What the guy did was reprehensible, but I don't think running him through that ringer again is right. I'd call it good with him stuck in prison with no chance of parole.
Story highlights
Court rules killer can be put to death after state botched its first execution attempt
Romell Broom was punctured at least 18 times in 2009
A medical team was unable to find a vein to administer a lethal injection drug
(CNN)Ohio's highest court ruled Wednesday that the state can again try to execute a convicted murderer more than six years after its first botched attempt was called off after nearly two hours.
In a 4-3 decision, the state Supreme Court rejected the appeal of death row inmate Romell Broom, who had argued that a second turn at capital punishment would violate his constitutional protections against double jeopardy and cruel and unusual punishment.
Broom was found guilty of aggravated murder in 1985 in connection with the rape and death of 14-year-old Tryna Middleton.
In 2009, a medical team at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility was unable to access a vein to administer a lethal injection after at least 18 puncture attempts, prison officials said. Former Gov. Ted Strickland then granted an emergency reprieve.
An appeal from Broom's legal team that challenged further execution attempts by the state wound its way through the state court system before it was ultimately denied on Wednesday.
"Because Broom's life was never at risk since the drugs were not introduced, and because the state is committed to carrying out executions in a constitutional manner, we do not believe that it would shock the public's conscience to allow the state to carry out Broom's execution," Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger wrote in the majority opinion.
Broom's lawyers, Timothy F. Sweeney and S. Adele Shank, expressed disappointment with the divided decision.
"Mr. Broom has been informed of the decision and remains in good spirits," the statement said. "He looks forward to pursuing the additional legal remedies available to him."
No date for Broom's second execution attempt has been set, according to his lawyers. The execution schedule for Ohio's other death row inmates has been delayed as the state works to secure a supply of the necessary drug.
In its appeal, Broom's legal team argued that the inmate, "by virtue of the two hours of painful efforts to insert needles into his body," had already received punishment and that a second attempt at execution would be in violation of the double jeopardy protection against multiple punishments for the same offense, according to the opinion.
The Supreme Court disagreed, saying the botched execution attempt had stopped short of a fulfilled punishment.
"The execution commences when the lethal drug enters the IV line. In this case, because the attempt did not proceed to the point of injection of a lethal drug into the IV line, jeopardy never attached," Lanzinger wrote.
A second argument, that a retried execution would constitute cruel and unusual punishment, was also rebuffed by a majority of the court.
"The state's intention in carrying out the execution is not to cause unnecessary physical pain or psychological harm, and the pain and emotional trauma Broom already experienced do not equate with the type of torture prohibited by the Eighth Amendment," Lanzinger wrote.
Sweeney said Wednesday that it was too early to say whether specific appeals would be made but outlined two options -- including taking the case to the U.S. Supreme Court and a pending 2010 federal petition, which had previously been stayed, to allow for the appeal to go through the state court system.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice William M. O'Neill said the description of the first botched execution "chills me to the core. "
"I believe as a moral and constitutional matter that subjecting Broom to a second execution attempt after even one extremely painful and unsuccessful attempt is precisely the sort of 'lingering death' that the United States Supreme Court recognized as cruel within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment 125 years ago," O'Neill wrote.
This is why point blank shotgun to the head is better than injection. Cheaper, instant, no chance of running out of the drug and no need to find a vein.
Nostromodamus wrote: This is why point blank shotgun to the head is better than injection. Cheaper, instant, no chance of running out of the drug and no need to find a vein.
Sure, it's messier, but you get results.
We've already had this discussion many times before and it falls under cruel and unusual punishment.
Nostromodamus wrote: This is why point blank shotgun to the head is better than injection. Cheaper, instant, no chance of running out of the drug and no need to find a vein.
Sure, it's messier, but you get results.
We've already had this discussion many times before and it falls under cruel and unusual punishment.
Raping and killing children is cruel and unusual.
Blowing this donkey-cave's head off is doing everyone a favor.
feeder wrote: The state has no business executing people, even disgusting gak stains like the one.
On the contrary, the State has a duty to protect law abiding society from criminals. Extremely violent, psychotic, sociopathic, homicidal, etc... piles of worthless gak like baby rapist-killers, terrorists, serial killers, etc..., are safest once they stop breathing.
Nostromodamus wrote: This is why point blank shotgun to the head is better than injection. Cheaper, instant, no chance of running out of the drug and no need to find a vein.
Sure, it's messier, but you get results.
We've already had this discussion many times before and it falls under cruel and unusual punishment.
Raping and killing children is cruel and unusual.
Blowing this donkey-cave's head off is doing everyone a favor.
Sure throw out the 8th amendment just because you don't like it, I guess I can start throwing out ones I don't like either.
Nostromodamus wrote: This is why point blank shotgun to the head is better than injection. Cheaper, instant, no chance of running out of the drug and no need to find a vein.
Sure, it's messier, but you get results.
We've already had this discussion many times before and it falls under cruel and unusual punishment.
Raping and killing children is cruel and unusual.
Blowing this donkey-cave's head off is doing everyone a favor.
Sure throw out the 8th amendment just because you don't like it, I guess I can start throwing out ones I don't like either.
Death by firing squad has been ruled to not be cruel and unusual, therefore the 8th is not violated.
Utah just had a firing squad execution last year, for example.
Nostromodamus wrote: This is why point blank shotgun to the head is better than injection. Cheaper, instant, no chance of running out of the drug and no need to find a vein.
Sure, it's messier, but you get results.
We've already had this discussion many times before and it falls under cruel and unusual punishment.
Raping and killing children is cruel and unusual.
Blowing this donkey-cave's head off is doing everyone a favor.
Sure throw out the 8th amendment just because you don't like it, I guess I can start throwing out ones I don't like either.
Death by firing squad has been ruled to not be cruel and unusual, therefore the 8th is not violated.
Utah just had a firing squad execution last year, for example.
Firing squad ≠ putting a shotgun in someone's mouth and pulling the trigger.
feeder wrote: The state has no business executing people, even disgusting gak stains like the one.
On the contrary, the State has a duty to protect law abiding society from criminals. Extremely violent, psychotic, sociopathic, homicidal, etc... piles of worthless gak like baby rapist-killers, terrorists, serial killers, etc..., are safest once they stop breathing.
