|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 23, 2015 15:24:03 GMT
Question, why cant they just use an overdose of morphiates. The things they use as sedatives, if you use too much, people just dont wake up again. They are. It's called the Ohio Protocol--the single drug used is Sodium Phenobarbital (I believe). It's a normal drug used for inducing anesthesia, and administered in high doses. It's also one of the banned drugs by the EU, although it is used in the Dutch Protocol for euthanasia. The problem with barbiturates is that different people react differently. In one case, a euthanasia process took days to kill the person. Lethal injection has problems, to say the least. There have been quite a few botched attempts. Typically, executions take 7-11 minutes to kill, with death declared about 20 minutes after the start. However, it's taken much longer in some cases. California law says the the execution method can't take longer than 45 minutes; this is why the multiple drugs are used. Beyond 45 minutes is considered cruel and (especially) unusual. As appeals are usually going on up to the last second, it's not fair that some might have a better chance than others, isn't it? That's the way the courts see it, anyhow. In truth, when you look at the doses used for each of the drugs, any one of the drugs would most likely kill. In the case of the condemned, since many are drug users, their tolerances are much higher than the average person. Another rather horrific attempt was made when a long time IV drug user was executed. It took something like 2 hours to find a vein. Frankly, being jabbed with large bore IV needles for two hours by people about to kill me sounds a bit inhumane, personally. the better known use for sodium phenobarbitol is as an anti-seizure medication for treating epilepsy. one of our dogs was on it. |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Mar 23, 2015 15:38:16 GMT
or carbon monoxide, if needed combined with sleep drug first... It stinks of trying to make it look like it is the EU's fault they don't want those drugs exported for certain uses. Nitrogen has been proposed. Also, changing the gas chamber protocol to first generate and concentrate the cyanide gas, then introduce it en masse, rather than wait for the tablets to dissolve in the acid (another occasionally long process). And it is the EU's fault they don't want to export the drugs. It's their decision, not the various states. Like always, the Law of Unintended Consequences wins out, regardless of intent. The Good Intention Paving Company is alive and well... But arguing about execution methods is arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. At the end of the day, they're still executed. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 23, 2015 15:42:46 GMT
or carbon monoxide, if needed combined with sleep drug first... It stinks of trying to make it look like it is the EU's fault they don't want those drugs exported for certain uses. Nitrogen has been proposed. Also, changing the gas chamber protocol to first generate and concentrate the cyanide gas, then introduce it en masse, rather than wait for the tablets to dissolve in the acid (another occasionally long process). And it is the EU's fault they don't want to export the drugs. It's their decision, not the various states. Like always, the Law of Unintended Consequences wins out, regardless of intent. The Good Intention Paving Company is alive and well... But arguing about execution methods is arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. At the end of the day, they're still executed. which brings me back to the judge saying "We have determined that for the safety of the public, you cannot be trusted in society - so keeping in mind you will not be leaving prison alive, how long do you want to be there?" |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Mar 23, 2015 15:43:25 GMT
Question, why cant they just use an overdose of morphiates. The things they use as sedatives, if you use too much, people just dont wake up again. I've been wondering the same thing. Why not just give them enough to put them to sleep and when that's done, administer the lethal dose? That, or in the interest of poetic justice, use lethal doses of confiscated illegal drugs. A solid 2-3000 mg of heroin should be more than enough to kill even the most hardened of addicts and since it's an opiate, if it's administered gradually, it has the same sedative effect as morphine, so it's just as "humane" as anything else would be. Why not put all those illegal drugs that police have fought so hard to get off the street to some use and save the money on other drugs that essentially do the same thing? Sticking someone with a miscellaneous, unpredictable street drug seems to be the very definition of cruel and unusual. Street drugs aren't made in laboratory conditions; relying on the product of a high school dropout's garage chemistry experiment to be predictable is a recipe for disaster. Why try to further analyze and refine trash when it's cheaper to buy something humane off the shelf? |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Mar 23, 2015 15:48:15 GMT
