Judge denies appeal from US inmate facing firing squad

[Jonathan Fairfield]

Judge denies appeal from US inmate facing firing squad

LINDSAY WHITEHURST, Associated Press

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — A judge denied an appeal Friday from a Utah death row inmate who argued that his sentence of death by firing squad is cruel and unusual punishment.

U.S. District Judge Dee Benson wrote in his ruling that the U.S. Supreme Court has never overturned a state's chosen method of execution as cruel and unusual, though he said inmate Ron Lafferty can still press his claims in Utah state court.

Utah recently approved the use of a firing squad as a backup if lethal injection drugs are unavailable.

Lafferty, 74, had argued that the firing squad would cause a lingering, unnecessarily painful death. He chose to die that way when he was sentenced 30 years ago and such a choice was available, but his lawyers now argue that he wasn't legally competent to do so.

Attorneys for Lafferty did not immediately return a message seeking comment. He is likely still years away from a possible execution date.

Utah is the only state that allows executions by firing squad if lethal injection drugs aren't available. State lawmakers said the approval was a practical matter of choosing a backup plan to the drugs that have come under increasing scrutiny.

Opponents, however, say firing squads are barbaric.

Lafferty is the longest-serving death row inmate in Utah and one of the inmates who is closest to a possible execution date. He was convicted in the 1984 deaths of his sister-in-law, Brenda Lafferty, and her baby daughter. He claimed the killings were directed by God because of the woman's resistance to his beliefs in polygamy.

Ron Lafferty's firing squad arguments came in a federal court motion asking a judge to put his case on hold so he could pursue complaints about evidence handling and testimony. Arguments against capital punishment are common in death penalty appeals, but Utah's move to bring it back as a backup method could bring new scrutiny.

While Benson declined to halt the federal case, he said Lafferty is still free to pursue his other claims.

-- (c) Associated Press 2015-10-31

[ClutchClark]

Killed baby girl.

Now THAT is cruel and inhumane.

[NickJ]

I read the book ' Under the Banner of Heaven' All about the Mormon church and this guy Lafferty. Total whackado. Book was great though. Never quite looked at a Mormon the same way ever again.

[ezzra]

" had argued that the firing squad would cause a lingering, unnecessarily painful death " as oppose to

his victims dying peacefully and with no pains and horror? he had no problem in inflicting horrific death

on his victims, but when it come the day to meet his maker, he ask for understanding and mercy...

[up2u2]

Makes the State no better than the person they are murdering. Barbaric and has no place in a progressive modern educated society.

[ClutchClark]

Makes the State no better than the person they are murdering. Barbaric and has no place in a progressive modern educated society.

The man made a decision to not participate in society when he killed innocent people. The State is only honoring his wish.

Mighty nice of them I would say.

Cruel & Unusual would be if they made him suffer.

Edited October 31, 2015 by ClutchClark

[dutchisaan]

Americans and there guns!

[up2u2]

Makes the State no better than the person they are murdering. Barbaric and has no place in a progressive modern educated society.

The man made a decision to not participate in society when he killed innocent people. The State is only honoring his wish.

Mighty nice of them I would say.

Cruel & Unusual would be if they made him suffer.

A society have a right to exclude a person from and to protect the citizens from a person who has committed a barbaric inhuman act. It should not conduct itself in a manner that is exactly as barbaric and inhuman as the crimes the person committed. They become one and the same. I can understand this type of barbarism from backward uneducated theocracies but totally unacceptable from what is considered a developed educated first world democracy. It serves absolutely no purpose and shames the citizens who allow their State to act in this abhorrent way.

Putting someone against a wall and violently and knowingly taking a person's life makes the society as evil and pathetic as the heinous deeds of the executed. Not a coat of paint between the two participants.

[ClutchClark]

Makes the State no better than the person they are murdering. Barbaric and has no place in a progressive modern educated society.

The man made a decision to not participate in society when he killed innocent people. The State is only honoring his wish.

Mighty nice of them I would say.

