Great !!!!!! That sounds awesome to me. Theyre complaining the drugs left him dying in agony for 45 mins. I dont see any problem there. Wonder how long the girl he buried alive tried to dig her way out ? Now all the anti capital punishment people are crying foul. One state...I agree with...is considering dusting off their electric chair. Ohio has one too. Wouldnt bother me if they went to firing squads or hangings either.
I was wondering when this was going to be brought up. I really wish we could conduct polls on this site. I think the results would be interesting.
------------------ Ron Count Down to A Better America: http://countingdownto.com/countdown/196044 Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun?
My Uncle Frank was a staunch Conservative and voted straight Republican until the day he died in Chicago. Since then he has voted Democrat. Shrug
They should start executing these vermin in the same manner they killed their victims. They could have just buried this guy alive....an execution and a burial in one easy step...probably save a couple bucks for the taxpayers too.
The Eighth Amendment to the Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights (ratified December 15, 1791[1]) prohibiting the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishments, including torture. The Supreme Court has ruled that this amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause also applies to the states. The phrases in this amendment originated in the English Bill of Rights of 1689.
What exactly is a "cruel and unusual punishment" within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment? Did the framers intend only to ban punishments-- such as "drawing and quartering" a prisoner, or having him boiled in oil or burned at the stake--that were recognized as cruel at the time of the amendment's adoption? Or did they expect that the list of prohibited punishments would change over time as society's "sense of decency" evolved?
One clue to the expectations of the framers comes from the debates of the First Congress that proposed the Eighth Amendment. On the floor of the House, Representative Livermore complained about the vagueness of the amendment's language: "It is sometimes necessary to hang a man, villains often deserve a whipping, and perhaps having their ears cut off, but are we in the future to be prevented from inflicting those punishments because they are 'cruel'?" Despite Livermore's objections, the vague language, subject to new interpretation over time, was left unchanged and the amendment ratified. The Supreme Court in the 1958 case of Trop v Dulles, expressly endorsed the view that what are prohibited "cruel and unusual punishments" should change over time, being those punishments which offend society's "evolving sense of decency."
The cases on this page suggest the wide variety of questions raised by the Eighth Amendment. . . .
I don't have to put a great deal of thought into this, I've always been a proponent of capital punishment. Having said that, I sincerely believe we've allowed the bleeding hearts that seem to surround us to make this mess into a lot more than it needs to be. I don't necessarily want death row inmates to suffer, I just want the sentence carried out. Hanging, firing squads, guillotines or dropping the convicted out of a hot air balloon is sufficient to get the job done. I also think executions should be televised. No one should be executed without prior knowledge. That knowledge would be prior to them committing their crime.
I accept the responsibility that goes with this. I understand that there will be some convicted who are innocent and that I could be inappropriately charged with some crime. I'm also willing to be one of the members of that firing squad. Some things and crimes are not forgivable. There is a price to pay or reward for every decision we make.
------------------ Ron Count Down to A Better America: http://countingdownto.com/countdown/196044 Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun?
My Uncle Frank was a staunch Conservative and voted straight Republican until the day he died in Chicago. Since then he has voted Democrat. Shrug
The reason we write down our ideals collectively and calmly and agree to follow them is just for times when we would rather bury that mother ****er alive just like he did to that girl.
I am an evil vengeful angry animal with moments of clarity.
This and other similar reasons is why I love our founding laws and unalienable rights.
Didn't they used the new drugs that were suppose to be more humane, painless and quick? Wasn't this in court for awhile till they figured out which drugs to use? Now the real test shows; not so much.
We should at least have the decency to let them chose their own method of capital punishment, like in Monty Python the meaning of Life. They cant claim it is cruel and unusual if the convict is the one who chose it.
Firing squad. Quick, cheap, as humane as this will ever be. I like the large caliber bullet to the back of the head idea. That has to be fairly humane, doesn't it? Brain function ceases, pain ceases? The idea is gruesome, but capital punishment is supposed to be ugly as a deterrent, isn't it?
There's like a million ways to OD, and the State can't figure out a combination of sleepy meds and pain killers to do the trick?
Are they morons?
Yeah, I'm in favor of public hangings, firing squad. Just not 20 years after the crime. Appeal(s) process should be quick - within a year, then the execution carried out, while the victims (or family and friends of the victim(s)) are still alive to know that justice was served.