I'm not sure how many states this is true for, but in Connecticut there is a very robust and rigorous appeals process available for those on death row. DEATH PENALTY APPEALS AND HABEAS PROCEEDINGSLoki: What you referred to as Murder One with Special Circumstances may be equivalent to Capital Murder (aka Felony Murder or Capital Felony Murder) in Connecticut. Exactly. It's only in bad TV dramas that every murderer gets executed. The average time on death row is about 15 years, and only about 1% of those on death row are executed. Unlike some other countries, the US allows multiple appeals and it's an automatic process that even the defendant can't stop. There have been cases of defendants even fighting against the appeal process--and failing. Yup, that's right: They wanted to be executed but the state wouldn't let them. |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Mar 23, 2015 15:51:17 GMT
I agree. Evil EU! They stink because they don't support the death penalty and won't allow their citizens to sell drugs used to execute people in nations outside the EU, but when France tries to sell aircraft carriers to Russia, there's no limit to how much the rest of the world can butt in. As I've always said: If standards are good, double standards must be twice as good. Selling execution drugs affects one person. Selling aircraft carriers to the Russians affects hundreds of millions of people. Yes, but since it's the US military that would in all likelyhood have to face those aircraft carriers, that's okay--they don't count. It's not like there is any threat to Europe from Russia--just ask the Ukranians... ...boy do I miss the eye rolling emoticon.  |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 23, 2015 15:55:10 GMT
I'm not sure how many states this is true for, but in Connecticut there is a very robust and rigorous appeals process available for those on death row. DEATH PENALTY APPEALS AND HABEAS PROCEEDINGSLoki: What you referred to as Murder One with Special Circumstances may be equivalent to Capital Murder (aka Felony Murder or Capital Felony Murder) in Connecticut. Exactly. It's only in bad TV dramas that every murderer gets executed. The average time on death row is about 15 years, and only about 1% of those on death row are executed. Unlike some other countries, the US allows multiple appeals and it's an automatic process that even the defendant can't stop. There have been cases of defendants even fighting against the appeal process--and failing. Yup, that's right: They wanted to be executed but the state wouldn't let them. last I saw we still had one of those going on in Oregon. the defendant is leading the campaign for immediate execution, and the state is dragging its feet on executing him at all. - and this is the first US state to approve physician assisted suicide. when the case hits headlines, I want to write a letter to the editor asking if anyone is willing to give him a fatal disease so he can request assisted suicide; or commenting that it seems criminals give up their right to death with dignity. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 23, 2015 15:56:24 GMT
Selling execution drugs affects one person. Selling aircraft carriers to the Russians affects hundreds of millions of people. Yes, but since it's the US military that would in all likelyhood have to face those aircraft carriers, that's okay--they don't count. It's not like there is any threat to Europe from Russia--just ask the Ukranians... ...boy do I miss the eye rolling emoticon. America plays by our own rules. If you don't like it, we'll take our ball and go home. Just kidding, no, we won't - we'll keep poking our nose in whether you want it or not. |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Mar 23, 2015 15:58:34 GMT
And thank Gnu for that.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Mar 23, 2015 15:59:26 GMT
Exactly. It's only in bad TV dramas that every murderer gets executed. The average time on death row is about 15 years, and only about 1% of those on death row are executed. Unlike some other countries, the US allows multiple appeals and it's an automatic process that even the defendant can't stop. There have been cases of defendants even fighting against the appeal process--and failing. Yup, that's right: They wanted to be executed but the state wouldn't let them. last I saw we still had one of those going on in Oregon. the defendant is leading the campaign for immediate execution, and the state is dragging its feet on executing him at all. - and this is the first US state to approve physician assisted suicide. when the case hits headlines, I want to write a letter to the editor asking if anyone is willing to give him a fatal disease so he can request assisted suicide; or commenting that it seems criminals give up their right to death with dignity. No no no...then he'll have all those human rights groups fighting against the system further accusing the system of cruel & unusual punishment, further delaying the execution. Now, if you put him in an older prison and the roof just happened to collapse on him... |
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Mar 23, 2015 16:01:46 GMT
Yes, but since it's the US military that would in all likelyhood have to face those aircraft carriers, that's okay--they don't count. It's not like there is any threat to Europe from Russia--just ask the Ukranians... ...boy do I miss the eye rolling emoticon. America plays by our own rules. If you don't like it, we'll take our ball and go home. Just kidding, no, we won't - we'll keep poking our nose in whether you want it or not. Actually, we probably couldn't take the ball anyway...because it's not our's...because we disrupted your game to instruct you on how we feel it should be played...without being asked... |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 23, 2015 16:07:46 GMT
