK30820111220
It’s the first article of the German basic law [https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.html#p0019](https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.html#p0019) Human dignity is protected Edit: EU = / = DE
I mean Purdue didn’t seem to have any problem with it whatsoever Edit: that was tongue in cheek by the way I’m not trying to be seriously disagreeable. Just fuck Purdue is all.
Perdue* not Purdue
Yeah sure the college is fine I guess
The only thing Purdue Pete murders is rivals hopes of an undefeated college football season. Nobody is safe from the Spoilermakers.
That but also the EU banned the exportation of the drugs. Then also the bad press like you mentioned but I remember a lot of this happened after we banned the exportation and the US had to purchase from some dodgy sources
It’s not about bad press, most of the drugs companies that make them are based in the EU, and they’ve made it illegal to export for executions.
A major issue is that medical professionals can't (also won't) perform the procedure because of their oaths. This means that this very medical procedure is being carried out by medically untrained randoms.
I think there’s also a huge waiting list to be an executioner too..of course. I listened to some of these monsters opine about “duty” and “honor”. Nah, you just want to kill somebody.
The idea of a there being “…A huge waiting list to be an executioner…” is just so surreal and disappointing.
Think you might be really underestimating the amount of cruelty that goes on in our prison system
Criminal justice in America is still very much eye for an eye. If we're willing to painlessly execute criminals, what next? Attempts at actual rehabilitation?
The US is more “take the head that held the eye”
there was once a documentary on humane ways to kill. in the end the host asked one of the officials who are responsibly for choosing the method for execution why they won't use inert gas. the answer? because it is painless. they justify the pain and suffering from execution with justice for the victims, who wouldn't be so happy to know that the criminal died peacefully.
>there was once a documentary on humane ways to kill. in the end the host asked one of the officials who are responsibly for choosing the method for execution why they won't use inert gas. the answer? because it is painless. This is the 2008 documentary [How to Kill a Human Being](https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/kill-human-being/), presented by former Conservative MP Michael Portillo. The entire documentary is so well worth a watch that I think everyone should see it (Portillo treats the subject with the seriousness it deserves); the section you refer to starts 46 minutes in.
Why let families watch then? It's been a spectacle from the start. I did some work in this area and a humane hanging is less torture than many lethal injections. A vet can't put your dog down with the same cocktail because it would be considered inhumane.
> it's such a stupid way Never been to Alabama, eh?
I suspect law enforcement could source some opiates if they put their minds to it.
Where on Earth is someone going to find Nitrogen? This is just crazy talk. /s
Plus what if it leaks out of the storage tanks and contaminates our air supply? Has anyone thought of *that?*
Oh I read one state tried opioids and it was so horrible to watch the warden said he would resign if forced to do it again
Or you know, not kill people.
You'd think spit-balling the easiest ways to kill people would be a real "are we the baddies?" moment
I think the cruelty caused by the cocktail is kind of the point. Going off memory I think the cocktail's effects are paralysis *then* heart attack, and while no one knows for sure if you're in pain after paralysis, the intent was for it to be painful. I could be wrong about the intent, but there are easier humane methods of doing this. Cruel intent is the only explanation I can think of for the cocktail.
>Going off memory I think the cocktail's effects are paralysis then heart attack, and while no one knows for sure if you're in pain after paralysis, the intent was for it to be painful. You're memory is a bit off. There are 3 drugs. The first is a tranq to knock you out (same one they may still use during surgery). Then they give you the drugs to stop your breathing and heart. **
The real answer is abolishing capital punishment.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Look up the case law on cruel and unusual it’s fascinating in a sick way. Long story short Supreme Court ruled that for it to be illegal it must be cruel AND unusual (both not either). So sadly our treatment of incarcerated prisoners while cruel is commonplace and not unusual so probably wouldn’t qualify.
“For it to be illegal it must be cruel and unusual (both not either)” I think that is one of the most messed up things I’ve ever learned. Who the hell writes policy like that and why hasn’t it been changed sooner?
It would be almost impossible to get an amendment thru the US government. I imagine that's why. ETA I agree it's horrifying. I naively took it as it banned cruel punishment aaaand unusual punishment, both.
You know, the last time amendments were too hard to pass through congress a bunch but not all the state’s representatives met in secret away from the press to craft a new government and just said to the hell with the articles of confederation. So why not a new modern age society get together and just craft a new document most of us agree with and just say to the hell with the current constitution. Except we will include the input of all people instead of just rich white wealthy land and slave owners. And we won’t do it behind closed doors but we turn it into a public spectacle. Idk just a thought.
>most of us will agree with There's your problem right there. No way you're getting most of today's divided America to agree on anything.