I agree with you in principle. In practice, however, there is no state that has shown itself to be capable of carrying out executions responsibly.
Nostromodamus wrote: This is why point blank shotgun to the head is better than injection. Cheaper, instant, no chance of running out of the drug and no need to find a vein.
Sure, it's messier, but you get results.
We've already had this discussion many times before and it falls under cruel and unusual punishment.
Raping and killing children is cruel and unusual.
Blowing this donkey-cave's head off is doing everyone a favor.
Sure throw out the 8th amendment just because you don't like it, I guess I can start throwing out ones I don't like either.
Death by firing squad has been ruled to not be cruel and unusual, therefore the 8th is not violated.
Utah just had a firing squad execution last year, for example.
Firing squad ≠ putting a shotgun in someone's mouth and pulling the trigger.
Correct. Its actually less cruel since its far far more likely to cause instant death than the uncertainty of lining up a bunch of guys with rifles. And its not unusual either, people have been executed by firing squad for centuries.
Point blank high caliber bullets to the back of the head should be the method of execution we use, not some crazy expensive chemical cocktail. Only drugs we should use in the process is something to render them unconscious if desired.
I got my Desert Eagle 0.50 Cal all ready to go. I have ZERO qualms with putting it to the base of a human's head and pulling that trigger ... but only the ones that the state gives me the go-ahead on.
China does this and then sends the bill for the round to the prisoner's remaining family ... or so I have heard.
If no drug was actually administered to the condemned's system, then the sentence wasn't carried out. The court made the right call.
I don't like the death penalty but I think this is about right. Far as I know, people are protected from government feth ups only when there is actual jeopardy. No drugs running through the needle = not in jeopardy and it sounds like the execution was never even started because someone couldn't figure out how to tie the hangman's noose.
I think I can get it under ten try's. Though would the condemned be willing...or does he actually get a choice in....wait wait....he can watch us hang glad bags stuffed to his weight...
Nostromodamus wrote: This is why point blank shotgun to the head is better than injection. Cheaper, instant, no chance of running out of the drug and no need to find a vein.
Sure, it's messier, but you get results.
We've already had this discussion many times before and it falls under cruel and unusual punishment.
Firing Squad is still a viable option in a couple states. (one did away with it, but an inmate had all ready submitted his request for firing squad, so that one execution has been grandfathered in). I really don't see what is cruel about it. It's faster, less chance for pain, and more chance of success.
Nostromodamus wrote: This is why point blank shotgun to the head is better than injection. Cheaper, instant, no chance of running out of the drug and no need to find a vein.
Sure, it's messier, but you get results.
We've already had this discussion many times before and it falls under cruel and unusual punishment.
Raping and killing children is cruel and unusual.
Blowing this donkey-cave's head off is doing everyone a favor.
Sure throw out the 8th amendment just because you don't like it, I guess I can start throwing out ones I don't like either.
Death by firing squad has been ruled to not be cruel and unusual, therefore the 8th is not violated.
Utah just had a firing squad execution last year, for example.
Firing squad ≠ putting a shotgun in someone's mouth and pulling the trigger.
No one mentioned putting the gun in the inmate's mouth. I'd give him the option of a blindfold/bag, and point the gun (possibly a double barrel for assurance?) 2 inches away from the back of his immobilized head.
OIIIIIIO wrote: I got my Desert Eagle 0.50 Cal all ready to go. I have ZERO qualms with putting it to the base of a human's head and pulling that trigger
You talk a good talk, but I really doubt that you would.
His victim isn't coming back. His family are still around. Give the guy life and his spectre disappears. No appeals, no media, he is gone.
18 times. So long as the right procedures were followed 18 attempts were made at execution, and all failed. The jeopardy law could be changed and possibly should be.
Execution is barbaric. All methods. Why not just errect tall towers and throw people off of them. then have wild dogs, or pigs at the base to tuck into the remains. It'll be as effective as firing squads or lethal injection, or gas or whatever is humane(read: acceptable for those administering or viewing)
feeder wrote: The state has no business executing people, even disgusting gak stains like the one.
On the contrary, the State has a duty to protect law abiding society from criminals. Extremely violent, psychotic, sociopathic, homicidal, etc... piles of worthless gak like baby rapist-killers, terrorists, serial killers, etc..., are safest once they stop breathing.
But they're safe enough locked behind bars, and that doesn't run the risk of the state murdering innocent people. Not to mention it is possible to treat the mentally-ill and reform the criminally violent, so if the purpose of the justice system is, as it should be in a civilised society, to protect society not exact petty revenge by proxy then execution is indefensible. Which it is.
I find the execution debate one of the more hilariously ironic; people who don't trust the government to run schools, regulate businesses, or even collect and spend taxes are perfectly happy to give them the power and authority to murder any citizen they choose to, and most of them are clamouring for it to be quicker, easier, and require less evidence to get to that stage. Utterly mental.
Mr. Burning wrote: His victim isn't coming back. His family are still around. Give the guy life and his spectre disappears. No appeals, no media, he is gone.
18 times. So long as the right procedures were followed 18 attempts were made at execution, and all failed. The jeopardy law could be changed and possibly should be.
It shouldn't, because it is not related, at all.
However, if you argue that the state's method of lethal injection lends itself to incompetence, and thus will likely be handled in a cruel and unusual way, that's a way better argument.
Firing squad is not a point-blank shotgun to the head.
Why not? Better assurance of instant death than several men shooting at the chest from a distance. Can even be done remotely, there doesn't have to be a hooded executioner looming over him.
Mr. Burning wrote:Why not just errect tall towers and throw people off of them. then have wild dogs, or pigs at the base to tuck into the remains.
Because that would likely constitute a cruel and unusual punshment, which the 8th amendment protects against.
Yodhrin wrote:
I find the execution debate one of the more hilariously ironic; people who don't trust the government to run schools, regulate businesses, or even collect and spend taxes are perfectly happy to give them the power and authority to murder any citizen they choose to
Most people who don't trust "the government" with those things are talking about the Federal government. The Death Penalty is a State government issue.
