US killer executed with new lethal drug combination

[drx13]

There was a BBC documentary on the methods of capital punishment and the narrator was constantly bemoaning the cruelties of

the methods. He was delighted when apparently a pleasant method was found experimentally. by reducing the oxygen in the chamber very gradually, where even feelings of euphoria were felt during later phases.

When he presented his findings/recommendations to some interested parties, he was somwhat put out that the general reaction was that it was thought he was stupid and that the death should be more fitting to the crime.

When I think of the horrific lingering deaths that are perpetrated by many murderers ( Watch CI), I would not be displeased at the thought that those on death row had to contemplate a similar ending.

[F4UCorsair]

I don't agree with the death penalty. I await all the labeling as a tree hugging liberal, but is simply don't agree that anyone has the right to take someone else's life. Even the state.

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the death penalty isn't a deterrent. Also the subjectivity which sometimes goes into deciding someone's guilt, as we have seen people from being exonerated based on DNA. But for me that is beside the point. You don't take another persons life.

The irony of all this is that I think death is too easy as punishment for scum like most who go to death row. Small dark room chained to a wall for the rest of their life is more apt.

But then the state has to keep them, and in Australia that cost is estimated at $200,000 per annum. Index that at 3% for 50 years, and the total cost of keeping a killer is probably $30+ million, and the government can't afford to do that, any government.

Sure it's punishment to be chained up in a dark room, but then the tax payer is subject to financial cruelty. I know which I'd prefer.

Reference the cruelty of capital punishment, I wonder if the perpetrator ever thought he'd be subjecting his victim to cruelty as he slowly strangled her/him, or stuck a knife into her/him? I'd guess not or it wouldn't have happened. The ultimate crime against another is to take his life.

I'm all for capital punishment, but not in all cases. The evidence must be irrefutable.

[samran]

I don't agree with the death penalty. I await all the labeling as a tree hugging liberal, but is simply don't agree that anyone has the right to take someone else's life. Even the state.

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the death penalty isn't a deterrent. Also the subjectivity which sometimes goes into deciding someone's guilt, as we have seen people from being exonerated based on DNA. But for me that is beside the point. You don't take another persons life.

The irony of all this is that I think death is too easy as punishment for scum like most who go to death row. Small dark room chained to a wall for the rest of their life is more apt.

But then the state has to keep them, and in Australia that cost is estimated at $200,000 per annum. Index that at 3% for 50 years, and the total cost of keeping a killer is probably $30+ million, and the government can't afford to do that, any government.

Sure it's punishment to be chained up in a dark room, but then the tax payer is subject to financial cruelty. I know which I'd prefer.

Reference the cruelty of capital punishment, I wonder if the perpetrator ever thought he'd be subjecting his victim to cruelty as he slowly strangled her/him, or stuck a knife into her/him? I'd guess not or it wouldn't have happened. The ultimate crime against another is to take his life.

I'm all for capital punishment, but not in all cases. The evidence must be irrefutable.

The economic argument is a fallacy. Already clear evidence that the appeals process for capital cases ends up costing much more than a the cost of a life sentence. To be honest I think that 200k figure is more than twice what I've seen.

I'm not a lawyer so I'm no expert on evidentiary process. But I'd expect that unless you caught them red handed there is always going to be room for error.

I always find it funny that the conservative so called small government right is pro death penalty. By any measure it costs government more to execute people, but they are happy to pay for that.

[Credo]

The US has done quite a bit to streamline the appeals process, so I think the appeals are a lot cheaper now and quicker.

[samran]

The US has done quite a bit to streamline the appeals process, so I think the appeals are a lot cheaper now and quicker.

Just what you want when you are judging if someone should live or die. Might as well outsource the execution to the TV networks too? Put it in prime time and recoup the test of the cost through ads?

[Credo]

Nah, they can outsource it to Thaivisa members.

[sirineou]

The US has done quite a bit to streamline the appeals process, so I think the appeals are a lot cheaper now and quicker.