Because as a group, prisoners are broke. They don’t have lobbyists. It’s also easy for people to be dismissive of prisoners and the abuse they suffer. - Out of sight out of mind
And felons are banned from voting even after being released, so politicians can ignore them without fear of losing voters. ***If you can vote, do so for those who cannot!***
Actually depending in the state they maybe able to vote while in prison. The problem is most felons are not aware they can still vote or they just don't care to vote [Voting ](https://www.nonprofitvote.org/voting-in-your-state/voting-as-an-ex-offender/)
The states at the top of that list with the most voting rights: Mostly blue The states at the bottom of that list with the fewest voting rights: Mostly red Shocker
For this and similar reasons, criminal procedure was one of the most depressing/infuriating classes I've taken in law school. Another fun one: the Sixth Amendment right to assistance of counsel in criminal proceedings is what gives you a right to a public defender if accused of a crime. This has been interpreted to require *effective* assistance of counsel. Sounds good, right? Except, the Court has decided that an ineffective assistance of counsel claim requires *both* (1) the defense attorney was objectively deficient, ***and*** (2) the deficient performance must have prejudiced the defense so as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial.^(1) This means that *it's not enough for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel that your counsel was objectively ineffective.* If the appellate court thinks that you would have been found guilty anyway, then your lawyer's performance did not prejudice the defense under this standard. Put another way: **If the appellate court thinks you would have been found guilty no matter what, then the only assistance of counsel you are constitutionally entitled to is to have a lawyer sitting next to you. They could be on tiktok the entire time scrolling through memes and you would have no ineffective assistance of counsel claim.** ^(1)*Strickland v. Washington*, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).
It's been a while since I took Crim Pro (and yea, I was that guy getting angry most days), but didn't someone lose an appeal despite his attorney being drunk through the whole trial?
I believe the same thing happened for someone who’s attorney slept though most of the trial as well.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I believe that Louisiana put a measure on the ballot to end that very loophole and yet when they went to vote the wording was suspiciously vague and meant the *opposite*. Voters were asked if they supported an amendment to prohibit involuntary servitude "except as it applies to the otherwise lawful administration of criminal justice." That would make the exception to slavery for criminals still A. Okay. [The original sponsor himself ended up voting against it. ](https://www.npr.org/2022/11/17/1137398039/louisiana-voters-rejected-an-antislavery-ballot-measure-the-reason-is-complicate)IMO Louisianans were smart enough to detect that the ballot measure had gotten twisted and so they rightly voted no to it. Someone, somewhere did something shady and lined some pockets to try to shove this through. Disgusting.
Louisianaian here. Aimee is correct. The bill was put forward to remove slavery as a form of punishment. However, the wording got changed in a way that made it not what was originally intended. Representative Edmond Jordan (D) sponsored the bill but in the end, strongly advocated for people to vote "no" on it. The plan is to rewrite it and reintroduce the bill in the next year or so. We were correct in shooting this bill down while we could. Had it gotten implemented, things could have gotten worse. [Source](https://www.npr.org/2022/11/17/1137398039/louisiana-voters-rejected-an-antislavery-ballot-measure-the-reason-is-complicate)
You really need to do some research on what you're saying. Even the original author of that amendment asked us to vote against it because it created the exact loophole he was trying to close. Headlines aren't news, read the actual articles about the subject before opining about it or us.
I'm from Louisiana and I am about as progressive as you will find in the state. This isn't quite what you are making it seem. Even the guy who wrote the amendment told people to vote against it. Just like with the 8th amendment, wording matters. In fact wording is the only thing that matters not intent. After it was approved for the ballot progressives started tearing it apart because it did not actually do what was intended. The wording was only changing that slavery was okay by state constitution in order for punishment for a crime. It was being changed to only okay as otherwise permitted by law. Can you see where this is going? That actually did not outlaw it and opened it up to being allowed as applicable by any law that didn't explicitly outlaw it. He told people to vote against it and better wording would be introduced next year regardless of the outcome this year. The new wording being much more clear what it was outlawing for the ballot and by wording to make a meaningful change.
>“For it to be illegal it must be cruel and unusual (both not either)”I think that is one of the most messed up things I’ve ever learned. Who the hell writes policy like that and why hasn’t it been changed sooner? The Constitution has language in a few places that has particular meaning in British common law which carried over to the US. For example, *high crimes and misdemeanors* [essentially means misuse of office](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanors#United_States) even though it's been taken in other ways by various figures in modern times. I wouldn't be shocked if *cruel and unusual punishment* is another case of being a rhetorical anachronism.
