COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — At about 450 pounds, Ohio death row inmate Ronald Post is so fat that his executioners won't be able to find veins in his arms or legs for the lethal injection, and he might even break the death chamber gurney, his lawyers say.
If the state is forced to use a backup method that involves injecting the drugs directly into muscle, the process could require multiple doses over several hours or even days and result in a grueling and painful end, they say.
Post, who gained close to 200 pounds on death row, is trying to stave off execution Jan. 16 for the 1983 killing of a motel clerk during a robbery, arguing that because of his obesity, an attempt to put him to death would amount to cruel and unusual punishment.
State officials say Post, 53, can be humanely executed under both Ohio's usual method and the untested backup procedure. The warden at the prison where the death chamber is situated even tested the gurney by piling 540 pounds of weights on it for two hours.
Post has not presented "sufficient evidence demonstrating that his obesity or other physical conditions will present a substantial risk that his execution cannot be conducted in a humane and dignified manner," Assistant Attorney General Charles Wille said in court papers.
A federal judge in Columbus will hold a hearing on Post's claim later this month.
Post's case is not without precedent: In 1994, a federal judge in Washington state ruled that convicted killer Mitchell Rupe, at more than 400 pounds, was too heavy to be hanged because he might be decapitated. After numerous court rulings and a third trial, Rupe was sentenced to life in prison, where he died in 2006.
If Post manages to stop his execution because of his weight, the legal precedent may not be far-reaching, because of the very small number of death row inmates who are that obese, said Deborah Denno, a Fordham University law professor and expert on lethal injection. And she said it is unlikely prisoners would begin stuffing themselves to try to fend off execution.
Richard Dieter, executive director of the Washington-based Death Penalty Information Center, which opposes capital punishment, predicted states will find a way around obesity claims by adjusting their execution procedures, perhaps by changing the drug or the dosage.
"Inmates probably will recognize that that's a thin straw to hang your hopes on," he said.
In 2007, it took Ohio executioners about two hours to insert IVs into the veins of condemned killer Christopher Newton, who weighed about 265 pounds.
At 6-foot-2½, Post weighed 260 pounds around the time he was moved to death row in 1985. His weight has gone up and down behind bars, and at one time he lost 150 pounds through dieting, his lawyers say.
But knee and back problems have made it difficult to exercise, his lawyers say. They also say Post's request for gastric bypass surgery was denied, he has been told not to walk because he might fall, and severe depression has contributed to his inability to control how much he eats.
The Ohio prison system would not comment on how Post gained so much weight behind bars. They said meals are served in reasonable portions and seconds are not allowed, and they provided copies of prison menus that list healthier options such as low-fat milk, vegetarian patties and mixed vegetables.
Inmates can buy sweet and salty snacks from the commissary.
A doctor who examined Post for the defense said Post does not have accessible veins in his arms, hands or legs.
"Given his unique physical and medical condition there is a substantial risk that any attempt to execute him will result in serious physical and psychological pain to him, as well as an execution involving a torturous and lingering death," Post's attorneys argue in court papers.
His lawyers have indicated they would fight any attempt by the state to employ a third possible procedure: the "cut-down" method, in which executioners cut into the condemned man's arms to find a vein. Ohio's execution policies don't call for such an approach, and it is unclear if the state can go ahead with such a procedure without court approval.
He claims any attempt to kill him will be cruel because his fatness makes administering the drugs painful and could last for days.
This is a case illustrating why a couple grams of lead are far superior to drugs in some instances.
As the thread said about hanging might decapitate another fat death row inmate. Let's take a cue from that, and execute via decapitation, a good sturdy guillotine would make it a quick process.
Why aren't you allowed to shoot these guys? Surely ONE bullet to the brain would have to be cheaper, quicker and less painful (i.e more humane) then lethal injection, electrocution, etc.
I understand that the idea of shooting someone is a little distasteful but it can't be any more so then injecting sodium whatsit into a guys bloodsteam and watching him thrash around for ten minutes while his veins are on fire.
Snrub wrote: Why aren't you allowed to shoot these guys? Surely ONE bullet to the brain would have to be cheaper, quicker and less painful (i.e more humane) then lethal injection, electrocution, etc.
I understand that the idea of shooting someone is a little distasteful but it can't be any more so then injecting sodium whatsit into a guys bloodsteam and watching him thrash around for ten minutes while his veins are on fire.
No. Nearly every state is lethal injection. Only OK and Utah allow Firing Squad. linky
Since this is in Ohio: Lethal injection is the sole method. In November 2009, they adoped a one-drug protocol, using only sodium pentathol.
Oh i didn't realise there were still places in the US that used firing squad. So what kind of circumstances would you be looking at before Oklahoma allowed firing squad as an option?
Snrub wrote: Oh i didn't realise there were still places in the US that used firing squad. So what kind of circumstances would you be looking at before Oklahoma allowed firing squad as an option?
They don't really. It's their third option. From that site I linked: Oklahoma offers firing squad only if lethal injection and electrocution are found unconstitutional.
If they want to do it this way, why not put forward a plan for the inmate to participate in a specialised diet and regular exercise in order to shed the load. It'd be far less painful than the intramuscular injections that he and his legal team are refusing, and would make the prison out to be the party open to compromise.