Did you know that 1 in 20 death row inmates were later found to be innocent,

From 1930 to 2002, there were 4,661 executions in the US, extrapolating from the above number

there must have being 233 innocent people executed since 1930

But hey, what's 233 innocent people killed when you consider all the money we saved

[Credo]

First of all, I am not a supporter of the death penalty, so you can quote someone else if you want an argument. If you want to start using statistics, let's start comparing with something a little less old than the 30's or 40's. The death penalty was common world wide up until around the 70's and 80's.

There have been a lot of advances in the sciences and in criminal investigations. In short, I don't know that extrapolating from the data is statistically significant.

What might be more relevant is to take a look at the people who are given the death penalty and the number of crimes for which they have been convicted. Most thieves don't end up in jail for their first theft. They have a long history of it. Do you think all rapists and murderers are caught on their first rape/murder? If so, why are there so many unsolved murders.

Maybe some of them get executed for the wrong crime, but it doesn't mean they aren't guilty.

[NeverSure]

I don't agree with the death penalty. I await all the labeling as a tree hugging liberal, but is simply don't agree that anyone has the right to take someone else's life. Even the state.

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the death penalty isn't a deterrent. Also the subjectivity which sometimes goes into deciding someone's guilt, as we have seen people from being exonerated based on DNA. But for me that is beside the point. You don't take another persons life.

The irony of all this is that I think death is too easy as punishment for scum like most who go to death row. Small dark room chained to a wall for the rest of their life is more apt.

"There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the death penalty isn't a deterrent."

It's not meant to be a deterrent. It's meant to see to it that the bastard never gets a chance to do it again.

The crime rate in the US has dropped by 50% since 1990. Explain that. Link

[sirineou]

First of all, I am not a supporter of the death penalty, so you can quote someone else if you want an argument. If you want to start using statistics, let's start comparing with something a little less old than the 30's or 40's. The death penalty was common world wide up until around the 70's and 80's.

There have been a lot of advances in the sciences and in criminal investigations. In short, I don't know that extrapolating from the data is statistically significant.

What might be more relevant is to take a look at the people who are given the death penalty and the number of crimes for which they have been convicted. Most thieves don't end up in jail for their first theft. They have a long history of it. Do you think all rapists and murderers are caught on their first rape/murder? If so, why are there so many unsolved murders.

Maybe some of them get executed for the wrong crime, but it doesn't mean they aren't guilty.

Sorry Credo it was someone else who made the remark that it was economically expedient to execute rather than long term incarcerate.

then someone else replied that it cost more to execute because of the cost of appeals process .

to which you replied, and I paraphrase, that the appeals process is more streamlined now.

and in my mind I mistakenly attributed the "economic expediency" comment to you also.

My bad and I apologise,

[samran]

I don't agree with the death penalty. I await all the labeling as a tree hugging liberal, but is simply don't agree that anyone has the right to take someone else's life. Even the state.

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the death penalty isn't a deterrent. Also the subjectivity which sometimes goes into deciding someone's guilt, as we have seen people from being exonerated based on DNA. But for me that is beside the point. You don't take another persons life.

The irony of all this is that I think death is too easy as punishment for scum like most who go to death row. Small dark room chained to a wall for the rest of their life is more apt.

"There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the death penalty isn't a deterrent."

It's not meant to be a deterrent. It's meant to see to it that the bastard never gets a chance to do it again.

The crime rate in the US has dropped by 50% since 1990. Explain that. Link

And life without parole wouldn't? I guess you'll also point to gun ownership.

Economist Steven Levitt has undertaken a well known study linking the drop in crime rates the availability of abortion. Not sure I feel comfortable with the implications given I am uncomfortable with abortion as much as I am with capital punishment .

[lomatopo]

Maybe some of them get executed for the wrong crime, but it doesn't mean they aren't guilty.

Exactly. Well put.

[Credo]

If you think a 50% cut in crime is good, wait until they legalize drugs. It should be bouncing around zero!

[F4UCorsair]

The US has done quite a bit to streamline the appeals process, so I think the appeals are a lot cheaper now and quicker.

