Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
(CNN) -- One execution stopped midcourse, another postponed.
Oklahoma corrections officials looked for answers Tuesday following the death of inmate Clayton Lockett, who convulsed and writhed on the gurney after drugs to carry out his death sentence were administered.
"His body started to twitch, he mumbled something I couldn't understand," said Dean Sanderford, his attorney. "The convulsing got worse, it looked like his whole upper body was trying to lift off the gurney. For a minute, there was chaos."
He said guards ordered him out of the witness area, and he was never told what had happened to his client.
The execution was halted, but the result was still death.
Lockett died 43 minutes after the first injection was administered, according to reporter Courtney Francisco of CNN affiliate KFOR, who witnessed the ordeal.
Later, Oklahoma Department of Corrections Director Robert Patton said Lockett died of an apparent heart attack.
The execution was the first time Oklahoma had used midazolam as the first element in its three-drug cocktail to end a life.
Midazolam is supposed to render a person unconscious. Seven minutes later, Lockett was still conscious. About 16 minutes in, after his mouth and then his head moved, he seemingly tried to get up and tried to talk, saying "man" aloud, according to the KFOR account.
Other reporters -- including Cary Aspinwall of the Tulsa World newspaper -- similarly claimed that Lockett was "still alive," having lifted his head while prison officials lowered the blinds at that time so that onlookers couldn't see what was going on.
Yet the office of Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin issued a statement indicating "execution officials said Lockett remained unconscious after the lethal injection drugs were administered."
After the ordeal, Patton told reporters that Lockett, a convicted murderer, had been sedated and then was given the second and third drugs in protocol.
"There was some concern at that time that the drugs were not having the effect, so the doctor observed the line and determined that the line had blown," he said, before elaborating that Lockett's vein had "exploded."
"I notified the attorney general's office, the governor's office of my intent to stop the execution and requested a stay for 14 days for the second execution scheduled this afternoon," said Patton, referring to the execution of Charles Warner.
Dianne Clay, a spokeswoman for the state attorney general's office, said Tuesday night that her office was "gathering information on what happened in order to evaluate."
The state's governor ordered an investigation and issued an executive order granting a 2-week delay in executions.
"I have asked the Department of Corrections to conduct a full review of Oklahoma's execution procedures to determine what happened and why during this evening's execution of Clayton Derrell Lockett," Fallin said in a statement.
The constitutionality of lethal injection drugs and drug cocktails has made headlines since last year, when European manufacturers -- including Denmark-based Lundbeck, which manufactures pentobarbital -- banned U.S. prisons from using their drugs in executions. Thirty-two states were left to find new drug protocols.
According to the Oklahoma Department of Corrections, its protocol includes midazolam, which causes unconsciousness, vecuronium bromide, which stops respiration, and potassium chloride, which is meant to stop the heart.
Lockett was convicted in 2000 of a bevy of crimes, including first-degree murder, first-degree rape, kidnapping and robbery in a 1999 home invasion and crime spree that left Stephanie Nieman dead and two people injured.
His final moments gave new life, at least temporarily, to Charles Warner.
Warner was convicted in 2003 for the first-degree rape and murder six years earlier of his then-girlfriend's 11-month-old daughter, Adrianna Waller.
The state decided to put off his execution set for Tuesday. But it has given no indication this delay will be indefinite despite calls from the likes of Adam Leathers, co-chair of the Oklahoma Coalition to
Abolish the Death Penalty, who accused the state of having "tortured a human being in an unconstitutional experimental act of evil."
"Tonight, our state government has acted in sin and violated God's law," Leathers said. "We will pray for their souls."
Notably, Lockett and Warner -- who were both held at the Oklahoma State Penitentiary in McAlester -- had been at the center of a court fight over the drugs used in their execution.
They'd initially challenged the state Department of Corrections' unwillingness to divulge which drugs would be used, only for the department to budge and disclosed the substances.
But Lockett and Warner didn't stop there, taking issue with the state's so-called secrecy provision forbidding it from disclosing the identities of anyone involved in the execution process or suppliers of any drugs or medical equipment.
Oklahoma's high court initially issued stays on their executions, only to lift those stays last week in ruling the two men had no right to know the source of the drugs intended to kill them.
Warner's attorney, Madeline Cohen, said that further legal action can be expected given how "something went horribly awry" Tuesday.
"Oklahoma cannot carry out further executions until there's transparency in this process," Cohen said. "... I think they should all be looking at themselves hard. Oklahoma needs to take a step back."
The governor's office has ordered an investigation.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Well, one component is death, sure, but the other component is that it's lawful, and torturing people to death is probably cruel and unusual.