Mr. Burning wrote: His victim isn't coming back. His family are still around. Give the guy life and his spectre disappears. No appeals, no media, he is gone.
18 times. So long as the right procedures were followed 18 attempts were made at execution, and all failed. The jeopardy law could be changed and possibly should be.
It shouldn't, because it is not related, at all.
However, if you argue that the state's method of lethal injection lends itself to incompetence, and thus will likely be handled in a cruel and unusual way, that's a way better argument.
I would probably argue that using poison, gas or electricity to execute someone is cruel and unusual - but is seen as acceptable because it may have less detrimental effects on those responsible for administering the procedure. And may be less detrimental to those administering said procedures when something goes wrong.
Is the 8th amendment the one to cite for cruel and unusual punishment?
I propose the method of execution should be changed to impalement with a spear or long sword. This is so that if it doesn't work the first time the executioner can take a second stab at it.
Kilkrazy wrote: I propose the method of execution should be changed to impalement with a spear or long sword. This is so that if it doesn't work the first time the executioner can take a second stab at it.
Mr. Burning wrote: I would probably argue that using poison, gas or electricity to execute someone is cruel and unusual - but is seen as acceptable because it may have less detrimental effects on those responsible for administering the procedure. And may be less detrimental to those administering said procedures when something goes wrong.
Is the 8th amendment the one to cite for cruel and unusual punishment?
Yes.
I personally agree with the people who would go with firearms, for two reasons. The first is that if you use a shotgun, double ought, point blank at the base of someone's skull, I think there is virtually no chance that the person would not be instantly (and thus painlessly) killed, even in the hands of a less-talented executioner. Shotgun suicides are not invariably fatal. but I think that's because a variety of factors that would not be present here.
The second reason is a bit selfish, perhaps, but I also would prefer that the execution be as messy as possible. No pseudo-medical procedure here. You go in knowing damn well you're going to kill a guy, and if you aren't willing to see the gore and clean it up, then maybe you shouldn't be in the state-sanctioned murder business.
I support the death penalty only in theory. In practice, in the real world that we live in, I would support a moratorium or flat out ban and personally I think it's only a matter of time before we as a country go that way.
Mr. Burning wrote: I would probably argue that using poison, gas or electricity to execute someone is cruel and unusual - but is seen as acceptable because it may have less detrimental effects on those responsible for administering the procedure. And may be less detrimental to those administering said procedures when something goes wrong.
Is the 8th amendment the one to cite for cruel and unusual punishment?
Yes.
I personally agree with the people who would go with firearms, for two reasons. The first is that if you use a shotgun, double ought, point blank at the base of someone's skull, I think there is virtually no chance that the person would not be instantly (and thus painlessly) killed, even in the hands of a less-talented executioner. Shotgun suicides are not invariably fatal. but I think that's because a variety of factors that would not be present here.
The second reason is a bit selfish, perhaps, but I also would prefer that the execution be as messy as possible. No pseudo-medical procedure here. You go in knowing damn well you're going to kill a guy, and if you aren't willing to see the gore and clean it up, then maybe you shouldn't be in the state-sanctioned murder business.
I support the death penalty only in theory. In practice, in the real world that we live in, I would support a moratorium or flat out ban and personally I think it's only a matter of time before we as a country go that way.
I think I'm with you on both accounts. I don't think finding someone to handle the job of executioner would be that hard. There is no shortage of people who are capable of taking life, and I'm not talking in a murdering sense. Justifiable taking of life. If there weren't, well we wouldn't be a very functional military.
And yes, I fully support the death penalty as an acceptable means of punishment. It is one though that there should be zero margin of error for. Some cases that is easy to get. I think most though, it isn't.
The whole reason we use lethal injection is to be as humane as possible.
A shotgun execution would never fly, even though, functionally, it probably is pretty humane, it is extremely messy. And messy *looks* cruel.
A closed bolt or pneumatic execution device would accomplish the same ends in a much more controlled way. Likewise, CO2 in a sealed chamber would also work. These are generally accepted as humane for animals.
With all executions, generally the administration of some sedative is called for to eliminate pre-execution stress.
That being said, I personally disagree that such measures are necessary- if someone has committed an act so heinous that death is the punishment, any manner of execution reasonable calculated to end their life without excessive suffering should do. Hanging, gunshot, etc. should all work. The fact that they may feel fear, pain, or suffer as a consequence is tragic, but it is punishment proportional to the crime.
I understand opposition to the death penalty on moral grounds, but do not understand opposition to "giving the State such power". What do you think the "State" is? In the US it is elected officials bound by state and national law, including voter elections and recalls. And how does opposing giving the State authority to execute on a state by state or national basis not contradict with it having the power to make war?
Practically, nationwide there is pretty close to a moratorium on executions anyway. The average delay is about 17 years. More people die of natural causes awaiting execution than execution. Potentially the reason why it isn't that effective of a deterrent- not because it isn't inherently so, but because there is so much systemic delay.
I understand opposition to the death penalty on moral grounds, but do not understand opposition to "giving the State such power". What do you think the "State" is? In the US it is elected officials bound by state and national law, including voter elections and recalls. And how does opposing giving the State authority to execute on a state by state or national basis not contradict with it having the power to make war.
I oppose state sanctioned death penalty.
I think we put too much faith in the process to ensure that the system is perfect.
I'm a bit of a mixed bag on executions. I think it should both be limited and expedited.
I'm fine with life in prison without parole for the guy that is a first time offender where there MIGHT be a chance he's innocent.
When it comes to guys that are totally guilty, feth them. Anyone that kills someone brutally, without provocation, and does so either on video, in front of several witnesses, admits to it, or in some other way that absolutely proves it was them deservers execution. In these cases The number of appeals and time to execution should be limited. Put them in the express lane to death.
I also feel the same way about repeat offenders. If they have multiple violent felonies in their past it was only a matter of time until they killed, and will likely kill again.
When it comes to the method of execution, I believe we are better than the murderers. An ideal execution should be cheap, quick, safe for witnesses, effective in killing the accused quickly, and without pain.