Not to belabor the point, but execution is 100% successful at preventing repeat offenders.
I think they should be dispatched in the same way they killed their victims.
I really don't care for the bleeding hearts BS that they can't suffer when the punishment is doled out, especially when it is someone who have killed others.
quote
Originally posted by dsnover:
There's like a million ways to OD, and the State can't figure out a combination of sleepy meds and pain killers to do the trick?
Are they morons?
Those are rhetorical questions I hope because the answer is obvious, Yes, yes they are.
Steve
------------------ Technology is great when it works, and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't
Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.
[This message has been edited by 84fiero123 (edited 05-01-2014).]
I'm not going to argue the justice or morality of this execution. I have absolutely no sympathy for anyone guilty of this type of horrible crime. What I have a problem with is the permanence of the sentence carried out. You all know of the many instances where the convicted was ultimately found innocent, Some before the execution and some after. The other issue is the cost. Three times the expense to the taxpayer as it would be for life imprisonment. So I'm for life instead of a death sentence and I'm not for torture but I see no need to make anyone convicted of these type of crimes overly comfortable during their life sentence.
There's like a million ways to OD, and the State can't figure out a combination of sleepy meds and pain killers to do the trick?
Are they morons?
Heh, like maybe they should just hire a junkie, I hear they lethal inject themselves on occasion. Putting them to sleep should be a no brainer. Hey, maybe they could hire a veterinarian? they get it right.
Cruel is certainly subjective, and unusual would be anything not the norm, so by making a procedure simply protocol it would no longer be unusual.
The Eighth Amendment to the Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights (ratified December 15, 1791[1]) prohibiting the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishments, including torture. The Supreme Court has ruled that this amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause also applies to the states. The phrases in this amendment originated in the English Bill of Rights of 1689.
you read a lot of crap into things written into the constitution that is not in there,
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
That's the eighth amendment, it isn't what you think it says, its what it is written,
Steve
------------------ Technology is great when it works, and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't
Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.
[This message has been edited by 84fiero123 (edited 05-01-2014).]
We shouldn't have the right to torture another human being in retribution for any crime. I disagree wholeheartedly with you, Roger.
He took away her right to live. It is awful. We don't need to be monsters in turn.
Thats your deterrent. Criminals dont blink an eye at killing someone anymore. EVEN if they get caught....AND convicted, they might get off with life. Even when they get the death sentence, they buck the system for another 25 years after. Look at Jodi Arias for example, her murder was particularly heinous...her jury agreed and convicted her. They still havent given her any sentence at all years later. They may even have to retry the whole case JUST for the penalty faize at the cost of millions more.
I'm involved in this same discussion on a submarine vet site on Facebook. lots of "let the bastard suffer" kinda stuff. And I admit, I'm a hard-core hard-assed no-mercy kinda guy, I say let 'em twist in the wind. Or at least, I really want to. I wanna be all Jack Bauer and "let-em-suffer-the-same-fate-as-their-victims". But I recently saw a statistic that said about 4% of people sentenced to death are actually innocent. Knowing that I have to wonder if it's not only fair to make sure the fate is as painless and quick as possible, "just in case". I'm not necessarily inclined to shoo away the death penalty just because a few innocent people slip through (although that's not an easy call for me) but I guess knowing that 4 out of every one hundred people to face their maker via our penal system are completely innocent of any wrong doing (or at least of the crime of which they were erroneously convicted) makes me think it should be merciful.
Thoughts? Does that change anyone's perception or opinion ?
Ohio's last case that was deemed cruel. The subject supposedly had labored breathing was moaning in agony and just all around displayed signs of pain. Last I heard about it his lawyer was being charged with coaching. The claim is his lawyer coached him on ways to show signs of a cruel death so his family could file suite for cruel and unusual punishment. On the case of O.D drugs. The reason at least Ohio is using a new drug cocktail is the last drugs they where using the manufacturer was not comfortable with there drugs in an unauthorized way and pulled there supply to the prison administration. There has been long debates on the death sentence practice. Electric chair was deemed cruel as well for a while which is way a lot of states stopped it. The only issue I have is if they are going to have families witness this for there mental state something needs to be figured that doesn't create a cruel environment. You may want a person to die for actions against your loved ones but seeing a painful suffering can create a lot of uncontrolled emotions to the victims families.