Did you know that 1 in 20 death row inmates were later found to be innocent,

From 1930 to 2002, there were 4,661 executions in the US, extrapolating from the above number

there must have being 233 innocent people executed since 1930

But hey, what's 233 innocent people killed when you consider all the money we saved

How big was the sample group......20?

There MAY have been 233 innocent people executed. For it to have been '233 innocent people MUST have been executed', the sample group MUST have been 4661, and I bet that wasn't the case.

Incidentally, there is a difference between innocent and not guilty. They are entirely different concepts, and surprisingly, or maybe not surprisingly, a lot of people aren't aware of the difference.

The appeals process, no matter how long, could not exceed the cost of keeping a prisoner for 50 years......NEVER!!

Governments are reluctant to publish real costs of running prisons because the populace would be outraged, and demand the death penalty for capital offenders, so even if it is only half of what I contend, the total cost for 50 years would still be $15+ MILLION!! As an economic rationalist, I find that a ridiculous figure to pay for largely people who make/have made little contribution to society because they belong to the lower economic strata of society. On percentages, there are far fewer people from the top end of town in jail for capital crimes.

Put yourself in the place of a father who has lost a daughter to a rapist and murderer. Think about that for a moment.

My now former judge partner assures me that more guilty people walk free than innocent people are convicted, by a massive margin, and that's no consolation to the family of a person wrongly convicted, but not all convictions on capital crimes are given the death penalty either (talking US here), and nor should they be. Statistics on these issues will be skewed by each side of the argument (but never by me!!).

[F4UCorsair]

If you think a 50% cut in crime is good, wait until they legalize drugs. It should be bouncing around zero!

Sure, and then we legalize murder, and the crime rate will be zero, because by inference, if the most serious of crimes is legalized,, all lesser crimes will/should be also??

[samran]

The US has done quite a bit to streamline the appeals process, so I think the appeals are a lot cheaper now and quicker.

Did you know that 1 in 20 death row inmates were later found to be innocent,

From 1930 to 2002, there were 4,661 executions in the US, extrapolating from the above number

there must have being 233 innocent people executed since 1930

But hey, what's 233 innocent people killed when you consider all the money we saved

How big was the sample group......20?

There MAY have been 233 innocent people executed. For it to have been '233 innocent people MUST have been executed', the sample group MUST have been 4661, and I bet that wasn't the case.

Incidentally, there is a difference between innocent and not guilty. They are entirely different concepts, and surprisingly, or maybe not surprisingly, a lot of people aren't aware of the difference.

The appeals process, no matter how long, could not exceed the cost of keeping a prisoner for 50 years......NEVER!!

Governments are reluctant to publish real costs of running prisons because the populace would be outraged, and demand the death penalty for capital offenders, so even if it is only half of what I contend, the total cost for 50 years would still be $15+ MILLION!! As an economic rationalist, I find that a ridiculous figure to pay for largely people who make/have made little contribution to society because they belong to the lower economic strata of society. On percentages, there are far fewer people from the top end of town in jail for capital crimes.

Put yourself in the place of a father who has lost a daughter to a rapist and murderer. Think about that for a moment.

My now former judge partner assures me that more guilty people walk free than innocent people are convicted, by a massive margin, and that's no consolation to the family of a person wrongly convicted, but not all convictions on capital crimes are given the death penalty either (talking US here), and nor should they be. Statistics on these issues will be skewed by each side of the argument (but never by me!!).

No, but at least be honest with your argument which boils down to 'I support the death penalty and I don't mind if some people are executed for crimes they are innocent of'.

[evadgib]

These threads always bring out the "hang 'em high" brigade!

Personally I'd like to see the death penalty reintroduced in the UK. A shot to the back of the head/brain stem would be my preferred solution, administered by a Police firearms officer as part of his training. In extreme cases the Army could slot them on a sniper range.

Any useful organs should be used to prolong the lives of others after they have been dispatched.

[Credo]

Them would be some killer kidneys to have. I am not sure I'd like to look through the eyes of a killer though.

[F4UCorsair]

The US has done quite a bit to streamline the appeals process, so I think the appeals are a lot cheaper now and quicker.