It is with this in mind that I am a proponent of introducing Nitrogen affixation as a way of death. Many states have the old gas chamber units, and they can quickly and easily be converted. Nitrogen gas is colorless, odorless, tasteless, and will render the subject unconscious before death. Afterwards there is no poison to vent or clean-up. Just pump it into the atmosphere. The body is also left in tact. As an added benefit to witnesses there are no spasms in the body of the prisoner and is easier to watch. The Nitrogen is also readily available in most major cities and there will never be a shortage.
Ah nice, we're talking about lining up people and putting guns to their heads to show how higher up and better we are. Of course, when we see images of mass executions in the Middle East with people with guns lined up to their heads, we are shocked at the violence. The good ol' double standard.
This is why I am no longer for the death penalty. I've found that proponents of it are not interested in reducing crime. They are interested in vengeance. The interest is purely in 'getting' the guy, not in reduction of crime, and certainly not in helping others. It's about that visceral rush that comes from getting revenge on a bastard, isn't it? It is a gross hypocrisy, and hopefully a part of our culture that will shrivel away in time.
Edit: In this instance, I feel like the state is within its current rights to do this. While I find the death penalty reprehensible, the legalities of this case are pretty cut and dry. I may not like it, but I can understand it.
skyth wrote: I'm pretty much against executions until (at least) the Public Defender's office has a higher budget than the DA's office...
Don't see how that would help matters. Costs with prosecution are always going to be higher then defense, as they are required to provide the burden of proof.
skyth wrote: I'm pretty much against executions until (at least) the Public Defender's office has a higher budget than the DA's office...
Don't see how that would help matters. Costs with prosecution are always going to be higher then defense, as they are required to provide the burden of proof.
Then you don't understand the Public Defender problem we are facing in the US. It's pretty appalling how bad our Public Defense situation is.
About 6,900 more public defenders would be needed to complete the current caseload. It's no wonder that many well-meaning defense lawyers are sucked into a "meet 'em and plead 'em" routine (PD parlance for meeting clients just a few minutes or hours before their hearings and then encouraging them to admit guilt just to get rid of the case). It's a large reason why 90 to 95 percent of their clients plead guilty, says Tanya Greene, an ACLU attorney and capital public defender.
About 6,900 more public defenders would be needed to complete the current caseload. It's no wonder that many well-meaning defense lawyers are sucked into a "meet 'em and plead 'em" routine (PD parlance for meeting clients just a few minutes or hours before their hearings and then encouraging them to admit guilt just to get rid of the case). It's a large reason why 90 to 95 percent of their clients plead guilty, says Tanya Greene, an ACLU attorney and capital public defender.
Sounds like someone is SOFT ON CRIME
You know, now that I think about it, how much of our ludicrously huge prison population can be blamed on our pathetic public defense system? I'm pretty ready to blame a pointless drug war, for profit prisons, and a system that does nothing to rehabilitate offenders, but maybe I should throw having no money to offer defense on charges to the mix
The defence should have every benefit including not have to pay out of pocket when you are accused of a crime and having a dedicated attorney that is well-versed in your case and access to forensic specialists that can help defend yourself. All based on the presumption of innocence.
kronk wrote: Nah. I'm still pro-execution. I'm just willing to recognize its failings.
I don't crow about "That fether should be hanged/shot in the face/whatever."
If you have capital punishment as a law in your state, you should either use it or get rid of it. Pick one.
Don't be a puss-out and go for life in prison if your state is a "Kill 'em" state Mr. DA!
If I can ask, and while I am not hiding that I am strongly anti-death penalty I also am one who is willing to learn, why is it do you support capital punishment?
curran12 wrote: Ah nice, we're talking about lining up people and putting guns to their heads to show how higher up and better we are. Of course, when we see images of mass executions in the Middle East with people with guns lined up to their heads, we are shocked at the violence. The good ol' double standard.
I've always loved this argument.
As if there was ZERO difference between a capital punishment trial and all the associated appeals and a group like DaIsh lining up innocent civilians who refused to submit or prisoners they captured on the battlefield and blowing them away with no trial or at least nothing coming close to what western nations consider a fair trial. Yeah, clearly a double standard.
I too am In the "I'm opposed to the death penalty but the courts made the "correct" decision given the context of the case" camp. While I'm sure there are some government practices we have that are as barbaric, backwards, and counter-productive as capital punishment I'd certainly struggle to name any of them off the top of my head. That said the sentence was handed down, set to be carried out and was not. You don't give up on keeping on somebody in jail because the lock to their cell broke, presumably don't give up on your god-awful execution just because it failed.
curran12 wrote: Ah nice, we're talking about lining up people and putting guns to their heads to show how higher up and better we are. Of course, when we see images of mass executions in the Middle East with people with guns lined up to their heads, we are shocked at the violence. The good ol' double standard.
I've always loved this argument.
As if there was ZERO difference between a capital punishment trial and all the associated appeals and a group like DaIsh lining up innocent civilians who refused to submit or prisoners they captured on the battlefield and blowing them away with no trial or at least nothing coming close to what western nations consider a fair trial. Yeah, clearly a double standard.
They were found guilty of a crime deserving of the death sentence as per the local government. Same thing
curran12 wrote: Ah nice, we're talking about lining up people and putting guns to their heads to show how higher up and better we are. Of course, when we see images of mass executions in the Middle East with people with guns lined up to their heads, we are shocked at the violence. The good ol' double standard.
I've always loved this argument.
As if there was ZERO difference between a capital punishment trial and all the associated appeals and a group like DaIsh lining up innocent civilians who refused to submit or prisoners they captured on the battlefield and blowing them away with no trial or at least nothing coming close to what western nations consider a fair trial. Yeah, clearly a double standard.
They were found guilty of a crime deserving of the death sentence as per the local government. Same thing
I've seen multiple times the idea that as soon as the first guilty verdict we should immediately carry out the sentence.
And quite frankly, regardless of the crime and appeals, etc...lining up people on their knees and then gunning them down is barbaric. Executions should not be a show to spread glee, but something that unfortunately must be done if there is no other alternative.
except there is always an alternative to killing them. There is no need to kill anyone, and let's be honest, the crimes people have to commit to get the death penalty aren't the kind of crimes where people give a gak about the consequences. It's useless and expensive, and the sooner we no longer have the death penalty, the better.