Thats your deterrent. Criminals dont blink an eye at killing someone anymore. EVEN if they get caught....AND convicted, they might get off with life. Even when they get the death sentence, they buck the system for another 25 years after. Look at Jodi Arias for example, her murder was particularly heinous...her jury agreed and convicted her. They still havent given her any sentence at all years later. They may even have to retry the whole case JUST for the penalty faize at the cost of millions more.
News flash... They never have. We were just talking about this in the drugs thread. People that disobey the law don't think they'll get caught. You can set the penalty however harsh you'd like. You're still going to see murder.
Killing someone in cold blood like that is indefensible to me. Makes me sick, in fact.
I was wondering when this was going to be brought up. I really wish we could conduct polls on this site. I think the results would be interesting.
No Ron, I think they would be sad and just more telling of the narcissism and hard nosed apathy several people (but not all) on this website have already demonstrated great propensity for... meanwhile, all the time comparing their lives and choices to the subject being discussed like it's their big moment to shine next to someone who was, frankly, convicted for murder...makes no sense.
Honestly, this is cruel and unusual, and since convicted murderers have had posthumous DNA exhonerations, too many recently for the death penalty to even exist imho... I believe this entire affair (and the one in Ohio) to be a case of "That makes us no better than killers". But, don't worry, I won't include "me" in "us".. because the last thing you would catch me doing is supporting something right after denouncing it. (Which is why I am not cut out to be a politician).
News flash... They never have. We were just talking about this in the drugs thread. People that disobey the law don't think they'll get caught. You can set the penalty however harsh you'd like. You're still going to see murder.
Killing someone in cold blood like that is indefensible to me. Makes me sick, in fact.
I disagree. While these animals may not be scared of a quick flip of the switch, if they knew their last moments would be that of overwhelming pain as their veins explode and their body starts to eat itself from the inside, even they might be able to get it through their thick skulls that there will be justice served and that there will be consequences for their actions. Just remember the terror the poor girl must have experienced as these two animals buried her alive before you start having sympathy for these two dogs.
They got their just punishment. And this "accident" probably did more to convince the other animals to think long and hard about their thug lifestyle than any rehabilitation will.
Ohio's last case that was deemed cruel. The subject supposedly had labored breathing was moaning in agony and just all around displayed signs of pain. Last I heard about it his lawyer was being charged with coaching. The claim is his lawyer coached him on ways to show signs of a cruel death so his family could file suite for cruel and unusual punishment.
Interesting. I bet they are attempting to charge him with something, otherwise they are going to have to pay big. Government lies, cover ups and probably kills people for less. Would be curious how it turns out.
My understanding of how the lethal injection works is that the sorry bastard is asleep before the deadly drugs even hit them. If that is the case, they fudged up.
I disagree. While these animals may not be scared of a quick flip of the switch, if they knew their last moments would be that of overwhelming pain as their veins explode and their body starts to eat itself from the inside, even they might be able to get it through their thick skulls that there will be justice served and that there will be consequences for their actions. Just remember the terror the poor girl must have experienced as these two animals buried her alive before you start having sympathy for these two dogs.
They got their just punishment. And this "accident" probably did more to convince the other animals to think long and hard about their thug lifestyle than any rehabilitation will.
You seriously think they're thinking about that when they're murdering someone?? How many murders happen in the heat of the moment? Crime driven by passion. They aren't exactly thinking logically at that moment.
You seriously think they're thinking about that when they're murdering someone?? How many murders happen in the heat of the moment? Crime driven by passion. They aren't exactly thinking logically at that moment.
Not to mention a gangbanger will do it just to prove/show he is not afraid.
Killing a killer via the death penalty IS really only for revenge for the victims and their loved ones. That said, I am all for it.
Originally posted by 84fiero123: you read a lot of crap into things written into the constitution that is not in there,
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
That's the eighth amendment, it isn't what you think it says, its what it is written,
Steve
So, you just regurgitated (almost verbatim) what I posted, and then declare that what I posted was in error? in other words, I said "My textbook reports that the sky is blue", and you say "No, that's only what you are reading into it. That textbook actually says only that the sky is blue, nothing more or less than that."
I copied that text from Wikipedia. Not to say that that, in itself, proves that it is correct. I just wanted to provide some reference here for the discussion. I think that paragraph from Wikipedia is accurate. I don't know of anything that contradicts it.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-01-2014).]