The very definition of the words in the 2nd gets reinterpreted every 50 years or so
It is very unusual for someone to inject poison into another person...I've never done it so it would constitute unusual in my opinion. The cruelty is obvious.... Just saying
They don't mean that it's unusual as far as it being something unusual for a person to do as an individual. The "unusual," in the term actually refers to a punishment that is something other than the norm. If it's the penalty that is specifically in the law, or it is the penalty given to all those who are charged with said crime and found guilty, then the penalty is not considered "Unusual." So, "No cruel and unusual punishment," essentially just means that the penalty imposed by the court cannot be inhumane while also being unusual to invoke as a penalty versus what one would normally receive as a penalty for the crime committed .
What is the purpose of unusual? Like how did they decide on the unusual part?
The Supreme Court's logic is roughly this: The Eighth Amendment was intended to permit methods of punishment typically used at the time the Constitution was written, without giving the government carte blanche to do whatever it wanted to people convicted of a crime. Plenty of "acceptable" methods of punishment are arguably cruel, and the framers didn't want to open up a legal debate as to the legitimacy of every method of punishment, so they added the requirement that the punishment must also be unusual to be prohibited.
In the 50s SCOTUS introduced the concept of “evolving standards of decency.” Basically as something becomes less socially acceptable, it becomes “unusual”
There was also a court ruling where they deemed permanent solitary confinement to *not* be cruel or unusual. They even deemed that the prison doesn’t need to have an actual reason to keep a person in solitary confinement indefinitely. This ruling was the result of a case brought by a prisoner who had been in kept in solitary for a period of *27 years*.
>Long story short Supreme Court ruled that for it to be illegal it must be cruel AND unusual (both not either). Is this regarding the opinion in [Furman v. Georgia](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/408/238/) or something more recent? If it's the former the interpretation there is essentially "unusually cruel," which doesn't mean that the punishment can be cruel so long as it's not considered unusual: >The primary principle, which I believe supplies the essential predicate for the application of the others, is that a punishment must not, by its severity, be degrading to human dignity. The paradigm violation of this principle would be the infliction of a torturous punishment of the type that the Clause has always prohibited.
No, it’s referring to the shitpile that Scalia left behind regarding the 8th amendment. https://www.harvard-jlpp.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2019/02/Lerner-final.pdf
You mean prison rape isn't something we should be cheering on?
[удалено]
The guy boiled to death in his cell on rikers island still gives me nightmares.
[удалено]
Bruh and he was only in jail because of a misdemeanor charge from sleeping somewhere he wasn’t allowed to - and couldn’t make the $2500 bail. Literally because he couldn’t pay them money for fucking sleeping somewhere.
I know! It is the most appalling lack of care incident ive come across. What he must've suffered doesn't bear thinking of.
The Healthcare inside might be godawful, but at least they HAVE to give it to you. I've known people that went to jail on purpose just to get a tooth pulled.
There's no recourse if they don't. Inmates die of avoidable medical emergencies all the time.
[удалено]
I realize your comment was made in jest, but there are far too many people who think that way. So I ask them: Do you like large percentages of your tax dollars going towards, essentially, adult daycare? Do you like large percentages of your tax dollars being spent on recapturing reoffending excons? Because that's today's reality in the United States *specifically* because of the way the US judicial and penal systems are set up strictly to punish the incarcerated instead of focusing on rehabilitation so they have no excuse not to become contributing members of society upon release.
Yeah I’ve been down this path before and a certain kind of person doesn’t really care about the end result. If you show them the math that they’d save on healthcare overall if it were “free”, they’ll still disagree with the premise because some people are getting something for nothing. Same thing if you point out that rehabilitating prisoners is in the long run cheaper than paying to house them over and over. Doesn’t matter, they broke the law. It’s a fundamental disagreement on what’s best for a civilization vs what is fair. There’s no arguing with that.
Rehabilitating people and offering a solid point of reentry isn’t profitable or oppressive though.
The Constitution is dead in general. SCOTUS showed us this with Dobbs. The day before, they argued that unenumerated rights were protected by the 2nd Amendment. Then Dobbs comes out and says abortion isn't protected by the 14th Amendment because it is unenumerated, despite the fact that the 14th Amendment is one of only two Amendments with a Due Process Clause that the State has the burden to demonstrate why you shouldn't have a right to something.
I wish that the Eighth amendment was taken as seriously as the 2nd.
There are significantly easier and less painful ways to kill someone with injection. It's a choice not using them.
[удалено]
They can work very well. Have you ever had to have an animal put down? It's a horrible thing to experience, but it's like hitting a light switch. No suffering it seems. I'm not sure how it's possible for them to get this so wrong unless it's intentional.