If the guy agrees, then it's settled, he sheds the pounds, if he doesn't agree to what would be an exceedingly fair compromise, he and his legal team suddenly don't look so innocent.
Tie him down, take 5 minutes to insert a central venous catheter, inject.
If our clueless residents at work can insert a central cath into people that we can't find a vein on, then there is no reason why this has not been taken care off long ago.
I don't agree with capital punishment and would like to get rid of it. But there is no reason why they couldn't do this with a central line.
Snrub wrote: Why aren't you allowed to shoot these guys? Surely ONE bullet to the brain would have to be cheaper, quicker and less painful (i.e more humane) then lethal injection, electrocution, etc.
I understand that the idea of shooting someone is a little distasteful but it can't be any more so then injecting sodium whatsit into a guys bloodsteam and watching him thrash around for ten minutes while his veins are on fire.
No. Nearly every state is lethal injection. Only OK and Utah allow Firing Squad. linky
Since this is in Ohio: Lethal injection is the sole method. In November 2009, they adoped a one-drug protocol, using only sodium pentathol.
I worked with a man that used to sight the rifles in for executions in Utah. They would bolt them in on a calculated angle so the bullets would hit the seated condemned man in the heart.
kronk wrote: They don't really. It's their third option. From that site I linked: Oklahoma offers firing squad only if lethal injection and electrocution are found unconstitutional.
Oh yeah sorry, i understood that it had to be unconstitutional. I was asking what sort of unconstitutional thing would have to happen before they offered the firing squad.
Snrub wrote: Why aren't you allowed to shoot these guys? Surely ONE bullet to the brain would have to be cheaper, quicker and less painful (i.e more humane) then lethal injection, electrocution, etc.
I understand that the idea of shooting someone is a little distasteful but it can't be any more so then injecting sodium whatsit into a guys bloodsteam and watching him thrash around for ten minutes while his veins are on fire.
No. Nearly every state is lethal injection. Only OK and Utah allow Firing Squad. linky
Since this is in Ohio: Lethal injection is the sole method. In November 2009, they adoped a one-drug protocol, using only sodium pentathol.
I worked with a man that used to sight the rifles in for executions in Utah. They would bolt them in on a calculated angle so the bullets would hit the seated condemned man in the heart.
Seems like the Heart isn't where you would want to be aiming, thats no garuntee of an instant death. You want to obliterate the CNS.
If you're going to do capital punishment, do it properly. Certainly an industrial winch could be set up to hang him, though this may not be appropriate on account of it being too fething funny.
d-usa wrote: Tie him down, take 5 minutes to insert a central venous catheter, inject.
If our clueless residents at work can insert a central cath into people that we can't find a vein on, then there is no reason why this has not been taken care off long ago.
I don't agree with capital punishment and would like to get rid of it. But there is no reason why they couldn't do this with a central line.
Trust the medical professional.
Or, you, know, possibly be creeped out by him, if death and stuff creep you out. Just sayin'.
The condemned was strapped pretty tightly into a chair so they couldn't move, and several bullets would go into them from rifles in fixed positions, pretty much guaranteeing instant death.
Who's worried about being humane to this murdering scumbag? He has to suffer in order to die, after committing murder? Boo hoo, wah wah. Kill him however he killed his victim. Honestly, I think a lot less crimes would be committed if people being tried were set to execution based on the crime they committed: you shot a guy, okay, we shoot you. You starve a guy and it takes two weeks for him to die, we starve you until you die. You decapitate a man, it's off to the guillotine with you. Most murders aren't humane, why should the execution be?
And using fatness (yes, I know the real term is 'overweight') as a means to his continued survival...words fail me. Hard.
timetowaste85 wrote: Who's worried about being humane to this murdering scumbag? He has to suffer in order to die, after committing murder? Boo hoo, wah wah. Kill him however he killed his victim. Honestly, I think a lot less crimes would be committed if people being tried were set to execution based on the crime they committed: you shot a guy, okay, we shoot you. You starve a guy and it takes two weeks for him to die, we starve you until you die. You decapitate a man, it's off to the guillotine with you. Most murders aren't humane, why should the execution be?
And using fatness (yes, I know the real term is 'overweight') as a means to his continued survival...words fail me. Hard.
Eye for an eye works for me. What about we keep feeding this lardarse till he dies of some food related death.
sebster wrote: I've said it before and I'll say it again - death by explosion. Tie them to a chair on top of a gakload of explosive, light a fuse and run like hell.
I mean, you want to obliterate a person from the earth, be honest about what you're doing.
Once more, because the irony appealed to me when originally I found this gem after you first mentioned execution by explosives:
sebster wrote: I've said it before and I'll say it again - death by explosion. Tie them to a chair on top of a gakload of explosive, light a fuse and run like hell.
I mean, you want to obliterate a person from the earth, be honest about what you're doing.
Once more, because the irony appealed to me when originally I found this gem after you first mentioned execution by explosives:
sebster wrote: I've said it before and I'll say it again - death by explosion. Tie them to a chair on top of a gakload of explosive, light a fuse and run like hell.
I mean, you want to obliterate a person from the earth, be honest about what you're doing.
Once more, because the irony appealed to me when originally I found this gem after you first mentioned execution by explosives:
Snrub wrote: We most likely haven't even scratched the surface as far as Nth Koreas nuttyness goes Kronk.