For the life of me, I don't understand why we don't just shoot people if we've got to execute them. I've got mixed feelings on capital punishment - I can neither endorse it nor condemn it - but if I had to get it, getting shot in the head point blank with a decent caliber seems more pleasant than either the chair, the gas, or the needle. Messier, I guess.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/30 13:03:33
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
d-usa wrote: I'm very strongly against the death penalty to begin with.
But if you gotta kill people, then at least don't feth it up.
If you can't do it without fething up, then it's time to stop.
I will be honest, I do go back and forth on the death penalty (but more often than not I end up supporting it). I just cannot argue in favour of someone who "was convicted in 2000 of a bevy of crimes, including first-degree murder, first-degree rape, kidnapping and robbery in a 1999 home invasion and crime spree that left Stephanie Nieman dead and two people injured. ". Ms. Nieman was in fact shot and buried alive. So no sympathy here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: That this happened in Oklahoma is utterly unsurprising to me.
Oklahoma where the wind blows.... and so does the person carrying out the death penalty
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/30 13:03:35
Dreadclaw69 wrote: I will be honest, I do go back and forth on the death penalty (but more often than not I end up supporting it). I just cannot argue in favour of someone who "was convicted in 2000 of a bevy of crimes, including first-degree murder, first-degree rape, kidnapping and robbery in a 1999 home invasion and crime spree that left Stephanie Nieman dead and two people injured. ". Ms. Nieman was in fact shot and buried alive. So no sympathy here.
Yeah, this is pretty much spot on how I feel. I think we do it too much, I think we do it too disproportionately, and I think we do it too sloppily. However, I can't quite bring myself to say I don't think we should do it anymore. I mean, look at this guy above. I want to say that the state should not be in the murder business, but on the other hand, what right to we have to let someone like that live?
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
I don't think I have much sympathy for people who did so much gak they were given the death penalty. Whatever they did, it must have been horrible.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/30 13:08:47
"Fear is freedom! Subjugation is liberation! Contradiction is truth! These are the truths of this world! Surrender to these truths, you pigs in human clothing!" - Satsuki Kiryuin, Kill la Kill
Well that sucks. Just cause he's a dirt bag doesn't mean we can't kill him as quickly and painlessly as possible. We peacefully euthenize animals all the time.
I'm no doctor, but aren't there easier ways to chemically kil someone than a crazy drug cocktail? Arn't morphine overdozes generally painless?
But if you gotta kill people, then at least don't feth it up.
I agree with this. I am pro-death penalty, but against torture. OK should send their death row inmates to Texas, where they fething know how to do it without fething up.
But if you gotta kill people, then at least don't feth it up.
I agree with this. I am pro-death penalty, but against torture. OK should send their death row inmates to Texas, where they fething know how to do it without fething up.
Yeah,Texas is really good executing people because they get so much practice. I mean like sometimes they don't even have any evidence against a guy, so the cops give homeless addicts drugs in exchange for reading off scripted "eyewitness testimony". That way they get to execute people any time they want.
Its a good thing.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/30 13:14:36
The law protects the people we execute. If we don't feel like we have to follow the law when we execute lawbreakers, then why should anybody have to follow the law. To me that attitude is where we cross the line from "killing in the name of justice" and enter "killing for revenge".
d-usa wrote: The law protects the people we execute. If we don't feel like we have to follow the law when we execute lawbreakers, then why should anybody have to follow the law. To me that attitude is where we cross the line from "killing in the name of justice" and enter "killing for revenge".
There isn't any inherent line of mutual exclusivity between those two.
d-usa wrote: The law protects the people we execute. If we don't feel like we have to follow the law when we execute lawbreakers, then why should anybody have to follow the law. To me that attitude is where we cross the line from "killing in the name of justice" and enter "killing for revenge".
There isn't any inherent line of mutual exclusivity between those two.
There really is.
Just look at the argument for the death penalty against child molesters out there.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/30 13:24:37
I would agree with Chongara. IMO, the reason to jump to executing someone is because rehabilitation is hopeless. Serial Killers can't be changed. We know of no treatment or procedure that can change what makes them them. And not just them, but a lot of very violent criminals.
If someone can't be rehabilitated, then keeping them locked up for life is a waste of taxpayer dollars and only gives them more chances to kill people (prisoners may be prisoners but they're still human).
Killing them protects not just society, but saves its resources and protects other prisoners which I'd like to think in the long run helps improve our violent prison culture in the long run.
A lot of punishments serve a function of revenge. What makes it justice is that it benefits society as well.