Some interesting comments here. In no specific order:
- Death squad killings are, by their nature, outside of due process. Capital punishment, for good or ill, is legitimate.
-The state always has, and always will have, the right to take life from it's own people. That right is tied to due process, and many states (in both senses of the word) choose to waive that right, but arguing that capital punishment is "wrong" is not a good path of argument. In my very humble opinion, it is probably "unnecessary," and I feel that the state should only take life when necessary, but that doesn't make it wrong. It makes it a waste.
- Execution by shotgun blast, somewhat ironically, might actually be considered cruel and unusual, as even the originalists would concede that the founders wanted to ban practices that were humiliating, which included those practices which mutilated the corpse. Firing squads have never been found to be cruel or unusual, they just weren't a common law punishment. That's always been a military punishment, not a civil one. It's not that states banned the practice, they just never had it, save for a few oddballs like Utah. (I speculate wildly that the origin of Utah as a theocratic, semi-militant colony may be the cause of this quirk). A firing squad also requires a handful of sharpshooters that are willing to be executioners, which has historically been difficult. http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9F0CEEDC1630E233A25751C1A96E9C946396D6CF
- Executions in the US are made more complicated by the fact that the AMA holds that physicians should not be party to executions, as it violates their ethical duty to "do no harm." Some states have actually drafted laws that preclude sanctions, but the point is that first rate (or even second rate) medical professionals are not going to be involved in the proceedings. Which may explain why after 18 attempts no vein was found.
-Regardless of how I feel, the Ohio Supreme Court got this one correct. A legal sentence was not carried out. Of course it still could be carried out.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Paoa02 wrote: except there is always an alternative to killing them. There is no need to kill anyone, and let's be honest, the crimes people have to commit to get the death penalty aren't the kind of crimes where people give a gak about the consequences. It's useless and expensive, and the sooner we no longer have the death penalty, the better.
You'd be surprised what crimes carry the death penalty. I'm not sure any state allows the death penalty for anything outside of First Degree Murder (and, of course, Treason), a lot of stuff sneaks into that definition. Most people understand the First Degree (or capital murder, or however else it is defined) involves premeditation. It can also involve lying in wait, or poison. In reality, most first degree murders are "felony murders," meaning a murder committed in the commission of another felony, most commonly including burglary, arson, robbery, rape, or kidnapping.
Let's boil this down to some concrete facts: if you rob a liquor store with a gun, that's armed robbery. If you end up shooting the clerk, that's now felony murder, and the death penalty is now on the table. Further, lets say you and a friend agree to rob the liquor store. He's going to rob it with his fun, you're going to drive the getaway car. He shoots and kills the clerk. You are now facing the death penalty, as you were in conspiracy to commit robbery, and are just as liable for all crimes committed as part of that conspiracy as anybody else.
I'm not pointing out that this right or wrong, fair or not fair. But the death penalty doesn't just affect serial killers and psychopaths. (In practice, of course, the driver would accept a plea bargain and roll on the gunman nearly every time. But... especially for conspirators, the death penalty is a huge bargaining chip in plea deals.)
Make the prisoner drink a case of 12oz extra strength Monsters and give them free access to Bangbros. He will be dead before the end of the day and nobody will take issue.
Failing that I say start up a Penal Legion, I.E.D.s don't find themselves you know.
Nostromodamus wrote: This is why point blank shotgun to the head is better than injection. Cheaper, instant, no chance of running out of the drug and no need to find a vein.
Sure, it's messier, but you get results.
We've already had this discussion many times before and it falls under cruel and unusual punishment.
Do you have court case cite from that state's supreme court or SCOTUS that says firing squad is cruel and unusual?
Alternatively CO1 is perfect.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I agree with you in principle. In practice, however, there is no state that has shown itself to be capable of carrying out executions responsibly.
I agree but on different grounds. Too many cases of botched evidence or intentionally hidden/tampered evidence.
Polonius wrote: Execution by shotgun blast, somewhat ironically, might actually be considered cruel and unusual, as even the originalists would concede that the founders wanted to ban practices that were humiliating, which included those practices which mutilated the corpse. Firing squads have never been found to be cruel or unusual, they just weren't a common law punishment. That's always been a military punishment, not a civil one. It's not that states banned the practice, they just never had it, save for a few oddballs like Utah. (I speculate wildly that the origin of Utah as a theocratic, semi-militant colony may be the cause of this quirk). A firing squad also requires a handful of sharpshooters that are willing to be executioners, which has historically been difficult. http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9F0CEEDC1630E233A25751C1A96E9C946396D6CF
Well, that's unfortunate. If that's the case, that's the case. I just want to reiterate that when I endorsed that method, it wasn't out of that weird revenge execution fantasy that people sometimes have regarding capital punishment - I simply thought it would be the most sure, least painful way. I would prefer the state not execute people at all but recognize that it's currently the will of the people that we do so, and such a method of execution has the, in my mind, bonus of clearly not being a peaceful, semi-medical procedure. Someone posted that they endorse nitrogen because it's painless, but also because the person moves less so it's easier for the witnesses to watch. feth the witnesses comfort, you're killing a guy. Own it.
I feel like firing squad actually has all the same issues that lethal injection did - if you use prison guards, who are pseudo-police, this group has historically awful marksmanship. I don't believe that execution has to be totally painless to be legally OK, but bleeding out slowly because all major organs were missed seems cruel and unusual.
So, going back to nitrogen - if disfigurement of the corpse is an issue that I too would revert to nitrogen, but would greatly prefer none of the above.
I understand opposition to the death penalty on moral grounds, but do not understand opposition to "giving the State such power". What do you think the "State" is? In the US it is elected officials bound by state and national law, including voter elections and recalls. And how does opposing giving the State authority to execute on a state by state or national basis not contradict with it having the power to make war.
I oppose state sanctioned death penalty.
I think we put too much faith in the process to ensure that the system is perfect.
I'm perfectly fine with life w/o parole.
Agreed. The system is capable of making mistakes, and there are legit questions about its fairness.