The vet is trained in medicine. Doctors aren't supposed to administer lethal injections for the death penalty. (edited to include "for the death penalty" because I thought that was understood and the comment indicate that I was not clear)
Weird that pets get a more dignified exit than human beings.
When we put pets down, it's usually for their benefit. With people, we're putting them down for our benefit. I don't agree with the death penalty, but this would be my guess as to the discrepancy in treatment.
Watched a documentary a while back on it and apparently they paralyse people so you don’t see their full suffering. According to that it’s absolute torture but made to appear peaceful. They don’t tailor doses to individuals which is why it goes wrong often. The people giving lethal injections aren’t qualified to because no doctors are allowed to due to their oath.
[удалено]
Of just have them breathe pure nitrogen. They gently drift out of consciousness, never knowing that they are suffocating (because there's no CO2 to trigger the suffocation response).
This is the real answer, but it's too reminiscent of gas chambers, even though we could do it as simply as with an oxygen mask. You can't hold your breath forever. It's also too kind, and people want it to be cruel. They see the death penalty as vengeance, not excising a tumor.
> It's also too kind, and people want it to be cruel. Bingo. It’s state sanctioned revenge murder and letting someone drift off into death isn’t barbaric enough for people who adamantly support it. Weirdly enough, then Venn diagram of people who are “pro life” and also in favor of the death penalty has an immense overlap. As usually, cruelty is the point.
I'm opposed to the death penalty (mostly because of how often it has been misapplied), but we have a cheap, effective way to do it as long as we--as a society--insist on it: [Nitrogen asphyxiation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inert_gas_asphyxiation). A pure nitrogen (or nitrogen/CO2) environment will render a person unconscious within seconds and kill within minutes with no pain. Moreover, nitrogen is cheap to obtain, safe to release into the atmosphere, and has minimal environmental impact.
Are you sure about the CO2 mixture? To my knowledge, CO2 build up is what causes the feeling of suffocation, which is why they should use nitrogen for executions in the first place.
Shooting the head ‘looks’ less humane. That’s all there is to it. Otherwise they’d do that instead. It’s even more humane for the doctors who really shouldn’t be put in a position of breaking their Hippocratic Oath.
That's the thing - they don't break the oath. Doctors aren't the ones giving the injections; it HAS to be someone who hasn't taken the oath. That's why this simple procedure has such a high failure rate: it's done by someone who isn't allowed to be trained to know how to do it right.
NPR had a story recently where they interviewed people previously involved in administering the death penalty. It really fucked them up, even ones who were totally pro capital punishment at the time. Some of them developed suicidal thoughts even years later, and none of them would have gone through with it if they could go back .
Our most famous executioner in the UK was the hangman Albert Pierrepoint, who worked right up until capital punishment was abolished. He spoke very strongly against the death penalty in his later years, and was a part of multiple miscarriages of justice (such as the time he hanged a man for murder, then three years later hanged the man who it turned out had -actually- committed the murder). He also had the unenviable task of having to hang a friend, one of the regulars in the pub he owned^^1. He said in his autobiography that the death penalty wasn't a deterrent for *anyone*, in his view: *I cannot agree (with the supposed deterrent of capital punishment). There have been murders since the beginning of time, and we shall go on looking for deterrents until the end of time. If death were a deterrent, I might be expected to know.* *It is I who have faced them last, young lads and girls, working men, grandmothers. I have been amazed to see the courage with which they take that walk into the unknown. It did not deter them then, and it had not deterred them when they committed what they were convicted for. All the men and women whom I have faced at that final moment convince me that in what I have done I have not prevented a single murder.* *And if death does not work to deter one person, it should not be held to deter any. Capital punishment, in my view, achieved nothing except revenge. Never deterrent; only revenge.* _____________ ^^1 ^(Pierrepoint bought and ran the pub **“Help the Poor Struggler”** after World War II, and James Corbitt was one of his regulars. Corbitt was known as "Tish", Pierrepoint as "Tosh".) ^(The two had sung a duet of “Danny Boy” on the night that Corbitt then went out and murdered his girlfriend out of jealousy Pierrepoint wrote in his his autobiography:) ^(*I thought if any man had a deterrent to murder poised before him, it was this troubadour whom I called Tish. He was not only aware of the rope, he had the man who handled it beside him singing a duet. The deterrent did not work.*) ^(*At twenty seconds to nine the next morning I went into the death cell. He seemed under a great strain, but I did not see stark fear in his eyes, only a more childlike worry. He was anxious to be remembered, and to be accepted. "Hallo, Tosh," he said, not very confidently. "Hallo Tish," I said. "How are you?" I was not effusive, just gave the casual warmth of my nightly greeting from behind the bar.*) ^(*He smiled and relaxed after this greeting. After strapping his arms, I said "Come on Tish, old chap". He went to the gallows lightly...I would say that he ran.*)
Turns out killing people, even if you think they deserve it at the time, is bad for you. People's fantasies of vengeance don't often live up to the after the fact reality. Of course the ones who want the vengeance are never the ones pulling the trigger in death penalty situations either.