Oh it gets crazier. The exact nature of Kim Jong-un's leadership is actually kind of a mess, if you look just at the positions he formally holds. He's got the highest rank in the military, and is the Supreme Leader of North Korea, but if you look into that title it doesn't actually mean anything or confer any official power.
The positions that really matters and give substantial power is General Secretary of the Party - and no-one holds that anymore because Kim Jong-il was named Eternal Chairman. That's right, the real power in North Korea is zombie Kim Jong-il.
Firing Squads are a great way too boost unit moral and provide valuable hands-on marksmanship practice.
I wonder how someone gets fat on prison food? Don't they have limits on how much they can eat? Or did he do something like eat a bunch of a toilet paper to clog up his bowels?
Captain Fantastic wrote: Firing Squads are a great way too boost unit moral and provide valuable hands-on marksmanship practice.
I wonder how someone gets fat on prison food? Don't they have limits on how much they can eat? Or did he do something like eat a bunch of a toilet paper to clog up his bowels?
Fafnir wrote: I could have sworn the real leader was zombie Kim Il-sung
He is the Eternal President. Which is still all kinds of crazy, but only a harmless kind of crazy as he was given that title after he died, and it was purely honorary, with no formal powers. The powers of that position basically returned to the head of the party, where they had rested before the the title of President had been created.
It did set the precedent for giving people positions that they would continue to hold despite being dead, though. And now we have a position with real, formal power, being held by a corpse.
Mannahnin wrote: You seem to be suggesting that we should lower ourselves to the level of murderers out of expediency or bloodthirstiness.
No thanks.
Actually, I believe it will end up causing less bloodshed: with our system as it is, murderers often end up in prison for a large amount of time, enjoying access to exercise, work and three square meals a day. My suggestion would mean only people incarcerated for lesser crimes would be imprisoned, as anyone convicted would be removed from existence the same way they removed somebody else. The goal of this is not actual bloodshed, but to provide FEAR of retaliation, that would cause less murders. Would you be more likely to kill someone if you would be killed the same way, or if you were to receive life in a building that has decent temperature control, solid amounts of food, exercise, and a steady job? Hmmm...I know which one sounds worse to me...
Considering that we have used escalating punishment to instil fear to reduce crime, and that we continue to imprison more people than any other nation on earth, it seems safe to say that it is a dumb idea that is simply not working.
timetowaste85 wrote: The goal of this is not actual bloodshed, but to provide FEAR of retaliation, that would cause less murders.
Would you change your opinion if you were to learn that the death penalty doesn't lead to fewer murders? That the prospect of extreme retaliation doesn't impact the rate of murder at all?
Would you be more likely to kill someone if you would be killed the same way, or if you were to receive life in a building that has decent temperature control, solid amounts of food, exercise, and a steady job? Hmmm...I know which one sounds worse to me...
I think it's a bit odd to think anyone planning or in the act of committing will spend any time at all considering what might happen to them if they're caught and convicted. There's no rational weighing of the costs and benefits. Instead, you find either an assumption that they'll get away with it, or no consideration given to the idea of likely punishment at all.
I really don't care. I think the fewer breathing murderers there are in a country the better off it is. Similar rapists and other such scum that doesn't deserve to be referred to as a human being any more.
If we reduce ourselves to becoming blood-lusting barbarians because we want to kill the blood-lusting barbarians then I just say it is a sign that this country is fethed.
More so than any political discourse about Obama, Socialism, Fiscal Cliff, or anything else...
It's not about blood lust, it's clinical. You're in the medical profession, you should understand. When there's a sickness that you can't remove with drugs, more extreme measures must be taken... sometimes you have to cut it out.
If a dog gets sick and attacks other dogs and people you kill it. I see no reason that should be different, if not more severe for allegedly "higher" mammals. Would you say that the animal control or police officer putting the dangerous animal down is doing it out of a thirst for revenge or blood lust? Of course not, it's protecting the rest of society from a threat. That simple.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: It's not about blood lust, it's clinical. You're in the medical profession, you should understand. When there's a sickness that you can't remove with drugs, more extreme measures must be taken... sometimes you have to cut it out.
If a dog gets sick and attacks other dogs and people you kill it. I see no reason that should be different, if not more severe for allegedly "higher" mammals. Would you say that the animal control or police officer putting the dangerous animal down is doing it out of a thirst for revenge or blood lust? Of course not, it's protecting the rest of society from a threat. That simple.
What do you do when you've starved a guy to death after poking his eyes out only to find out that he was innocent?
KalashnikovMarine wrote: It's not about blood lust, it's clinical. You're in the medical profession, you should understand. When there's a sickness that you can't remove with drugs, more extreme measures must be taken... sometimes you have to cut it out.
If a dog gets sick and attacks other dogs and people you kill it. I see no reason that should be different, if not more severe for allegedly "higher" mammals. Would you say that the animal control or police officer putting the dangerous animal down is doing it out of a thirst for revenge or blood lust? Of course not, it's protecting the rest of society from a threat. That simple.
What do you do when you've starved a guy to death after poking his eyes out only to find out that he was innocent?
I imagine you would do the exact same thing that you now do after you pumped a guy full of lethal chemicals to death only to find out that he was innocent.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: It's not about blood lust, it's clinical. You're in the medical profession, you should understand. When there's a sickness that you can't remove with drugs, more extreme measures must be taken... sometimes you have to cut it out.