I AM willing to execute a prisoner sentenced to death, however, before I would do it though I would review the file and photos tied to said case. Most of these guys that are on death row are there because 12 people ( like you or I ) decided that humanity would be better if they were removed from the genepool. I have seen the end result of death squads in the middle east, and those people were unfairly executed. The criminals were speak about now are truly deserving of their fate, a conclusion brought about by their own actions.
For those saying that they are alright with life without parole, that is nice, why not kick in more money for taxes to keep them alive? Would your stance change if the state would make that an option, or make it mandatory to answer that question when you payed taxes? How much more would you be willing to kick in? It takes anywhere from $31,000 to over $60,000 a year to keep an inmate. Some crimes deserve a prison sentence, some crimes deserve death.
curran12 wrote: And guess how much it costs for appeals and the entire process of capital punishment?
Because it is vastly more expensive to go through with the death penalty. That argument does not work. It is only about revenge and retribution.
This a side effect of our broken system and not a problem with the Death Penalty.
Focus on reforming the system, not ditching the Death Penalty. Its focusing on a non-issue because its easier than addressing the real problems, which would make all the issues people complain about the death penalty for go away.
And what are the 'real problems'? Also, to clear things up for me, can you explain that last part more? The 'which would make all the issues people complain about the death penalty for go away. ' part.
The system isn't broken. All criminal defendants have a right to full appeals in the state of conviction, followed by a writ of habeus corpus, which allows a more limited appeal to the federal courts. That takes time because 1) it's worth being sure and 2) nobody is too much of a hurry.
curran12 wrote: And what are the 'real problems'? Also, to clear things up for me, can you explain that last part more? The 'which would make all the issues people complain about the death penalty for go away. ' part.
Aside from being who are opposed to killing, the other main argument is that people are so stinking afraid of incorrectly sentencing someone who is innocent.
If you reform the system to have less wrongful convictions you obviously reduce the people who are wrongfully executed(and wrongfully sentenced for other crimes too).
Given the current hurdles, I don't think our false conviction rate is worrisome but it is a concern for some people.
I suppose it won't fix the issue for people who just oppose the death penalty for no reason other than "we shouldn't be killing people", but I don't think that's a valid reason to oppose it.
curran12 wrote: I happen to be one of those people. Why is it not valid, exactly?
Because there are some crimes so abhorrent that the only acceptable punishment is death.
Someone murdering/raping/doing any other equally vile thing to people who then gets caught and gets to spend the rest of their life with every basic need taken care of isn't justice.
curran12 wrote: I happen to be one of those people. Why is it not valid, exactly?
Because there are some crimes so abhorrent that the only acceptable punishment is death.
Someone murdering/raping/doing any other equally vile thing to people who then gets caught and gets to spend the rest of their life with every basic need taken care of isn't justice.
But a state-sponsored murder is? Sorry, but I don't agree with that. Executions serve to fuel a feeling of righteousness that comes from revenge. We, as a society, should strive to be better than murder. Once we decide that 'well in this REALLY bad case, murder is okay', it is a backwards step.
curran12 wrote: I happen to be one of those people. Why is it not valid, exactly?
Because there are some crimes so abhorrent that the only acceptable punishment is death.
Someone murdering/raping/doing any other equally vile thing to people who then gets caught and gets to spend the rest of their life with every basic need taken care of isn't justice.
But a state-sponsored murder is? Sorry, but I don't agree with that. Executions serve to fuel a feeling of righteousness that comes from revenge. We, as a society, should strive to be better than murder. Once we decide that 'well in this REALLY bad case, murder is okay', it is a backwards step.
Its not murder. Its removing a person who is a threat to society in a permeant fashion. That does involve ending their life. However, if someone has committed such heinous acts I do not believe they deserve the sympathy you seem to be giving them.
Its definitely not to be done lightly, but its not stooping to their level like you seem to be thinking. Governments have to protect their societies, both from internal and external threats. Both can/will involve killing out of necessity. Or do you also think that having a military is wrong? That's the government having to kill people too you know.
Its not murder. Its removing a person who is a threat to society in a permeant fashion. That does involve ending their life. However, if someone has committed such heinous acts I do not believe they deserve the sympathy you seem to be giving them, and which they no longer deserve.
Its definitely not to be done lightly, but its not stooping to their level.
Don't attribute sympathy to me, please. I said nothing of the sort.
I am saying that as a society, it is our obligation to be above executions and killing each other, when the reason for said execution does not have any gain for society. It is not cheaper, it does not reduce crime rates and it does not have any tangible gain for the victims other than revenge. And yes, I do believe that revenge is not a valid reason for capital punishment.
And edit, please don't throw the military up as a strawman. Keep it on focus, please.
Its not murder. Its removing a person who is a threat to society in a permeant fashion. That does involve ending their life. However, if someone has committed such heinous acts I do not believe they deserve the sympathy you seem to be giving them, and which they no longer deserve.
Its definitely not to be done lightly, but its not stooping to their level.
Don't attribute sympathy to me, please. I said nothing of the sort.
I am saying that as a society, it is our obligation to be above executions and killing each other, when the reason for said execution does not have any gain for society. It is not cheaper, it does not reduce crime rates and it does not have any tangible gain for the victims other than revenge. And yes, I do believe that revenge is not a valid reason for capital punishment.
And edit, please don't throw the military up as a strawman. Keep it on focus, please.
Punishment of the guilty is the primary reason for there to be punishments in the first place.
I assert that someone getting their basic needs completely covered for the rest of their life is not a fitting punishment for any crime, let alone a crime which is severe enough to warrant death/life in prison.
If the justice system was about reparations we'd just levy fines and give the money collected to the victims and not have prisons.
As for not being cheaper, that's not because of anything inherent with the Death penalty. Its because of how the entire system is set up, which leads to a lot of wasted tax payer money.
You're shifting your words around some. At the beginning of this conversation, your concern was for justice. Now you are talking about the quality of punishment. Those are not the same thing, at least in my eyes. But whatever word is used, neither really is achieved through the death penalty, only revenge is. Justice for the victims is achieved through life imprisonment without parole, the person who wronged them will never wrong another. Punishment is also based in revenge, as it is more based around retribution, certainly not in teaching a lesson when it comes to the death penalty.
But that is getting into a very semantic line. Let's take this into a more practical route.