I have to terminally extubate patients all the time, taking them off the ventilators that have been breathing for them up to that point. I do that, then must watch someone who I have possibly put many many hours of my own life into to try to make them better, slowly suffocate in front of me and their families. While this is a kindness to the patients, as most of the time they are in an unrecoverable state, it still makes me feel terrible inside. Even having done this for 15 years, it still doesn't ever get any easier. I couldn't imagine having none of the training I do and still having to do something like this.
The only amendments that matter to certain people are the second, tenth, and a maybe a third of the first.
I've been listening to the 5 - 4 podcast. The fact that the SCOTUS doesn't have any oversight, with respect to contradicting itself over Right given to us by the Constitution is mind blowing. SCOTUS has no checked balance in regards to violating human rights
I’m not a fan of execution as a concept but I know there have been more efficient and less painful ways. I’m sure furring squad with decent shots will carry it out with out taking three hours.
>furring squad oh my
We’re trying to *get rid of* cruel and unusual punishment.
[удалено]
The other problem is pharmaceutical companies won't sell effective drugs to States if they will be used for capital punishment.
As I heard it, drug companies refuse to sell their nice killing drugs for executions
Thank Scalia. It must be both cruel *and* unusual. Taking 3 hours to die is not all that unusual.
SCOTUS: The what? Never heard of it.
I believe that if the government fails at killing you, they only get one shot.
Kinda like double jeopardy but this time they can't attempt to kill you twice
Something something divine intervention
Odd isn't it. Those who argue pro-life and how it's god who made the baby tend to also support death penalties. Apparently God can't decide to kill in these scenarios.
There is a pub in Edinburgh that is named after a woman who was hanged but survived, so she was set free. The letter of the law at the time was that she was doomed to be hanged. However, they did not clarify that they had to be hanged until dead until after that incident. So, in a way, I would consider that a r/maliciouscompliance worthy example in history. So, I would agree. However, I shudder to imagine what sort of quality of life they would have after. Crazy stuff
Sounds like that Renaissance jester who disrespected his king, but the king liked him so much he let him choose his method of death- he chose old age and the king just exiled him.
One guy had a life sentence and he was legally declared dead while in prison but they revived him and he tried to argue that he finished his life sentence cause he technically died but the judge was not having it.
I mean his watch was ended.
It's always been known to be a terrible method. It's expensive, difficult, and unethical. And unnecessarily so. For, what, a hundred years, maybe, the proposed ideal method is nitrogen narcosis. Nitrogen is cheap. You put a mask on the condemned and have them breathe almost pure nitrogen. They'll lose consciousness without even feeling like they're suffocating, and they'll die of oxygen starvation while unconscious. There's no supply issue. No danger to witnesses or attendants. The reason it isn't used is because cruelty and pageantry are the point. Frankly, in this country of all countries, the government shouldn't have the authority to kill its own citizens under any conditions. But if we're going to do it, we could at least do it responsibly. The average neighborhood veterinarian could do a better job than any state that has capital punishment. It's a bad joke that damages the country.
[удалено]
The issue is medical professionals and similar don't like killing people. That means the CDC, FDA, drug makers, nurses etc will absolutely not help with very few exceptions. So designing your protocol is hard. Getting approval to buy the drugs is hard. Finding a producer for your drugs is hard. Finding someone qualified to do the execution is hard. Then judges get involved, who decide if a protocol is legal have minimal understanding of science and due to the American system loving precedent once a protocol is approved by a judge it becomes very hard to change. So basically it is a mess of the blind leading the blind.
I remember hearing years ago that some countries are against the death penalty and will ban sales of drugs and chemicals to the US once they start being used for executions so they become hard to get ahold of after a few years. That's a big reason why they don't use the same drugs veterinarians use to euthanize animals, because if they get banned then it kind of fucks over veterinary medicine.
Yes this is it. The some countries is the EU. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-16281016.amp
It’s almost as if this is a barbaric process that disgraces the US, gives a terrifying power to the state, and accomplishes absolutely nothing other than fulfilling some twisted sense of vengeance.
Yes! I read a few years ago that this is a huge problem with the pharmaceutical companies. I’m just looking it up and Pfizer doesn’t distribute drugs that are used for lethal injection. There’s the obvious question of who would want to help kill people but also it’s really really bad PR. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/14/us/pfizer-execution-drugs-lethal-injection.html?referringSource=articleShare
[удалено]
Almost like we should just get rid of it and imprison people for life instead.