If a dog gets sick and attacks other dogs and people you kill it. I see no reason that should be different, if not more severe for allegedly "higher" mammals. Would you say that the animal control or police officer putting the dangerous animal down is doing it out of a thirst for revenge or blood lust? Of course not, it's protecting the rest of society from a threat. That simple.
What do you do when you've starved a guy to death after poking his eyes out only to find out that he was innocent?
KalashnikovMarine wrote: It's not about blood lust, it's clinical. You're in the medical profession, you should understand. When there's a sickness that you can't remove with drugs, more extreme measures must be taken... sometimes you have to cut it out.
If a dog gets sick and attacks other dogs and people you kill it. I see no reason that should be different, if not more severe for allegedly "higher" mammals. Would you say that the animal control or police officer putting the dangerous animal down is doing it out of a thirst for revenge or blood lust? Of course not, it's protecting the rest of society from a threat. That simple.
What do you do when you've starved a guy to death after poking his eyes out only to find out that he was innocent?
Plus the fact it could be highly unconstitutional
Why should our glorious constitution be applied to murdering scum?
IMO, if you have commited serious crimes against society you have lost the right to be protected by societies rules, and those protections should no longer extend to you.
I think anyone that is sentanced to any length of time in prison should have their voting rights suspended for the duration incarcerated.
And for crimes of certain severity, rape, murder, maybe assault and battery(severity dependent), you should lose all of your citizenship rights. Afterall, if someone breaks the rules of society, why should they continue to be protected by that society?
As for false convictions, modern forensic science has advanced to the point where the chance of someone getting wrongly convicted is highly unlikely. So that is not something we should be overly concerned about, especially with cases where Murder or Rape is involved.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: It's not about blood lust, it's clinical. You're in the medical profession, you should understand. When there's a sickness that you can't remove with drugs, more extreme measures must be taken... sometimes you have to cut it out.
If a dog gets sick and attacks other dogs and people you kill it. I see no reason that should be different, if not more severe for allegedly "higher" mammals. Would you say that the animal control or police officer putting the dangerous animal down is doing it out of a thirst for revenge or blood lust? Of course not, it's protecting the rest of society from a threat. That simple.
What do you do when you've starved a guy to death after poking his eyes out only to find out that he was innocent?
Plus the fact it could be highly unconstitutional
Why should our glorious constitution be applied to murdering scum?
.
It states all mena re equal and shouldn't be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, it's their rights as american citizens, all laws in the US can't contradict it.
So a law that says you can do whatever the feth you like to a criminal is unconstitutional, and makes you no better than them
KalashnikovMarine wrote: It's not about blood lust, it's clinical. You're in the medical profession, you should understand. When there's a sickness that you can't remove with drugs, more extreme measures must be taken... sometimes you have to cut it out.
If a dog gets sick and attacks other dogs and people you kill it. I see no reason that should be different, if not more severe for allegedly "higher" mammals. Would you say that the animal control or police officer putting the dangerous animal down is doing it out of a thirst for revenge or blood lust? Of course not, it's protecting the rest of society from a threat. That simple.
What do you do when you've starved a guy to death after poking his eyes out only to find out that he was innocent?
Plus the fact it could be highly unconstitutional
Why should our glorious constitution be applied to murdering scum?
.
It states all mena re equal and shouldn't be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, it's their rights as american citizens, all laws in the US can't contradict it.
So a law that says you can do whatever the feth you like to a criminal is unconstitutional, and makes you no better than them
Hence why I say they don't deserve to be protected by it. The constitution only applies to citizens, I believe murdering scum should lose their citizenship rights.
We should have a seperate Criminal Bill of Rights that outlines exactly what criminals rights are.
Right to Fair Trial, Right to a Lawyer, Right to appeal, etc...
As for cruel and unusual, I think thats up to interpertations. Death is a punishment, why should it be painless? I doubt his victim died in a way that wasn't cruel and unusual. Why should the criminal have it better then his innocent victim?
Generally, the stuff that gets these people on death row makes me not give a flying feth about whether they die painlessly or not. Normally I'd say feth humane execution for the gak these animals do.
Mannahnin wrote: You seem to be suggesting that we should lower ourselves to the level of murderers out of expediency or bloodthirstiness.
No thanks.
Actually, I believe it will end up causing less bloodshed: with our system as it is, murderers often end up in prison for a large amount of time, enjoying access to exercise, work and three square meals a day. My suggestion would mean only people incarcerated for lesser crimes would be imprisoned, as anyone convicted would be removed from existence the same way they removed somebody else. The goal of this is not actual bloodshed, but to provide FEAR of retaliation, that would cause less murders. Would you be more likely to kill someone if you would be killed the same way, or if you were to receive life in a building that has decent temperature control, solid amounts of food, exercise, and a steady job? Hmmm...I know which one sounds worse to me...
I support executing people in the same way as the committed the murder.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: It's not about blood lust, it's clinical. You're in the medical profession, you should understand. When there's a sickness that you can't remove with drugs, more extreme measures must be taken... sometimes you have to cut it out.
If a dog gets sick and attacks other dogs and people you kill it. I see no reason that should be different, if not more severe for allegedly "higher" mammals. Would you say that the animal control or police officer putting the dangerous animal down is doing it out of a thirst for revenge or blood lust? Of course not, it's protecting the rest of society from a threat. That simple.