Cruel & Unusual would be if they made him suffer.

A society have a right to exclude a person from and to protect the citizens from a person who has committed a barbaric inhuman act. It should not conduct itself in a manner that is exactly as barbaric and inhuman as the crimes the person committed. They become one and the same. I can understand this type of barbarism from backward uneducated theocracies but totally unacceptable from what is considered a developed educated first world democracy. It serves absolutely no purpose and shames the citizens who allow their State to act in this abhorrent way.

Putting someone against a wall and violently and knowingly taking a person's life makes the society as evil and pathetic as the heinous deeds of the executed. Not a coat of paint between the two participants.

You have every right to an opinion and you can call out as many accusations as you like.

Very soon the world will have one less child murderer.

Just like it has one less cockroach because I squished it under my sandal at the Big C.

I give both of them about an equal amount of concern--maybe the roach more because it got stuck on the bottom of my sandal.

Cheers

Edited October 31, 2015 by ClutchClark

[up2u2]

Makes the State no better than the person they are murdering. Barbaric and has no place in a progressive modern educated society.

The man made a decision to not participate in society when he killed innocent people. The State is only honoring his wish.

Mighty nice of them I would say.

Cruel & Unusual would be if they made him suffer.

A society have a right to exclude a person from and to protect the citizens from a person who has committed a barbaric inhuman act. It should not conduct itself in a manner that is exactly as barbaric and inhuman as the crimes the person committed. They become one and the same. I can understand this type of barbarism from backward uneducated theocracies but totally unacceptable from what is considered a developed educated first world democracy. It serves absolutely no purpose and shames the citizens who allow their State to act in this abhorrent way.

Putting someone against a wall and violently and knowingly taking a person's life makes the society as evil and pathetic as the heinous deeds of the executed. Not a coat of paint between the two participants.

You have every right to an opinion and you can call out as many accusations as you like.

Very soon the world will have one less child murderer.

Just like it has one less cockroach because I squished it under my sandal at the Big C.

I give both of them about an equal amount of concern--maybe the roach more because it got stuck on the bottom of my sandal.

Cheers

I do not have any right to an opinion. I have a right to express an opinion and have that opinion subjected to scrutiny. I hold my opinion on State sanctioned murder because that opinion is human and just and considered. I am not prone to the weakness of revenge and cruelty and injustice. I honour the death of an innocent child by not committing an equally evil act that led to the death of that child. I hold myself and my State to a much higher principle and moral standard.

"Very soon the world will have one less child murderer."

That has already been achieved. He has been excluded from society and quite rightly so. The next action makes the State no better than the deeds of the person they execute and serves no purpose.

"Just like it has one less cockroach because I squished it under my sandal at the Big C."

Why would you intentionally kill a creature? Simply because you can? Or that creature has no value? Why? I would intentionally step around a creature and do so endlessly. The reaction to randomly kill isn't part of my behaviour.

I do not have the right to kill as I please particularly when there is nothing to gain or defend but a terrible price to be paid the lose of my innate humanity. That is something I place a very high value on and a deep responsibility.

We are two very different people.

[ClutchClark]

Well numbnutz certainly agrees with you if thats any consolation.

No doubt you are a very considerate human being and I respect that you care about life.

Look at the bright side--if you are Buddhist, he has not really died--he will get a new start soon.

[Aussieroaming]

Barbaric coward...rest in hell

[bannork]

up2u2-the action of the state serves a purpose, it saves a lot of money, especially if he had been executed within 1 year of he crime.I don't think killing him can be equated with the killing he did- he killed 2 innocent people, the state is killing a killer, not 2 innocent people like he did.

And as for cockroaches, they spread nasty diseases, rather than dancing around them, I recommend you take a rolled up newspaper to them next time, it's not random killing I assure you.

[IMA_FARANG]

Makes the State no better than the person they are murdering. Barbaric and has no place in a progressive modern educated society.

------------------------------------

Rather like David Cameroun and the U.K. Tory party leaders, eh wot.