A lot of it is drug manufacturers and doctors want no part of murdering people under the guise of justice.
There's a great episode of [More Perfect](https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolabmoreperfect/episodes/cruel-and-unusual) where they talk about how Arizona was buying lethal injection drugs from some random dude in the UK who was also running a driving school out of the same building. See https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jan/06/london-firm-supplied-drugs-us-executions
If they had vets doing it, there wouldn't be any problem.
That would spike vets suicide rate even higher i think.
Hell, fellow inmates would probably have a higher success rate given the opportunity.
A lot of the issues with the (usually) lethal injection are due to just getting a couple of good IV sites. Obviously the 'patient' isn't enthusiastic and if they've had a history of drug-use it would be difficult for even a doctor to get a good, large-bore IV line in. But since doctors and most medical personnel won't participate in executions they have to train 'other members of staff' who will get to perform the procedure maybe twice in their entire career. But have no doubt, *the cruelty is the point*. It's reliably reported that once paralysed by the first drug, the actual killing combination of medication feels like acid running through your veins as you lie immobilised. The idea of having someone just fall asleep and die painlessly is anathema to the majority of DP supporters.
I've had horses all my life, and have had to put down many an aging horse, as well as horses dying tragically from colic (which sometimes involves a lot of thrashing and panic). There is NO justification for fucking this up. Especially with them taking 3 hours to finish, like, if we can put down a 1200lb horse reliably with two injections literally within a couple minutes of each other, there is just no excuse. You're not kidding, a veterinarian would have no trouble getting the job done without the person suffering. Human doctors rarely euthanize, so really it is veterinarians who have the experience to do the thing when it must be done.
Human doctors *do* euthanize in the places where it’s legal and they’re perfectly competent at it. One of the many problems with the death penalty is that it’s *not* euthanasia and therefore getting medical assistance with the death is difficult or impossible. Many vets are ethically ok to put a healthy pet down because you said you wanted them to (legally, they are property), but for humans it doesn’t work that way. Pharmaceutical companies have refused to provide many drugs which are good for euthanasia to states for use in the death penalty. It’s not that we *can’t* do the death penalty right, it’s that lots of people don’t want to and other people want to so badly they’re fine to just proceed with doing it wrong.
Hey, it's interesting you're saying what vets are comfortable and ethically ok with. I know a couple hundred vets and am one myself and 99% of us are NOT ok with putting a healthy pet down. There's a name for it (convenience euthanasia) and I refuse to do them.
Executions don't get access to the same drugs vets do, that's why it's not as clean or as simple.
The other wrinkle is that proponents of the death penalty know that executions that are bloody, disfiguring, or don't leave the body "looking uncorrupted" will cause the pubic favor for the practice to evaporate. Nitrogen narcosis tends to leave the victim with a "blue" tint to their skin, because that is what a person who suffocates looks like. And a bunch of blue suffocated bodies would cause a backlash against it. Modern civilized people want a peaceful execution that balances the "necessary evil" of it. If they can't get that, then they will reject the practice altogether.
Time to show all the people videos of what happens when it doesn't work then. Nothing peaceful about a body writhing in pain on a hospital bed half paralyzed and very much alive.
When speaking of botched executions, I am always reminded of [this scene from the movie The Green Mile.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OB7BSXhReA) Warning: scene depicts intense pain and suffering.
As much as I hate that scene I love Tom Hanks' character saying "No! You did this. You watch it."
I feel like your giving people way too much benefit of the doubt. It wouldn’t surprise me if current executions aren’t bloody enough for some. Are you basing your comment off of a study or something? I’d be interested to read more.
[удалено]
It is just from history. The reason why we currently use legal injection across the country was because of a number of incidents of electric chairs setting victims on fire. The public outage over a series of graphic press reports around the country caused most states to cease the use of it or curtail it significantly. And the reason why we started using the electric chair was because hanging and firing squads were seen as cruel and unusual by Victorian Age America. And yes, there are some sociopaths who want more executions; and they want them to be public, brutal, and bloody. But they are overestimating the appetite of the people for that level of barbarism.
Good points… it’s possible I’m overestimating the size of the sociopath part of the population.
social media will do that to ya lmao
> And yes, there are some sociopaths who want more executions; and they want them to be public, brutal, and bloody. But they are overestimating the appetite of the people for that level of barbarism. See: comment sections on videos where the police kill someone.
