Lethal Injections and SCOTUS

[Michael Tee]

Court divided over lethal injection case
By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer 41 minutes ago
Supreme Court justices indicated Monday they are deeply divided over a challenge to the way most states execute prisoners by lethal injection, which critics say creates an avoidable risk of excruciating pain.
With executions in the United States halted since late September, the court heard arguments in a case from Kentucky that calls into question the mix of three drugs used in most executions.
Justice Antonin Scalia was among several conservatives on the court who suggested he would uphold Kentucky's method of execution and allow capital punishment to resume.
States have been careful to adopt procedures that do not seek to inflict pain and should not be barred from carrying out executions even if prison officials sometimes make mistakes in administering drugs, Scalia said. "There is no painless requirement" in the Constitution, Scalia said.
But other justices said they are troubled by the procedure in which three drugs are administered in succession to knock out, paralyze and kill prisoners. The argument against the three-drug protocol is that if the initial anesthetic does not take hold, a third drug that stops the heart can cause excruciating pain. The second drug, meanwhile, paralyzes the prisoner, rendering him unable to express his discomfort.
"I'm terribly troubled by the fact that the second drug seems to cause all risk of excruciating pain," Justice John Paul Stevens said.
Both sides in the case said they are bothered by the seemingly endless series of death penalty cases that come to the court.
Justice David Souter urged his colleagues to take the time necessary to issue a definitive decision about the three-drug method in this case, even if it means sending the case back to Kentucky for more study by courts there.
Scalia, however, said such a move would mean "a national cessation of executions. We're looking at years. We wouldn't want that to happen."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080107/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_lethal_injection&printer=1;_ylt=Apmznyrgj3Yzw0ig2KlYuupAw_IE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That Scalia is one cold-blooded son of a bitch.  Like a fucking Nazi.  Condemned murderers don't deserve much, but they sure as hell don't deserve to be put to death in excruciatingly agonizing ways.  If there's any doubt, the whole thing should be brought to a halt till they know for sure, one way or the other.

Personally, I always favoured the U.S.S.R.'s way - - the prisoner is suddenly and unexpectedly forced to his knees, a guard places a loaded pistol at the base of the guy's skull and blows his brains out.  Simple, effective and virtually painless.

[kimba1]

uhm don`t people survive head shots?
depending on the gun
I think  it`s not all that quick.
and if I remember it ,the body tends to get all twitchy like a chicken

[Michael Tee]

<<uhm don`t people survive head shots?>>

I don't think so if it's fired point-blank at the base of the skull.  Of course, I guess an accident could happen if the guy twists around at the last minute or the executioner stumbles.  Also, I'd bet they'd use a fairly large-calibre weapon.  Bottom line is that nothing is foolproof.  If you abolished the execution, who's to say that the guy wouldn't later die a horrible death in a prison fire or tortured by other inmates?  You can't guard against every possible eventuality and guarantee freedom from pain unconditionally.  All you can be expected to do is make all possible effort to avoid unnecessary suffering.

[_JS]

In a civilized nation, there should be no death penalty.

[Michael Tee]

<<In a civilized nation, there should be no death penalty.>>

That's true enough, but in a civilized nation, there would be no psychopathic sadistic killers either.  Bottom line is we better stop pretending we live in a civilized nation, the U.S. especially.

[_JS]

<<In a civilized nation, there should be no death penalty.>>

That's true enough, but in a civilized nation, there would be no psychopathic sadistic killers either.  Bottom line is we better stop pretending we live in a civilized nation, the U.S. especially.

There will always be those who fall through the cracks of society or suffer some extreme mental illnesses. Some, as you suggest, are simply horrible, cold-hearted, calculating killers. But, they should still not be put to death. The state should not be the executioner. Why should anyone respect the dignity of human life if even the state shows no such respect?

[Michael Tee]

<<Why should anyone respect the dignity of human life if even the state shows no such respect?>>

Because "human life" is just an abstract concept.  In the real world, there is no such thing as "human life," there are only the lives of 300,000,000 individual human beings, all or most of them worthy of dignity and protection, and then there are the lives of some real low-life scum.  When you've been duly convicted and sentenced to death, the presumption of respect for the dignity of your life is by definition abrogated.  You're an exception to the general rule that human life is worthy of dignity or more accurately is not to be taken by human hands.  The world is gonna be a better place without you.  Nobody is going to have to clothe, feed and house you for the rest of your natural life.  Nobody is going to have to live in fear that maybe one day you'll escape, or maybe one day you'll get your hands on a prison nurse or fellow convict.  Your chances to do harm are all used up and the rest of us will breathe easier when you're gone.   [Sure hope it's clear from this that "you" means the convicted criminal, not YOU personally.]

Now having said all that, I have to add that most of the worst criminals are products of a defective society and there's a certain unfairness in that we as a society have failed this person, yet it is he and not we that is going to pay for it.  So I am in favour of using the death penalty maybe a little more sparingly, reserving it for the most vicious and sadistic of killers, the kind of guys that, no matter how much society may have failed them, they are a fucking menace and beyond all hope of redemption.  The Talmud had a great saying that a court which imposed a sentence of death more than once in seventy years was a court of murderers.  Meaning that only the exceptional case (once in a man's lifetime) would deserve the death penalty.

[_JS]

I think we have to agree to disagree Mike, though I very much respect the quote you gave from the Talmud and your views on society and crime.

I look to a case like the Guildford Four where Justice Donaldson famously stated his regret that he could not sentence the four individuals to High Treason, which at that time in the UK was one of the few crimes that carried the death penalty (piracy was another, the others were equally arcane). As it turned out, none of the four were guilty of the crime for which they were convicted. It was bad enough that they spent fourteen years in jail, primarily for the crime of being Irish and in the wrong place at the wrong time. Yet, if Justice Donaldson had his way - four innocent people would have been killed by the crown.

Yet, even if the individual is guilty, I still do not support the death penalty.

Though I can understand why someone would in cases like Ted Bundy or other serial killers.

[Lanya]

I thought there was something in the Constitution (that old rag) that prohibited cruel and unusual punishment.   

[Amianthus]

I thought there was something in the Constitution (that old rag) that prohibited cruel and unusual punishment.   

I thought the Supreme Court decided that execution was neither "cruel" nor "unusual"?

[fatman]

I thought the Supreme Court decided that execution was neither "cruel" nor "unusual"?


SCOTUS has never been wrong?

[Amianthus]

SCOTUS has never been wrong?

Your evidence that it's wrong?

After all, I guess we could just do away with it if we assumed it's wrong every time they made a decision...

[hnumpah]

I thought there was something in the Constitution (that old rag) that prohibited cruel and unusual punishment.

 

At the time it was written, hanging and the firing squad were perfectly acceptable means of execution in the United States. They were not expressly prohibited by the Constitution, as I imagine they would have been if the authors had meant to outlaw them as means of execution.

I don't really care if the convicted murderer might feel a few moments of pain as he dies. I don't consider that cruel. Cruel would be prolonging it needlessly.

[kimba1]

you mean like florida,when old sparky set that guy on fire and he was burning while dying.
and the response in florida was "so?"

[Amianthus]

you mean like florida,when old sparky set that guy on fire and he was burning while dying.
and the response in florida was "so?"

Neither of these are true.

It was the sponges that caught fire (not the inmate) because the wrong type were used by the people setting up the execution.

And the response in Florida was to change the execution method to lethal injection.