Grey Templar wrote: Why should our glorious constitution be applied to murdering scum?
Because edge cases are the best place for an unethical man to seize greater power. When Stephen Conroy tried to cripple Australia's internet with an unaccountable blacklist, he lied and said he was doing it to protect children from child pornographers. When George Bush tried to claim his prisoners were entitled to the protections of neither the Third nor Fourth Geneva Conventions, he lied and said that they were "unlawful combatants".
A government that believes itself above the requirement for oversight and constraints is capable of far greater harm than any lone murderer. I consider lethal injection an overengineered solution to a problem that does not exist, but if you're going to kill someone you should at least do so quickly, humanely and by the book.
Grey Templar wrote: Why should our glorious constitution be applied to murdering scum?
Because edge cases are the best place for an unethical man to seize greater power. When Stephen Conroy tried to cripple Australia's internet with an unaccountable blacklist, he lied and said he was doing it to protect children from child pornographers. When George Bush tried to claim his prisoners were entitled to the protections of neither the Third nor Fourth Geneva Conventions, he lied and said that they were "unlawful combatants".
A government that believes itself above the requirement for oversight and constraints is capable of far greater harm than any lone murderer. I consider lethal injection an overengineered solution to a problem that does not exist, but if you're going to kill someone you should at least do so quickly, humanely and by the book.
Wait, what?
I am failing to see how that has any bearing on if murderers deserve the protection from the Constitution of a society they have flagrently violated.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I really don't care. I think the fewer breathing murderers there are in a country the better off it is. Similar rapists and other such scum that doesn't deserve to be referred to as a human being any more.
Blood makes the grass grow.
Sociopaths aren't human. At the very least, like you said in your subsequent post, they're like a dangerous dog that has to be put down. Under various ways of how you define "human," they literally wouldn't qualify.
I think that in murder, the families of the victims should be allowed to perform the execution, possibly by having each person flip a switch that completes a circuit to start the process. In cases of rape, the victim should be allowed to perform the execution.
EDIT
This isn't advocating for pre emptive execution, not at all.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I really don't care. I think the fewer breathing murderers there are in a country the better off it is. Similar rapists and other such scum that doesn't deserve to be referred to as a human being any more.
Blood makes the grass grow.
Sociopaths aren't human. At the very least, like you said in your subsequent post, they're like a dangerous dog that has to be put down. Under various ways of how you define "human," they literally wouldn't qualify.
I think that in murder, the families of the victims should be allowed to perform the execution, possibly by having each person flip a switch that completes a circuit to start the process. In cases of rape, the victim should be allowed to perform the execution.
Ehhh, that might be a little too far. If the victim wants to do it, ok, but I still think it would be wierd.
Every year I try to get "Death by Catapult" added to the list of options for Capital Punishment at the Texas State Legislature, and every year my "Banned from Austin" court order is extended by 365 days.
d-usa wrote: If we reduce ourselves to becoming blood-lusting barbarians because we want to kill the blood-lusting barbarians then I just say it is a sign that this country is fethed.
More so than any political discourse about Obama, Socialism, Fiscal Cliff, or anything else...
But, aren't we there already? Just look at out entertainment... we show blood galore/murders/sick things... but, show a little bewbs on the telly and it's "no knowz, what about the kidz!"
Grey Templar wrote: I am failing to see how that has any bearing on if murderers deserve the protection from the Constitution of a society they have flagrently violated.
My post was not about what the murderer deserves. I'm saying that the government does not deserve to be trusted to violate its own constitution.
Grey Templar wrote: I am failing to see how that has any bearing on if murderers deserve the protection from the Constitution of a society they have flagrently violated.
My post was not about what the murderer deserves. I'm saying that the government does not deserve to be trusted to violate its own constitution.
Grey Templar wrote: Why should our glorious constitution be applied to murdering scum?
Because edge cases are the best place for an unethical man to seize greater power. When Stephen Conroy tried to cripple Australia's internet with an unaccountable blacklist, he lied and said he was doing it to protect children from child pornographers. When George Bush tried to claim his prisoners were entitled to the protections of neither the Third nor Fourth Geneva Conventions, he lied and said that they were "unlawful combatants".
A government that believes itself above the requirement for oversight and constraints is capable of far greater harm than any lone murderer. I consider lethal injection an overengineered solution to a problem that does not exist, but if you're going to kill someone you should at least do so quickly, humanely and by the book.
Wait, what?
I am failing to see how that has any bearing on if murderers deserve the protection from the Constitution of a society they have flagrently violated.
Because they unethically created areas where they could whatever the feth they wanted to people they didn't like (at least in Bushes case)
In legal situations justice has to be ethical and should never lower itself to the criminal's level.
Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I really don't care. I think the fewer breathing murderers there are in a country the better off it is. Similar rapists and other such scum that doesn't deserve to be referred to as a human being any more.
Blood makes the grass grow.
Sociopaths aren't human. At the very least, like you said in your subsequent post, they're like a dangerous dog that has to be put down. Under various ways of how you define "human," they literally wouldn't qualify.
I think that in murder, the families of the victims should be allowed to perform the execution, possibly by having each person flip a switch that completes a circuit to start the process. In cases of rape, the victim should be allowed to perform the execution.