Did you know that 1 in 20 death row inmates were later found to be innocent,

From 1930 to 2002, there were 4,661 executions in the US, extrapolating from the above number

there must have being 233 innocent people executed since 1930

But hey, what's 233 innocent people killed when you consider all the money we saved

How big was the sample group......20?

There MAY have been 233 innocent people executed. For it to have been '233 innocent people MUST have been executed', the sample group MUST have been 4661, and I bet that wasn't the case.

Incidentally, there is a difference between innocent and not guilty. They are entirely different concepts, and surprisingly, or maybe not surprisingly, a lot of people aren't aware of the difference.

The appeals process, no matter how long, could not exceed the cost of keeping a prisoner for 50 years......NEVER!!

Governments are reluctant to publish real costs of running prisons because the populace would be outraged, and demand the death penalty for capital offenders, so even if it is only half of what I contend, the total cost for 50 years would still be $15+ MILLION!! As an economic rationalist, I find that a ridiculous figure to pay for largely people who make/have made little contribution to society because they belong to the lower economic strata of society. On percentages, there are far fewer people from the top end of town in jail for capital crimes.

Put yourself in the place of a father who has lost a daughter to a rapist and murderer. Think about that for a moment.

My now former judge partner assures me that more guilty people walk free than innocent people are convicted, by a massive margin, and that's no consolation to the family of a person wrongly convicted, but not all convictions on capital crimes are given the death penalty either (talking US here), and nor should they be. Statistics on these issues will be skewed by each side of the argument (but never by me!!).

No, but at least be honest with your argument which boils down to 'I support the death penalty and I don't mind if some people are executed for crimes they are innocent of'.

samran, you may have read what I said, but more importantly, you haven't comprehended what I said if you contend that.

[Scott]

A post with unsourced statistics has been removed. If you are going to cite statistics, then you need to provide a source. Preferable a credible one.

[midas]

Just tie him to a post and give baseball bats to the victim's family members.

Or, a bullet between the eyes is pretty cheap.

It appears that this will now become reality in some states

Some states look at reviving firing squads amid shortage of execution drugs

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/17/22343015-some-states-look-at-reviving-firing-squads-amid-shortage-of-execution-drugs?lite

[sirineou]

Just tie him to a post and give baseball bats to the victim's family members.

Or, a bullet between the eyes is pretty cheap.

It appears that this will now become reality in some states

Some states look at reviving firing squads amid shortage of execution drugs

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/17/22343015-some-states-look-at-reviving-firing-squads-amid-shortage-of-execution-drugs?lite

I hope they do, in fact opponents of capital Punishment have had a hard time making their Eight amendment case to the supreme court,

With a bunch of idiots shooting at people and perhaps missing, or wounding but not killing, or maybe blowing some ones head of , might help as make a more convincing case an help our country join the rest of the civilized world.

In essence we should give them all the rope they need to hung themselves, pardon the pun

[NeverSure]

Just tie him to a post and give baseball bats to the victim's family members.

Or, a bullet between the eyes is pretty cheap.

It appears that this will now become reality in some states

Some states look at reviving firing squads amid shortage of execution drugs

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/17/22343015-some-states-look-at-reviving-firing-squads-amid-shortage-of-execution-drugs?lite

I hope they do, in fact opponents of capital Punishment have had a hard time making their Eight amendment case to the supreme court,

With a bunch of idiots shooting at people and perhaps missing, or wounding but not killing, or maybe blowing some ones head of , might help as make a more convincing case an help our country join the rest of the civilized world.

In essence we should give them all the rope they need to hung themselves, pardon the pun

A firing squad is a group of marksmen, often a dozen, shooting at fairly close range. They don't miss.

FWIW often one of the members is given a gun loaded with a blank. It is a tradition used so that no one knows if he actually fired a bullet.

[Crushdepth]

Barbaric.

[chuckd]

Barbaric.

As is rape and murder.

[F430murci]

The US has done quite a bit to streamline the appeals process, so I think the appeals are a lot cheaper now and quicker.

Not unless this is very recent. I clerked for a state Supreme Court Justice and we had mandatory review of all death penalties. Unlike Courts of Appeals, State Supreme Courts only hear cases they want to hear. Not so with capital cases.