America plays by our own rules. If you don't like it, we'll take our ball and go home. Just kidding, no, we won't - we'll keep poking our nose in whether you want it or not. Actually, we probably couldn't take the ball anyway...because it's not our's...because we disrupted your game to instruct you on how we feel it should be played...without being asked... you think that'll stop us from taking the ball? |
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Mar 23, 2015 16:12:10 GMT
Actually, we probably couldn't take the ball anyway...because it's not our's...because we disrupted your game to instruct you on how we feel it should be played...without being asked... you think that'll stop us from taking the ball? Point taken. Then again, we'll tell the other team to leave because we'll claim the field as our own also by virtue of us being there... |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 23, 2015 16:15:48 GMT
you think that'll stop us from taking the ball? Point taken. Then again, we'll tell the other team to leave because we'll claim the field as our own also by virtue of us being there... well, yeah - we're not REALLY going to go home. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Mar 23, 2015 17:48:12 GMT
Selling execution drugs affects one person. Selling aircraft carriers to the Russians affects hundreds of millions of people. Yes, but since it's the US military that would in all likelyhood have to face those aircraft carriers, that's okay--they don't count. It's not like there is any threat to Europe from Russia--just ask the Ukranians... ...boy do I miss the eye rolling emoticon. Did I say it was a good idea to sell aircraft carriers (or any other weapons for that matter) to the Russians? Don't believe I did... Wasn't trying to start a debate about France and their ships and who they're selling them to. It was an example to make a point about the irony of whining over one government entity interfering with something and not batting an eyelid over another basically doing the same. I was commenting on the "what" and the "how", not the "why". I don't see the problem with the EU not wanting to sell euthenasia drugs to the US, because they don't believe in capital punishment. If you exported bricks to the Middle East and you found out they were primarily being used to stone women for not wearing veils or whatever silly reasons they have for killing people around those parts, wouldn't you stop selling them your bricks? I would. |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Mar 23, 2015 18:40:23 GMT
You used a word there that is critical: "primarily". The banned drugs all have common benevolent medical uses. Now they're harder to get. Execution is very rare here--34 last year out of a population of 300 million isn't a serious fraction. In your analogy, how would you feel if you knew that 300 million of your bricks were mostly used to build hospitals, while 34 were used to build a gallows? Is that the same level of outrage? Even if you knew that the gallows was relatively quick and painless, while the other methods were torture? Fight to ban the sanction, not the method. Otherwise we're just salving our consciences without addressing the real problem, and doing more harm than good. I wonder what reparations the Knights Templar could claim for wrongful prosecution after 700 years? The compound interest alone is staggering.  |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Mar 23, 2015 19:47:18 GMT
And I'm not saying that I support what the EU are doing. I think it's downright silly. But I do believe in anyone's right to refuse service to a customer if that service requires them to go against their beliefs (as long as their beliefs aren't based on racism for instance).
We've had that discussion before. I think it was about a baker not wanting to make a wedding cake for a gay couple because it was against his beliefs. IIRC we came to agree that if it had been a neo-nazi wanting a cake depicting a dead baby nailed to a swastika, no one would have been offended if the baker said no. But when it's a gay couple, the PC police pull out their heavy Maglites and get ready to administer a beating that'll leave Rodney King going, "Hmmm... Maybe those cops weren't as mean to me as I thought..." But it wasn't like the guy had chased them out of his shop with threats of lynching them. All he said was that he might have to respect their right to get married, but, as it went against his personal beliefs, he reserved the right to refuse to make that cake. And that's fair enough, isn't it?
As I said, I support the what and the how, because I believe in the right of all people to deny service to anyone if it goes against their moral code. As to the why, I agree with you completely.
Denying millions of people access to certain types of medications, because those medications are used 34 times a year to kill someone whom a court has decided deserves it, based on the law of that particular land? Silly.
Making that decision over the heads of the companies whose livelihoods depend on making those sales, instead of just making your opinion known and letting it be up to their own consciences? Downright idiotic!
But if I say the EU can't deny the US those drugs, I also have to say that the baker can't deny service when that neo-nazi steps into his shop. Anything else would be a double standard on my part, wouldn't it?