Labelling people as "non-humans" is never a good sign, and saying you should just remove them from society is dangerous thinking,
In many instances you don't know if somebody is a criminal before they commit the crime, and socio-paths can learn to hide their condition and can attempt to function in society
Grey Templar wrote: Why should our glorious constitution be applied to murdering scum?
Because edge cases are the best place for an unethical man to seize greater power. When Stephen Conroy tried to cripple Australia's internet with an unaccountable blacklist, he lied and said he was doing it to protect children from child pornographers. When George Bush tried to claim his prisoners were entitled to the protections of neither the Third nor Fourth Geneva Conventions, he lied and said that they were "unlawful combatants".
A government that believes itself above the requirement for oversight and constraints is capable of far greater harm than any lone murderer. I consider lethal injection an overengineered solution to a problem that does not exist, but if you're going to kill someone you should at least do so quickly, humanely and by the book.
Wait, what?
I am failing to see how that has any bearing on if murderers deserve the protection from the Constitution of a society they have flagrently violated.
Because they unethically created areas where they could whatever the feth they wanted to people they didn't like (at least in Bushes case)
In legal situations justice has to be ethical and should never lower itself to the criminal's level.
Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I really don't care. I think the fewer breathing murderers there are in a country the better off it is. Similar rapists and other such scum that doesn't deserve to be referred to as a human being any more.
Blood makes the grass grow.
Sociopaths aren't human. At the very least, like you said in your subsequent post, they're like a dangerous dog that has to be put down. Under various ways of how you define "human," they literally wouldn't qualify.
I think that in murder, the families of the victims should be allowed to perform the execution, possibly by having each person flip a switch that completes a circuit to start the process. In cases of rape, the victim should be allowed to perform the execution.
Labelling people as "non-humans" is never a good sign, and saying you should just remove them from society is dangerous thinking, In many instances you don't know if somebody is a criminal before they commit the crime, and socio-paths can learn to hide their condition and can attempt to function in society
I'm not advocating for preemptively executing them. (though I do think waiting for them to kill someone represents a total failure) If they do kill or rape someone, we shouldn't feth around with our morality that they don't understand anyway.
There is no comparison between those disorders. If you understood psychology, you would know that. This demonstrates that you are trolling. You also knowingly attacked a disability that I have, which is a severe violation of the rules.
Please stop deliberately trying to troll my posts and actually post something productive.
Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:
I'm not advocating for preemptively executing them. (though I do think waiting for them to kill someone represents a total failure) .
There's no guarantee that they will kill, and how would you identity the ones that would kill unless stopped
kronk wrote:A human is a human, whether he's a sociopath, a leper, a school teacher, or a bus driver.
Unless you're a psychologist, Inquisitor Ehernstein, don't try playing the "if you understood psychology" card, please.
kronk wrote: A human is a human, whether he's a sociopath, a leper, a school teacher, or a bus driver.
Unless you're a psychologist, Inquisitor Ehernstein, don't try playing the "if you understood psychology" card, please.
In an absolute biological sense, yes, but in the American Liberal overly feels deep thought moral sense, "humans have the ability to have emotions and display empathy for other people." Sociopaths don't do that.
A) There is no comparison between those disorders. B) If you understood psychology, you would know that. C) This demonstrates that you are trolling. D) You also knowingly attacked a disability that I have, which is a severe violation of the rules.
Please stop deliberately trying to troll my posts and actually post something productive.
A) They are disorders, therefore they can be compared.
B) Not that it matters, but Philosophy Master with a specialisation in Consciousness Studies here.
C) No it does not. You cannot infer from my ignorance that I am malicious.
D) No, I drew light on the matter at hand in a way which might resonate with your experience. Humanity is not something clear cut, and it's certainly not something you might lose because of a disorder.
This is even funnier coming from the Nazi hunter wannabe guy...
In an absolute biological sense, yes, but in the American Liberal overly feels deep thought moral sense, "humans have the ability to have emotions and display empathy for other people." Sociopaths don't do that.
That's nice. And not all sociopaths are murderers. Some are bus drivers. They're still people.
kronk wrote: A human is a human, whether he's a sociopath, a leper, a school teacher, or a bus driver.
Unless you're a psychologist, Inquisitor Ehernstein, don't try playing the "if you understood psychology" card, please.
In an absolute biological sense, yes, but in the American Liberal overly feels deep thought moral sense, "humans have the ability to have emotions and display empathy for other people." Sociopaths don't do that.
Humans have the ability to clap their hands. People who have lost an arm do not have that ability. Therefore, they are not humans.
A) There is no comparison between those disorders. B) If you understood psychology, you would know that. C) This demonstrates that you are trolling. D) You also knowingly attacked a disability that I have, which is a severe violation of the rules.
Please stop deliberately trying to troll my posts and actually post something productive.
A) They are disorders, therefore they can be compared.
B) Not that it matters, but Philosophy Master with a specialisation in Consciousness Studies here.
C) No it does not. You cannot infer from my ignorance that I am malicious.
D) No, I drew light on the matter at hand in a way which might resonate with your experience. Humanity is not something clear cut, and it's certainly not something you might lose because of a disorder.
This is even funnier coming from the Nazi hunter wannabe guy...
If it was a serious suggestion, that I'm sorry for making that conclusion.
While they are disorders, they are completely different; they can't even co exist in the same person.
While you chose something that I had experience with, I think it would have been good if you had thought about how it would have been received.