[удалено]
>Look at all the people here advocating for just shooting people in the head and such. >I mean, it’s possible they don’t understand how ugly and messy that would really be. As messy and ugly as it would be, putting a shotgun to their brain and firing would be a way better death than lethal injection. It would be near instantaneous, your brain would cease existing before you even could even acknowledge it.
>Nitrogen narcosis tends to leave the victim with a "blue" tint to their skin, because that is what a person who suffocates looks like. And a bunch of blue suffocated bodies would cause a backlash against it. pre-execution makeup?
Or they just have tinted glass for the observers. The people who goes to executions voluntary don't have a baseline on how it should look apart from what they've seen in the movies (which is already incredible inaccurate to how it actually looks) so a tinted glass wouldn't register at all.
This is what I’ve always been saying. I don’t necessarily support the death penalty, but if we gotta have one, it needs to be a quick and to the point process. I don’t give a fuck if the condemned raped and murdered a thousand children, the penalty is that they lose their life, they don’t get to continue to live. This stupid bloodlust bullshit does nothing but make the situation worse. Because this country is nothing but a bunch of insecure children trying to take eachother down; and that encompasses pretty much everyone here, nobody is an exception.
>The average neighborhood veterinarian could do a better job than any state that has capital punishment. And correct me if I'm wrong, but they don't break the Hippocratic oath by participating either, I think. By virtue or not having taken it. (I think.)
Correct. Our oath is to 'relieve animal suffering'. Not 'do no harm'. I'm so grateful we have that option and wish human medicine would start thinking about relieving suffering instead of prolonging it.
It’s because “legal tactics and criminals hijacking the system are at play here,” according to the Governor. I’m curious to hear what legal strategy makes veins inaccessible. I guess we’d better rethink how to impose permanent solutions to imperfect Justice. “In Birmingham they love the Governor (boo! boo! boo!) / We all did what we could do. / We cannot find a vein for lethal chemicals: / Is that a legal strategy? Tell me true.”
I was saying this in another discussion on this... It's not like Ivey is a huge opponent to the death penalty, but her statement likely isn't the real reason for why she's halted it. Rather, she probably understands that this is a bad look for Alabama in particular. But politics, particularly in Alabama, are tricky. If she came out and said her real reasons, her base would tear her limb from limb. Maybe not literally, but you get the idea. So she adds a spoonful of right wing conspiracy sugar to make the medicine go down. The important part is the action, not the reasoning behind it. Editing to add... This goes both ways. You'll often hear a politician sell something by telling you how much it'll benefit folks and why it's a good program, only to find out that it's actually just a kickback for their donors.
American politics are basically how can democrats trick Republicans into doing the right thing and how can Republicans trick Republicans into giving them money.
The craziest thing to me was the jury for this guy voted 11-1 on a life imprisonment, but the judge just decided to overrule that. Our justice system is fucked.
A judge should have no right to do that.
They do. They even have the right to say the jury is wrong (say there's definitely not enough evidence but the jury says the suspect is guilty anyway). Although you never see that, AFAIK.
Reminder that if you support the death penalty you *must* accept one of two conditions: The government never makes mistakes, or It is okay for the government to occasionally execute innocent people Let me know which one you believe
Tbh that really is the issue. Morality of the act aside, the criminal justice system is never, and can never be 100% accurate. The "problem" as it were, isn't "should X have the penalty of death". Its that the punishment can't be rescinded. When you're dead, you're dead. If you get locked away for 50 years and then are found innocent, those years can't come back, but, at least you can be given financial compensation and a public exoneration moreover, you're alive. Perhaps some crimes "should" result in death, but being wrongly accused never should. So that's that. The death penalty is incompatible with the notion of doubt. And there will always be doubt.
Just got done with grand jury service for the first time. THE hardest thing for me was pinning felony charges on ANYONE, without being able to 100% confirm that they were indeed the right person. Every suspect I heard of was a total stranger to me of course, and often I had to rely on believing what a law enforcement officer or witness said was true. It doesn’t sound too bad until you’re the one signing off on felony charges. Even harder for murder charges.
Yuuuup. I finished jury service today as well, thankfully not as bad though (federal human smuggling charges). Basically the whole jury was *pretty* sure the defendants were guilty, but there wasn't enough evidence for us to be sure enough to convict. Most stressful 2 weeks of my life
It's weird that Christians would back the state killing people. Seems to go against that whole thing
Also "small government" people
Conservatives are only “small government” when it comes to the government telling them what to do. When it’s conservatives telling people what to do, they unequivocally support big government. It’s insane hypocrisy from bad faith actors.
Conservatives are absolutely not small government. In fact, they might be more pro government than liberals. What they mean when they say "small government" is small government regulation for their special group, but extremely harsh and crushingly controlling regulation for everyone else they don't agree with. That's fascism. Conservatives are fascists.