After trial in state court, they appealed to the court of appeals alleging errors in the trial court. The Court of Appeals reviewed and the case was then appealed to the State Supreme Court.

RE: State Supreme Court review

We had staff attorneys, in addition to the Justices and their two clerks, that did nothing but capital cases. These staff attorneys had read all of the capital punishment cases written and were walking treatises on death penalty cases.

They did initial research drafts and we the clerks did the next drafts. Justices did final drafts and the drafts were then circulated for sign off or for justices to purpose or write separate concurring or dissenting opinions.

These cases got huge scrutiny at State Supreme Court level. These cases are the worst of the worst and I can say without a doubt that it is very rare to have a mistaken identity or wrong person in a death penalty conviction in the last 20 or 30 years. I have no doubt this occurred in 1960s and before, especially if race and rape of a white women who was murdered was involved.

I cannot recall any cases wherein Defendants said wrong person. Most were challenges to finding of aggravating circumstances, errors in instructions or admission of prejudicial evidence or crime scene photographs.

Next level.

After state Supreme Court, case goes through Federal Court system starting in the District Court, than the Circuit Court of Appeals. Unlike State Supreme Courts, the Supreme Court of the United States can deny review and does not have to grant appellate review.

Next step:

Post conviction relief then commences. Death row inmate starts in state trial court alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. That ruling is appealed to State Court of Appeals and then to the State Supreme Court.

Next step:

Post conviction relief ineffective assistance of counsel claims goes to the Federal District Court, then to the Circuit Court of Appeals. The United States Supreme Court can once again elect to hear or deny cert.

Next step:

Death row inmate goes to governor for pardoning. I remember being at office or on call during this process which is usually on night of execution. Governor can call State Supreme Court Justices to ask questions and to make sure review and conviction was proper.

There are last ditch pleas to the State Supreme Court and United States Supreme or District Court judges.

Sometimes execution is delayed by Governor, State Supreme Court or United States Supreme Court on night if execution if someone believes someone all if a sudden believes one if the many courts and 20 or so judges having reviewed the case missed something somewhere.

[speedtripler]

Just tie him to a post and give baseball bats to the victim's family members.

Or, a bullet between the eyes is pretty cheap.

It appears that this will now become reality in some states

Some states look at reviving firing squads amid shortage of execution drugs

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/17/22343015-some-states-look-at-reviving-firing-squads-amid-shortage-of-execution-drugs?lite

I hope they do, in fact opponents of capital Punishment have had a hard time making their Eight amendment case to the supreme court,

With a bunch of idiots shooting at people and perhaps missing, or wounding but not killing, or maybe blowing some ones head of , might help as make a more convincing case an help our country join the rest of the civilized world.

In essence we should give them all the rope they need to hung themselves, pardon the pun

A firing squad is a group of marksmen, often a dozen, shooting at fairly close range. They don't miss.

FWIW often one of the members is given a gun loaded with a blank. It is a tradition used so that no one knows if he actually fired a bullet.

i thought they load all the guns with blanks except 1 so nobody knows who fired the execution shot

[chuckd]

"In the United States, prisoners may wait years before execution can be carried out due to the complex and and time-consuming appeals procedures mandated in the jurisdiction. The time between sentencing and execution has increased relatively steadily between 1977 and 2010, including a 22% jump between 1989 and 1990 and a similar jump between 2008 and 2009. In 2010, a death row inmate waited an average of 178 months (or close to 15 years) between sentencing and execution.[1] Nearly a quarter of deaths on death row in the U.S. are due to natural causes.[2]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_row

[sirineou]

A firing squad is a group of marksmen, often a dozen, shooting at fairly close range. They don't miss.

FWIW often one of the members is given a gun loaded with a blank. It is a tradition used so that no one knows if he actually fired a bullet.

That's reassuring, I guess then No firing squad executions were ever botched?,

Barbaric.

As is rape and murder.

That's why rapists and murderers go to jail. I guess you are suggesting that we stoop down to their level

[Credo]

We stoop to their level because they don't seem to be able to rise to ours.