No what you said was this, you put your own ideas on a simple sentence. everything you said after that was your own opinion. or maybe the opinion of Wikipedia but not what is stated in the 8th amendment
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
The Eighth Amendment to the Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights (ratified December 15, 1791[1]) prohibiting the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishments, including torture. The Supreme Court has ruled that this amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause also applies to the states. The phrases in this amendment originated in the English Bill of Rights of 1689.
Firing squad. Quick, cheap, as humane as this will ever be. I like the large caliber bullet to the back of the head idea. That has to be fairly humane, doesn't it? Brain function ceases, pain ceases? The idea is gruesome, but capital punishment is supposed to be ugly as a deterrent, isn't it?
Or a 2 inch hydraulic bolt gun, no exit wound and it gets the job done quick and painless. Could just roll them over while they sleep. They just never wake up. Ever.
Originally posted by theBDub: Killing someone in cold blood like that is indefensible to me. Makes me sick, in fact.
You need to meet more people. People can be evil and the only treatment they will take for it will be forced. Some people just need killing. There is an old west movie line, "everybody knew he need killin". It made me think.
Originally posted by Taijiguy: I dunno about that. It may serve that purpose, but recidivism amongst death penalty inmates is zero. I think that's the more relevant result.
Since the only alternative in these death penalty convictions is life in prison, either without parole, or with no realistic chance for parole before they are too old after so many years in prison to present even the most infinitesimally fractional probability of committing another violent crime after parole, recidivism just isn't relevant in these cases.
Of course, there is another possibility: A pardon. But any official who would grant a pardon to a prisoner who has been convicted of this magnitude of violent crime..? A pardon issued before the prisoner has entered his last few years of life and presents no further realistic threat? Has it ever been done?
Recividism, vs. the possibility (if the death sentence is not used) of correcting, at some later date, a conviction that turns out to be in error..? Which factor outweighs the other?
Not saying that I am categorically against the death penalty. But I don't see that as a realistic pro death penalty argument, to say that the death penalty eliminates any possibility of recidivism.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-01-2014).]
I'm not going to argue the justice or morality of this execution. I have absolutely no sympathy for anyone guilty of this type of horrible crime. What I have a problem with is the permanence of the sentence carried out. You all know of the many instances where the convicted was ultimately found innocent, Some before the execution and some after. The other issue is the cost. Three times the expense to the taxpayer as it would be for life imprisonment. So I'm for life instead of a death sentence and I'm not for torture but I see no need to make anyone convicted of these type of crimes overly comfortable during their life sentence.
There is no perfect justice system created by man but, we have what seems to be one of the fairest ever established. There will always be a few innocents who get convicted and those who are guilty who laugh their way out of the court room. It is, what it is. In reference to the cost of execution, that's only because of all the bleeding heart liberals and their lawyers. You know, it's really not that expensive to hang someone, the rope can be used more than once. Actually, I have no problem with life sentences instead of executions, just as long as those bleeding heart liberals who can't pull a trigger get to pay for the cost of incarceration. But no, they want everyone else to pay, kind of like health care. ------------------ Ron Count Down to A Better America: http://countingdownto.com/countdown/196044 Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun?
My Uncle Frank was a staunch Conservative and voted straight Republican until the day he died in Chicago. Since then he has voted Democrat. Shrug
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 05-01-2014).]
everyone is talking about the drugs used and how the combination was screwed up or whatever, but the official explanation on why it was botched is that a vein collapsed causing the drugs to not make it into his system and the injection was called off, then he died 10 minutes later...
No what you said was this, you put your own ideas on a simple sentence. everything you said after that was your own opinion. or maybe the opinion of Wikipedia but not what is stated in the 8th amendment
Everyone like to put their own spin on the constitution.
Steve
The U.S. Supreme Court has also ruled that criminal sentences that are inhuman, outrageous, or shocking to the social conscience are cruel and unusual. Although the Court has never provided meaningful definitions for these characteristics, the pertinent cases speak for themselves. For example, the Georgia Supreme Court explained that the Eighth Amendment was intended to prohibit barbarous punishments such as castration, burning at the stake, and quartering (Whitten v. Georgia, 47 Ga. 297 [1872]). Similarly, the U.S. Supreme Court wrote that the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause prohibits crucifixion, breaking on the wheel, and other punishments that involve a lingering death