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 24, 2015 0:51:16 GMT
You used a word there that is critical: "primarily". The banned drugs all have common benevolent medical uses. Now they're harder to get. Execution is very rare here--34 last year out of a population of 300 million isn't a serious fraction. In your analogy, how would you feel if you knew that 300 million of your bricks were mostly used to build hospitals, while 34 were used to build a gallows? Is that the same level of outrage? Even if you knew that the gallows was relatively quick and painless, while the other methods were torture? Fight to ban the sanction, not the method. Otherwise we're just salving our consciences without addressing the real problem, and doing more harm than good. I wonder what reparations the Knights Templar could claim for wrongful prosecution after 700 years? The compound interest alone is staggering. I think some of our merchants wouldn't bat an eye. (about the bricks) |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Mar 24, 2015 1:08:31 GMT
And I'm not saying that I support what the EU are doing. I think it's downright silly. But I do believe in anyone's right to refuse service to a customer if that service requires them to go against their beliefs Totally agree with you up to this point. But differ here--I want to grant everyone their own freedom of belief, regardless of whether I find it offensive or not. You don't have to protect freedom of speech if the speech is innocuous; only offensive speech needs protection. Again, totally agree. Consenting adults should be able to make or not make any contract they want, for any reason--otherwise you're forcing someone to work for you against their wishes. That, in most cases, is slavery. The only exception to this is where one person might suffer genuine damage if you refuse based on belief. For example: 1. A cab driver hates drunks, so he never allows anyone who seems drunk into his cab. Sorry, if you're licensed by your city to drive a cab (and most are) you need to accept all citizens. Not being able to use a city authorized service is a serious loss (and the drunk might be tempted to drive, otherwise). 2. A doctor doesn't like the opposite gender, and won't treat them if they show up in an emergency room. Sorry, you're licensed by the state to perform medicine for everyone, not just folks you like. If you don't want to work on someone, turn in your license. A baker not wanting to bake a cake isn't depriving the customer of anything they can't get elsewhere (or better, even). Life and limb are not at risk, so compulsion in that case is heinous. That's why the government should butt out. It should let the baker choose his customer as well as the drug company choose theirs. The impact in both cases is minimal if the government keeps out, whereas the impact is offensively coercive if it interferes. The companies can do what they like. I'd be honest about it--realize it's an empty gesture better served by addressing the death penalty in particular rather than the method it is carried out. I need to correct a mistake I made earlier, by the way. I misunderstood something this issue, and for that I apologize. It has been found that the only customers for the imported drugs in the US before the ban were the prison execution authorities. None of it was going into the medical market. What's happened now is that Hospira, the company that makes Sodium Thiopental, has had production problems domestically, and that's created an overall shortage that can't be fixed by importing from Europe due to the ban. It's projected to be over by mid 2015, so things may get better for the medical customers. Hospira is on record as disapproving of the use of their product in executions. Public disclosure of the sources of the drugs are not universal, but at least some of the drugs are bought from compounding pharmacies acting as middlemen, so Hospira can't control the ultimate customer. But even if all this is true, it should be up to the companies to pick and choose their customers, just like the baker, in my opinion. Right now, various anti-death penalty activists are trying to find out which pharmacies provide the drugs. I'd like it better if they focused on the penalty in general. After all, if it comes down to it, rope is cheap and common, and well understood.  Until the death penalty itself is ended, all else is just symbolic gestures and posturing. Neither is likely to end the practice. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 24, 2015 4:39:13 GMT
I absolutely agree on the slavery angle, and with the reasonable limitations. If I am selling apples, and prejudiced against gingers, and a ginger tries to buy an apple, then I do not find it unreasonable to be prohibited from refusing to sell an apple off my shelf.
on the other hand, if I make custom quilts, and am opposed to the use of marijuana, and someone comes in and asks me to make a quilt decorated with marijuana symbology, then I would consider being forced to accept that order to be a violation of my core values, and as such a violation of my religious freedom.
so - to address the gay wedding cake example: if a person were to believe that God disapproves of homosexual behavior, and believe that marriage implies God's blessing on a couple - then by asking them to participate in a wedding between a homosexual couple is essentially demanding they confer God's blessing on the behavior they believe God disapproves of - which would be a violation of their core values. - and it is one of those things that they may have no problem whatsoever with selling a birthday cake to a gay couple - because that is not asking them to express tacit approval of the behavior.
Am I expressing that clearly?
|
|