Your last comment is simply trolling. You are expressing a serious point, but that isn't the way to do it. Please explain your thoughts without ridicule.
In an absolute biological sense, yes, but in the American Liberal overly feels deep thought moral sense, "humans have the ability to have emotions and display empathy for other people." Sociopaths don't do that.
That's nice. And not all sociopaths are murderers. Some are bus drivers. They're still people.
That's why I don't advocate for rounding them up or anything like that. If they do kill or rape someone, we shouldn't feth around.
While they are disorders, they are completely different; they can't even co exist in the same person.
That's not the point, the point is that they are both disorders which do not affect a normal human being. If you say that a lack of empathy makes someone less of a human, what is stopping me from saying that a lack of social skills makes someone less of a human?
While you chose something that I had experience with, I think it would have been good if you had thought about how it would have been received.
That is precisely why I chose that example. People with disorders should better understand then most why you shouldn't judge someone based solely on their disorder.
Your last comment is simply trolling. You are expressing a serious point, but that isn't the way to do it. Please explain your thoughts without ridicule.
I'm expressing my disbeleif that someone with such a hatred of Nazism would in turn end up judging others as something less than human.
Firstly, I find it utterly baffling that someone could say the Constitution of the United States shouldn't apply to certain criminals, when the very document itself explicitly states that it does. In fact, several amendments are dedicated to fair, humane treatment of criminals.
Secondly, if you pretend that your "herpaderp cut off their testicles and starve them, then set them on fire" plans of executing these "monsters" are based on anything other than blind, dumb bloddlust, you're deluding yourself.
Most murders are crimes of passion, not the work of cold, calculating killers. The people that commit them deserve prison time, not cruel death. On top of that, the prison with the lowest re-commital rate of former inmates is one in Norway that essentially lets them live normal, respectable lives amongst themselves until they are released.
But seriously, most criminals are normal, everyday people that have made terrible decisions and who would be quite capable of going on to be productive members of society. That is if we didn't stick them in horrible, dysfunctional for-profit prisons or, as in the deluded minds of teenagers and communazi fetishists the internet over, brutally slaughter them.
sebster wrote: I've said it before and I'll say it again - death by explosion. Tie them to a chair on top of a gakload of explosive, light a fuse and run like hell.
I mean, you want to obliterate a person from the earth, be honest about what you're doing.
C'mon Seb, you've seen the pictures of what happens when they dynamite whale carcasses
the color purple wrote: Firstly, I find it utterly baffling that someone could say the Constitution of the United States shouldn't apply to certain criminals, when the very document itself explicitly states that it does. In fact, several amendments are dedicated to fair, humane treatment of criminals.
Yeah, it applies now. I think it should be changed or amended to take away certain rights from criminals if they are convicted. Thats all.
ENOZONE wrote: " at more than 400 pounds, was too heavy to be hanged because he might be decapitated."
That's something I'd like to see....
Who ever catches his head after it pops off gets a $25 gift certificate to Dairy Queen.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
the color purple wrote: Firstly, I find it utterly baffling that someone could say the Constitution of the United States shouldn't apply to certain criminals, when the very document itself explicitly states that it does. In fact, several amendments are dedicated to fair, humane treatment of criminals.
Secondly, if you pretend that your "herpaderp cut off their testicles and starve them, then set them on fire" plans of executing these "monsters" are based on anything other than blind, dumb bloddlust, you're deluding yourself.
Most murders are crimes of passion, not the work of cold, calculating killers. The people that commit them deserve prison time, not cruel death. On top of that, the prison with the lowest re-commital rate of former inmates is one in Norway that essentially lets them live normal, respectable lives amongst themselves until they are released.
But seriously, most criminals are normal, everyday people that have made terrible decisions and who would be quite capable of going on to be productive members of society. That is if we didn't stick them in horrible, dysfunctional for-profit prisons or, as in the deluded minds of teenagers and communazi fetishists the internet over, brutally slaughter them.
Incarceration is already stripping them of most of their rights.
Most forms of punishment are retributive. Steal a car: lose a few years of your life. Kill someone: execution. People have different ideas on the extent of retribution to be had.
Not really. If you'd like to cite some stupid statistics that would be cool, but people will murder over anything be it financial, anger or gang related. Private prisons are generally looked down upon because they are for-profit, state prisons don't make a profit.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I really don't care. I think the fewer breathing murderers there are in a country the better off it is. Similar rapists and other such scum that doesn't deserve to be referred to as a human being any more.
Which is fine, if that's your opinion.
I was challenging the argument that the death penalty is good as it works as a discouragement to other murderers, because it doesn't.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote: Sociopaths aren't human. At the very least, like you said in your subsequent post, they're like a dangerous dog that has to be put down. Under various ways of how you define "human," they literally wouldn't qualify.
No, they're people. They've got human arms, and human legs, and human heads, and all the other bits that humans have. They were born from the womb of a human woman. They're human.
I know it's cool and exciting to imagine the sub-human things that hard men have to make hard decisions about and all that, but seriously, what you posted up there is just silly.
I think that in murder, the families of the victims should be allowed to perform the execution, possibly by having each person flip a switch that completes a circuit to start the process. In cases of rape, the victim should be allowed to perform the execution.
2,000 years of judicial progress, all for kids on the internet to invent weird little revenge fantasies.