Torturing people also serves as revenge. Killing them slowly and painfully also serves as revenge. There are lots of ways to kill people that can satisfy revenge.
What makes it justice is that it benefits society as well.
What makes it justice is when we execute somebody humanely and without pain, in accordance with the constitution and our laws.
LordofHats wrote: If someone can't be rehabilitated, then keeping them locked up for life is a waste of taxpayer dollars and only gives them more chances to kill people (prisoners may be prisoners but they're still human).
Killing them protects not just society, but saves its resources (snip)
It costs significantly more to execute someone in this country then it does to imprison then for life. That being said, I think it's more than a little immoral to execute people as a cost-saving measure and the fiscal considerations really should not play a role in it, in my opinion.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Torturing people also serves as revenge. Killing them slowly and painfully also serves as revenge. There are lots of ways to kill people that can satisfy revenge.
What makes it justice is that it benefits society as well.
What makes it justice is when we execute somebody humanely and without pain, in accordance with the constitution and our laws.
Oklahoma still has the chair on the books, if lethal injections becomes outlawed, with the firing squad as the second option.
Since I know I'm not going to convince you there is an inherent and irreducible value to human life, and any killing that is reasonably avoidable is by definition evil I'll just ask some questions instead.
How many guilty lives is the acceptable exchange rate for non-guilty ones? That is, if we accept that our criminal justice system is fallible and that by some amount of bad luck, neglect, corruption, or ignorance some percentage of executions take place are faulty: There is some non-zero amount of executions of people who did not do they crime they were convicted (and lost appeals) for.
What is the acceptable ratio here?
1 in 10
1 in 100
1 in 1000
Is any amount acceptable, so long as an earnest attempt at getting it right is made? Does the finality of the death penalty make any difference when used as a tool by the corrupt? What factors, if any justify the deaths of the innocent for the sake of being able to execute the guilty? What factors would if any, would make it unjustifiable?
Alternatively do you assert that our justice system is infallible, an therefore no non-guilty parties are ever executed. If so, why do you believe this?
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2014/04/30 13:41:15
I'm anti-death penalty, you don't have to make an argument against the death penalty to me. We might be against the death penalty for different reasons, but we are on the same side there. I can see a pro-justice argument for the death penalty that is separate from the "who cares if anyone suffers, he deserves death" revenge argument. My defining factor in favor of opposition to the death penalty is the risk of executing an innocent man.
If you do a search on the death penalty in the OT you will find a thread where me and relapse had a very good discussion about it.
My argument in this thread is that if we insist on keeping the death penalty around then we must find a way of killing people in the absolute most humane way possible, especially considering the reality that we may well be killing innocent people.
I would have thought the bigger sticking point for people was how to determine who can't be rehabilitated. There's a whole kettle of fish.
It costs significantly more to execute someone in this country then it does to imprison then for life
Isn't that because of the cost we incure through their appeals process while on death row?
Personally, I would like to see a much higher burden for justifying the death penalty. Some people we execute are people who I disagree should have been executed.
What makes it justice is when we execute somebody humanely and without pain, in accordance with the constitution and our laws.
Honestly at times I wonder if we can call the punishment end of our justice system justice at all. We throw people away, forget about them, and as a society we just stop caring what happens to them. We ostracize them from ourselves and to an extent pretend their not human at all. I mean, we can already see in this thread that some Americans don't care if death is a torturous experience for those men and women. And then, even when they make it out of prison, we continue finding ways to punish them.
I think you and I agree we need to fix serious problems with how we handle imprisonment and rehabilitation in the US, but I guess I see the current situation in more dire terms XD
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/30 13:51:21
If you're gonna torture someone to kill them, at least have them drawn and quartered. But this...yeah, state fethed up. I actually support beheadings for execution. Gets the point across () and its quick. And if you grab the head fast enough, they can watch the life drain from their own body!!
Reality is a nice place to visit, but I'd hate to live there.
Manchu wrote:I'm a Catholic. We eat our God.
Due to work, I can usually only ship any sales or trades out on Saturday morning. Please trade/purchase with this in mind.
d-usa wrote: I'm anti-death penalty, you don't have to make an argument against the death penalty to me. We might be against the death penalty for different reasons, but we are on the same side there. I can see a pro-justice argument for the death penalty that is separate from the "who cares if anyone suffers, he deserves death" revenge argument. My defining factor in favor of opposition to the death penalty is the risk of executing an innocent man.
If you do a search on the death penalty in the OT you will find a thread where me and relapse had a very good discussion about it.