You say that the system is set up to be expensive. If I may assume, would that mean that, in your opinion, if the system was fixed, executions would be less costly, right? If that isn't the case, I apologize, but if it is the case, let me ask you straight up; what reforms would you do to fix the system?
curran12 wrote: You're shifting your words around some. At the beginning of this conversation, your concern was for justice. Now you are talking about the quality of punishment. Those are not the same thing, at least in my eyes. But whatever word is used, neither really is achieved through the death penalty, only revenge is. Justice for the victims is achieved through life imprisonment without parole, the person who wronged them will never wrong another. Punishment is also based in revenge, as it is more based around retribution, certainly not in teaching a lesson when it comes to the death penalty.
Your bolded part doesn't make sense. Life imprisonment without parole isn't justice for the victims, the criminal is safe behind bars with every physical need met for the rest of his life, its not justice. Not when we are discussing things like murder, rape, etc... Sure, he probably won't wrong anyone else, but that's also true of executions.
But that is getting into a very semantic line. Let's take this into a more practical route.
You say that the system is set up to be expensive. If I may assume, would that mean that, in your opinion, if the system was fixed, executions would be less costly, right? If that isn't the case, I apologize, but if it is the case, let me ask you straight up; what reforms would you do to fix the system?
Ok, here is how I would set it up.
The execution date would be set at the time of sentencing and would be fixed, no stay of execution date possible. The date itself would also be no more than 5 years from the date of sentencing. During that time period the accused has unlimited appeals to get the sentence overturned, but nothing could be done to stay the date of execution. This would ensure the Death Penalty isn't what it is currently(basically a Life sentence due to unlimited appeals and continual rollback of execution date). By limiting the timeframe you don't have it ending up being more expensive than life(which is caused by the infinite appeals, over what is always decades, running up legal costs)
Executions themselves would be carried out with captive bolts or high caliber fixed mount guns(.45 caliber minimum, multiple rounds, point blank range to base of skull). Prisoners being executed would be rendered unconscious using ordinary anesthetic, which would be tested ahead of time to ensure the prisoner would be effected by it. Observations of executions would not be allowed.
Burden of proof for the Death Penalty would also be raised from what it is currently(which is already exceptionally high).
Sorry, but being imprisoned IS a punishment. You aren't allowed freedom to go anywhere and do what you want.
And considering how often the courts get it wrong especially towards the poor who can't afford to have good representation...Any amount of permanent solution is too much.
Life imprisonment without parole isn't justice for the victims, the criminal is safe behind bars with every physical need met for the rest of his life, its not justice.?
Imagine this guy continually replaying in his head the botched execution attempt, knowing that he is going to have to endure a repeat performance. This, in my mind, constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
I think the state had it's shot and blew it, and the man should be regulated to life in prison. What happens if the next attempt fails also? Is he going to have to look forward to a third time through?
To be open, I would have no qualms about him being executed for what he did, if it had been accomplished competently the first time. Repeatedly stabbing him with needles, though, only to shuffle him back to await another day is bogus.
He is already anticipating the execution date, and has been since sentenxing....anticipating everything that is going to happen going over and over in his mind...so really..in my mind...the fact that he is anticipating it (again) is just a continuation, not a new event.
Don't kill people (or commit other crimes worthy of death) in a state with the death penalty and you won't be put to death.
Pretty simple.
Personally....I say let him stew over it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The problem may be that they had a doctor try and start the IV.
Seriously....docs don't typically start IV's.
RN's and CRNA's do the *vast* majority of starts.
If the doc is needed to administer the med...fine...but a good and competent nurse (especially an ER nurse) will get access in 1 to 3 tries.
TheMeanDM wrote: He is already anticipating the execution date, and has been since sentenxing....anticipating everything that is going to happen going over and over in his mind...so really..in my mind...the fact that he is anticipating it (again) is just a continuation, not a new event.
Don't kill people (or commit other crimes worthy of death) in a state with the death penalty and you won't be put to death.
...
Just to play devil's advocate, how many people that have served time for murder and are released kill again? Do the number of people killed by previously convicted murderers exceed the number of wrongful executions? Add into this the number of people in prison who are murdered by someone who avoided the death penalty.
Just to play devil's advocate, how many people that have served time for murder and are released kill again? Do the number of people killed by previously convicted murderers exceed the number of wrongful executions? Add into this the number of people in prison who are murdered by someone who avoided the death penalty.
To play devils devils advocate
How many Murderers are there that have gotten away with their act?
Just to play devil's advocate, how many people that have served time for murder and are released kill again? Do the number of people killed by previously convicted murderers exceed the number of wrongful executions? Add into this the number of people in prison who are murdered by someone who avoided the death penalty.
I'm confused. Are you suggesting we should ignore wrongful convictions (or the possibility of them?) to avoid the hypothetical that released murder convicts will murder again?
Just to play devil's advocate, how many people that have served time for murder and are released kill again? Do the number of people killed by previously convicted murderers exceed the number of wrongful executions? Add into this the number of people in prison who are murdered by someone who avoided the death penalty.
I'm confused. Are you suggesting we should ignore wrongful convictions (or the possibility of them?) to avoid the hypothetical that released murder convicts will murder again?
The last part is either let everyone go, or gas em all as soon as they walk through those gates.
Its not murder. Its removing a person who is a threat to society in a permeant fashion. That does involve ending their life. However, if someone has committed such heinous acts I do not believe they deserve the sympathy you seem to be giving them, and which they no longer deserve.
Its definitely not to be done lightly, but its not stooping to their level.
Don't attribute sympathy to me, please. I said nothing of the sort.
I am saying that as a society, it is our obligation to be above executions and killing each other, when the reason for said execution does not have any gain for society. It is not cheaper, it does not reduce crime rates and it does not have any tangible gain for the victims other than revenge. And yes, I do believe that revenge is not a valid reason for capital punishment.
And edit, please don't throw the military up as a strawman. Keep it on focus, please.
Punishment of the guilty is the primary reason for there to be punishments in the first place.
I assert that someone getting their basic needs completely covered for the rest of their life is not a fitting punishment for any crime, let alone a crime which is severe enough to warrant death/life in prison.