Huffy wrote: C'mon Seb, you've seen the pictures of what happens when they dynamite whale carcasses
Yep. Bits everywhere, landing on cars and everything. And I say if you want to obliterate a person from the Earth, then you're talking about a fundametally base, uncilivised action. Which, you know, whatever, we're not so evolved that we don't need the direct application of violence to make sure society keeps together. We've got armies and police for that, it isn't so extraordinary that we'd extend the application of lethal force to punishment as well.
But then we invent these ways of killing people that don't leave any blood. Often they're as painful as the messier versions, but for those of us watching we can pretend it its civilised because it's all so neat and clean. And before we get there we give them all kinds of appeals and stuff to make sure we really know they did it, because we're oh so civilised, except in practice they get defended by some overworked public defender, and their appeals taken on by eager law students on their summer break
And then the needle goes in, and there's no blood and it's so much more civilised than how societies in the past used to kill people, and I mean we're pretty confident he did it.
So let's be honest. Guy did something that our society hates, and we're going to go back to base level, law of the jungle rules in response. So strap him to a chair on top of a couple of ton of explosive, light a match and run. Smear that bugger clean across a cow paddock.
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — At about 450 pounds, Ohio death row inmate Ronald Post is so fat that his executioners won't be able to find veins in his arms or legs for the lethal injection, and he might even break the death chamber gurney, his lawyers say.
If the state is forced to use a backup method that involves injecting the drugs directly into muscle, the process could require multiple doses over several hours or even days and result in a grueling and painful end, they say.
Post, who gained close to 200 pounds on death row, is trying to stave off execution Jan. 16 for the 1983 killing of a motel clerk during a robbery, arguing that because of his obesity, an attempt to put him to death would amount to cruel and unusual punishment.
State officials say Post, 53, can be humanely executed under both Ohio's usual method and the untested backup procedure. The warden at the prison where the death chamber is situated even tested the gurney by piling 540 pounds of weights on it for two hours.
Post has not presented "sufficient evidence demonstrating that his obesity or other physical conditions will present a substantial risk that his execution cannot be conducted in a humane and dignified manner," Assistant Attorney General Charles Wille said in court papers.
A federal judge in Columbus will hold a hearing on Post's claim later this month.
Post's case is not without precedent: In 1994, a federal judge in Washington state ruled that convicted killer Mitchell Rupe, at more than 400 pounds, was too heavy to be hanged because he might be decapitated. After numerous court rulings and a third trial, Rupe was sentenced to life in prison, where he died in 2006.
If Post manages to stop his execution because of his weight, the legal precedent may not be far-reaching, because of the very small number of death row inmates who are that obese, said Deborah Denno, a Fordham University law professor and expert on lethal injection. And she said it is unlikely prisoners would begin stuffing themselves to try to fend off execution.
Richard Dieter, executive director of the Washington-based Death Penalty Information Center, which opposes capital punishment, predicted states will find a way around obesity claims by adjusting their execution procedures, perhaps by changing the drug or the dosage.
"Inmates probably will recognize that that's a thin straw to hang your hopes on," he said.
In 2007, it took Ohio executioners about two hours to insert IVs into the veins of condemned killer Christopher Newton, who weighed about 265 pounds.
At 6-foot-2½, Post weighed 260 pounds around the time he was moved to death row in 1985. His weight has gone up and down behind bars, and at one time he lost 150 pounds through dieting, his lawyers say.
But knee and back problems have made it difficult to exercise, his lawyers say. They also say Post's request for gastric bypass surgery was denied, he has been told not to walk because he might fall, and severe depression has contributed to his inability to control how much he eats.
The Ohio prison system would not comment on how Post gained so much weight behind bars. They said meals are served in reasonable portions and seconds are not allowed, and they provided copies of prison menus that list healthier options such as low-fat milk, vegetarian patties and mixed vegetables.
Inmates can buy sweet and salty snacks from the commissary.
A doctor who examined Post for the defense said Post does not have accessible veins in his arms, hands or legs.
"Given his unique physical and medical condition there is a substantial risk that any attempt to execute him will result in serious physical and psychological pain to him, as well as an execution involving a torturous and lingering death," Post's attorneys argue in court papers.
His lawyers have indicated they would fight any attempt by the state to employ a third possible procedure: the "cut-down" method, in which executioners cut into the condemned man's arms to find a vein. Ohio's execution policies don't call for such an approach, and it is unclear if the state can go ahead with such a procedure without court approval.
He claims any attempt to kill him will be cruel because his fatness makes administering the drugs painful and could last for days.
This is a case illustrating why a couple grams of lead are far superior to drugs in some instances.
the other problem with removing rights from criminals such as this is it suddenly becomes really easy to abuse that. police can lose evidence in order to remove someone they can't catch properly or gang leaders can stitch up rivals and as soon as they get sent away they can never prove they were innocent because they no longer have rights.
nomsheep wrote: the other problem with removing rights from criminals such as this is it suddenly becomes really easy to abuse that. police can lose evidence in order to remove someone they can't catch properly or gang leaders can stitch up rivals and as soon as they get sent away they can never prove they were innocent because they no longer have rights.
My proposal is that they only lose it if they are convicted, and only for the duration of their incarceration. So while they are on trial they would still have rights.
But if they are proven guilty, rights are stripped.