My argument in this thread is that if we insist on keeping the death penalty around then we must find a way of killing people in the absolute most humane way possible, especially considering the reality that we may well be killing innocent people.
Fair enough. We can just consider this post to be redirecting my previous post at somebody else then. Frazzled? Maybe. No, No. I'm pretty sure too much of him is an act. Lets go with Dreadclaw. That post is now directed at Dreadclaw.
I would have thought the bigger sticking point for people was how to determine who can't be rehabilitated. There's a whole kettle of fish.
I do not think the IV was in a vein. When I scrubbed (SurgTech) in Ortho cases I've seen that happen a couple time.
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
Dreadclaw69 wrote: I will be honest, I do go back and forth on the death penalty (but more often than not I end up supporting it). I just cannot argue in favour of someone who "was convicted in 2000 of a bevy of crimes, including first-degree murder, first-degree rape, kidnapping and robbery in a 1999 home invasion and crime spree that left Stephanie Nieman dead and two people injured. ". Ms. Nieman was in fact shot and buried alive. So no sympathy here.
Yeah, this is pretty much spot on how I feel. I think we do it too much, I think we do it too disproportionately, and I think we do it too sloppily. However, I can't quite bring myself to say I don't think we should do it anymore. I mean, look at this guy above. I want to say that the state should not be in the murder business, but on the other hand, what right to we have to let someone like that live?
What right do you have to condemn him for killing a person before killing a person yourselves? You can't use even the most tortured and stretched "self-defence" argument, this idea that the state executing a person is equivalent to the victim of an attack ending the life of their attacker, because that argument only has validity if the victim has no other options and is in genuine fear of their life, and neither applies. You can't argue that it's a necessary deterrent, firstly because "the greater good" is a terrible justification for letting the state kill people, and second because even if we ignore the paucity of the position for the sake of argument, there's no credible evidence that execution actually does deter crime on any meaningful scale.
But even setting all of that aside, it is monstrously irresponsible to advocate for the death penalty being part of a system which suffers from frequent miscarriages of justice, in which a not insignificant number of convictions are overturned months or years after the initial case, and which has certainly executed innocent people several times in the past.
And further, even setting all of that aside, even if we ignore the evidence that execution doesn't deter, that it's completely inconsistent to make killing a crime and then kill people for committing crimes, even if we ignore the fact that every person you execute, no matter how airtight the conviction seems at the time, is potentially innocent; none of that makes it OK for the state to conduct executions with less care and compassion that would be given to a bloody animal by a vet. No matter how atrocious someone's purported crimes, if you(general, nonspecific "you") are the sort of person who can take delight at the idea of another sentient individual being deliberately tortured to death, you're(general, nonspecific) a sociopath, and every bit as repugnant as the murderers and rapists you have your revenge fantasies about.
"Your society's broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich, powerful people who caused it? No, lets blame the people with no power and no money and those immigrants who don't even have the vote. Yea, it must be their fething fault." - Iain M Banks
-----
"The language of modern British politics is meant to sound benign. But words do not mean what they seem to mean. 'Reform' actually means 'cut' or 'end'. 'Flexibility' really means 'exploit'. 'Prudence' really means 'don't invest'. And 'efficient'? That means whatever you want it to mean, usually 'cut'. All really mean 'keep wages low for the masses, taxes low for the rich, profits high for the corporations, and accept the decline in public services and amenities this will cause'." - Robin McAlpine from Common Weal
d-usa wrote: I'm very strongly against the death penalty to begin with.
But if you gotta kill people, then at least don't feth it up.
If you can't do it without fething up, then it's time to stop.
Doesn't look like they fethed it up to me.
All the hippy tree huggers have their panties in a bunch.
Bring back the guillotine. Its the only way to be sure.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: Well that sucks. Just cause he's a dirt bag doesn't mean we can't kill him as quickly and painlessly as possible.
Why? Lets bring back the gallows and make the walk to it five miles long.
We peacefully euthenize animals all the time.
Animals ar good or at least not bad. These wastes of human skin are just that.
I'm no doctor, but aren't there easier ways to chemically kil someone than a crazy drug cocktail? Arn't morphine overdozes generally painless?
Blame the ACLU types who sued and sued to stop the former firm which was working perfectly fine.
Rome did it right.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/30 14:13:18
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Ouze wrote:
Well, one component is death, sure, but the other component is that it's lawful, and torturing people to death is probably cruel and unusual.
It's only unusual if we don't do it enough.
The key here is that it's only unlawful if it is both cruel AND unusual.
)
) and its quick. And if you grab the head fast enough, they can watch the life drain from their own body!!