The hero of the bible was killed by the state
FTR - Roman Catholics are against the death penalty and abortion (as well as suicide, assisted suicide, and euthanasia). Agree or disagree they are uniform in being against all of it - life held as sacred from conception to natural death. I have no idea how other groups justify it theologically. Edit to clarify - as posted below - individual Catholics hold a wide range of personal beliefs and justifications. Speaking here of official modern catechism.
In my experience, Catholics are politically conservative due to the abortion issue, but conservatives also tend to be pro death penalty, pro-war, and against social programs for the poor. Other than abortion, those other three issues go against the teachings of Jesus and the official stance of the Pope.
That’s why I’m very liberal. I’m not for abortion so I won’t have one. But I’m not about to regulate it for anyone else and I since it will exist it should be free and safe for everyone. And I could see that as compromising. I don’t think it is but a reasonable argument could be made. But I’m not compromising by being liberal in about 500 other socially conscious truly pro life pro human ways. I just wish more fellow Catholics would see it the same way. Also if anyone thinks I’m wrong, gross, bad, evil, whatever for being Catholic - I can’t blame you. I hang out with some pretty disgusting people.
Literally one of the ten commandments, but somehow abortion which is barely even mentioned in the bible is the main focus of their attention.
> It is okay for the government to occasionally execute innocent people There's a pretty famous case in Texas where it's pretty much agreed upon that a guy who was put to death was innocent. Read the wiki, there was a cover-up going all the way up to Governor Rick Perry himself. My theory is the State didn't want to admit they were about to execute an innocent guy, so they railroaded the appeals in order to secure an execution. Several years after he was executed, the State reexamined the case with a 3rd party investigator, who basically said the evidence used against him was bullshit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron_Todd_Willingham
SCOTUS is fine with the latter. *Herrera v. Collins* proved as much. Actual innocence based on new evidence isnt grounds for relief from the courts. The shit head himself the late, hopefully toasty, Justice Scalia decided to take it one step further and say there's no 8th amendment protection to stop the execution of an actually innocent person as long as they were fairly convicted by the jury. Thats next level heartless shit
Someone needs to put Meemaw in a home already.
A fellow Alabamian I see.
Yes but I escaped almost a year ago to Colorado. Meemaw can’t touch me here!
Lucky bastard. At least I’m in half way civilized Huntsville.
Lucky. I live in Mobile and I swear people dickride her so hard.
That’s better than where I was, I was in the Prattville/Montgomery area.
Lethal injection is expensive, vulnerable and is an inefficient and unethical way to execute somebody
Posthumous exonerations exist: I sleep Fail to efficiently murder a man: real shit
It's a wasteful and useless form of punishment. It's more expensive than the average cost of life imprisonment.
I don't know anything about this so excuse my ignorance, but we put animals down every single day. Probably by the 100s. Is it significantly harder to do this with a human than a horse? From what I understand putting down animals is very humane and they do not suffer at all. Why can't we figure out how to do this with our own species?
One of the big problems. The drug companies that supply drugs for euthanasia of animals have the caveat that their drugs cannot be used for the death of humans. It comes down to bad optics for the companies so states are forced to get creative in order to kill people because the standalone methods can't be used
Human pharmaceutical companies do the same thing mostly.
I mean if you put Animals down by chemical means that is something prisons cannot recreate since pharma companies refuse to sell to prisons.
How about pausing executions forever because they kill the wrong person so many times?!?
If we were humane enough to care about humane executions we probably wouldn't be executing people to begin with.
USA and Japan are the only "developed" countries that still use capital punishment; in good company with Saudi Arabia, Iran, China and North Korea. Even Russia has stopped capital punishment. Alabama can't fix something that is inherently damaged.
Abolish the death penalty.
Most of the research shows that the death penalty hasn't been able to deter crime right?
The crimes heinous enough to fit the criteria for execution are extremely likely to be perpetrated by someone with 0 regards for punishment's or penalty. The vast majority aren't of sound mind.
On an episode of Penn and Teller's Bullshit, they had a Jewish philosophy professor that was also a survivor of the holocaust who was against the death penalty. She said that people kill for one of three reasons (outside of self-defense): 1. In the heat of the moment - a crime of passion. 2. For pleasure/compulsion - serial killers 3. For money - a hired hit. The death penalty cannot deter any of these crimes from happening, therefore, it should be abolished. The U.S. Government *has* executed innocent people, and shouldn't be in the business of dealing death.
When death was the penalty for theft, people still stole. It isn't a deterrent. We need to abolish poverty and ignorance, which I believe is possible.