If the justice system was about reparations we'd just levy fines and give the money collected to the victims and not have prisons.
As for not being cheaper, that's not because of anything inherent with the Death penalty. Its because of how the entire system is set up, which leads to a lot of wasted tax payer money.
Just to play devil's advocate, how many people that have served time for murder and are released kill again? Do the number of people killed by previously convicted murderers exceed the number of wrongful executions? Add into this the number of people in prison who are murdered by someone who avoided the death penalty.
Non-issue. Some who would be executed anyway would be sentenced to life without parole.
Just to play devil's advocate, how many people that have served time for murder and are released kill again? Do the number of people killed by previously convicted murderers exceed the number of wrongful executions? Add into this the number of people in prison who are murdered by someone who avoided the death penalty.
I'm confused. Are you suggesting we should ignore wrongful convictions (or the possibility of them?) to avoid the hypothetical that released murder convicts will murder again?
Not at all. The system needs to be improved and continually monitored to make it better with each case. However, currently do we lose more innocent lives than we save by creating situations where people truly guilty of murder kill someone else?
Non-issue. Some who would be executed anyway would be sentenced to life without parole.
Some, but not all. There is ample documentation of convicted murderers who were either released from prison and killed again, or went on to kill other inmates or guards.
But that is meaningless. This is about the death penelty, which has absolutely no effect on that. Unless you are suggesting we just kill them all?
And prison violence is a whole different issue.
There is no easy solution, and I am definitely not in the kill them all camp. I am just pointing out a pitfall in the current system that is possibly equally costly in innocent lives and suggest that perhaps we shouldn't let convicted killers get parole as easily as they now do.
Relapse wrote: However, currently do we lose more innocent lives than we save by creating situations where people truly guilty of murder kill someone else?
Appeals processes are so lengthy that the death penalty leaves inmates in prison for years. The op article is about a guy convicted in 1985, that didn't get his head on the block till 2009 and whose appeal on the grounds that the 2009 execution was botched took 7 years to get a decision from the appeals court. The guy has the death penalty and he's still been in prison for 30 years. It would seem the death penalty doesn't prevent the possibility of inmates committing murder in prison, so unless the argument is we execute people on the spot I don't see what relevance having or not having a death penalty has on prison violence, which will happen regardless.
This seems a non sequitur to the argument that there are innocent people on death row, statistically there probably always will be, and can we morally justify the death penalty accepting that it will inevitably kill innocent people. Which is not an argument that we should parole guilty people (how is it even close?), or even an argument that we should not punish murderers at all. It's not even an argument that we should parole innocent people found guilty in error. It's simply an argument that the death penalty isn't justifiable on the grounds that it will inevitably kill falsely convicted people.
Or maybe I'm just still confused as to what you're trying to say @_@
Relapse wrote: Just to play devil's advocate, how many people that have served time for murder and are released kill again? Do the number of people killed by previously convicted murderers exceed the number of wrongful executions? Add into this the number of people in prison who are murdered by someone who avoided the death penalty.
By all accounts, paroled murderers murder again very rarely, about 1.2% of the time.
Of 368 convicted murderers granted parole in New York between 1999 and 2003, six, or 1.6 percent,were returned to prison within three years for a new felony conviction — none of them a violent offense, says a state Parole Board study reported by the Journal News in White Plains, N.Y. The board reported that of 1,190 convicted murderers released from 1985 to 2003 in New York state, 35, or just under 3 percent, returned to prison for a new felony conviction within three years.
"Individuals who are released on parole after serving sentences for murder consistently have the lowest recidivism rate of any offenders," said John Caher, a spokesman for the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services. A 2002 study by the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics tracking 272,000 inmates released in New York and 14 other states found that 1.2 percent of those freed after serving a murder sentence were rearrested on homicide charges within three years — the lowest rate among all reported crimes by released prisoners. "This is a very difficult issue, and unless we lock everyone up for life they're all coming back sooner or later," said Martin Horn, a former New York City corrections and probation commissioner who now teaches at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice.
To an extent, that makes sense. A large number of murders were not "career" criminals, many murderers are pretty old when they are released, and parole boards probably look for the most profound rehabilitation for murderers.
Relapse wrote: However, currently do we lose more innocent lives than we save by creating situations where people truly guilty of murder kill someone else?
Appeals processes are so lengthy that the death penalty leaves inmates in prison for years. The op article is about a guy convicted in 1985, that didn't get his head on the block till 2009 and whose appeal on the grounds that the 2009 execution was botched took 7 years to get a decision from the appeals court. The guy has the death penalty and he's still been in prison for 30 years. It would seem the death penalty doesn't prevent the possibility of inmates committing murder in prison, so unless the argument is we execute people on the spot I don't see what relevance having or not having a death penalty has on prison violence, which will happen regardless.
This seems a non sequitur to the argument that there are innocent people on death row, statistically there probably always will be, and can we morally justify the death penalty accepting that it will inevitably kill innocent people. Which is not an argument that we should parole guilty people (how is it even close?), or even an argument that we should not punish murderers at all. It's not even an argument that we should parole innocent people found guilty in error. It's simply an argument that the death penalty isn't justifiable on the grounds that it will inevitably kill falsely convicted people.
Or maybe I'm just still confused as to what you're trying to say @_@
I like where you've gone with this. What I am saying is, based on repeat killings after they get out of prison, perhaps we need to tighten up on letting convicted killers go, if at all. I really wouldn't shed many tears to see the death penalty go by the boards in the majority of murder convictions, researving it for truly heinous killers.
This is a bit rough and ready, because I've done it very quickly but...
In the UK there were 35 murders and manslaughters committed by convicted murderers while in prison or after release in the 10 years between 2001 and 2011.
The murder rate in the UK varies between about 600 and 1,000, so let's assume an average of 800 per year. Convicted murderers in the UK usually get released on licence after 10 to 20 years, unless they are criminally insane. So we can assume that 750 murderers get released every year on average.
This means the rate of being convicted of murder and going on to kill again is 35/7500 = 0.47%
This academic article based on US stats (because only the USA has the death penalty among civilised western countries) shows a wrongful conviction rate of 4.1%
SOFT ON CRIME 
