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.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/08/04/death.penalty.fat.ap/index.html

Seriously, shoot the MFer. In the head. If the first bullet doesn't do the trick I bet the 2nd one will. This'll open the door for anyone on death row to just plump themselves up and use this as a defense to continue to leech off the system. We really have become too soft in some regards...

What a great(and by that I mean idiotic) defense. I am sure that the ACLU is hot on the scene defending this guy. If, this works for fatso, then every deathrower will be trying to bulk up.

If you don't think a bullet will do it, use a shotgun, to the back of the head. And have an open-casket funeral, so the families of his victims can have some satisfaction at last. (Yeah, I'm a barbarian like that!)

He's clearly a monster, I say don't give him the satisfaction of death. Leave him in solitary with *just* enough plain bread to survive for the rest of his life. Much worse.

I can't wait to see the backlash from Europeans about those "morally reprehensible americans! They'll go to any lengths to execute someone " if they somehow execute this guy.

Double Post...

yeah...
not from me, I think the UK needs to bring back Death sentence, when proof is 100% that the dude did it.
why can't they fry him... electricity don't discriminate against the fatties, just up the amps!!

PaniC...

I'm shocked at the bloodthirstiness of you Americans. You'll go to any extent to murder someone. Don't you understand he's a human being, and clearly has suffered trauma due to his weight gain?

On the positive, Eduard's arrival has not stopped Medillin's pending execution.

You guys are weak.

I'd break him on the wheel.

Too me, it is not an issue of how he dies, just that he does indeed die, soon.

I do have a problem with the death penalty, but I don't think it's going to do anyone any good if I start down that road now...

Greebynog: In all seriousness and not trying to be a sarcastic twit, but you are right. It won't.

It's actually a pretty clever defense. First off, Ohio's execution protocols aren't the best to begin with, and a lot of policy is made by wardens, not by any legislature. My Civil Procedure professor actually sued successfully for several inmates after the warden said they could not make a final statement, only a written statement that could be edited by prison staff. Even Texas allows a last statement. Of course Texas also posts the last statements on their website. http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/executedoffenders.htm

Murders and villains or not, it's a little chilling to read somebody's last words when they know, 100% that they are going to die.

Anyways, I know the ACLU gets a bad rap because they tend to defend some pretty awful dudes. Trust me, they know these are bad guys. However, the relationship between the people and their government is regulated by the constitution, which prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment." This was written at a time when Burning at the Stake, hanging in chains, and Drawing and quatering were all legal in Britain, so Cruelty varies a bit from generation to generation. My point is, while this guy is a murderer and was sentenced to die, his rights are no less valid then mine or yours. That's not liberal wishing, that's civil rights jurisprudence. It's the law of the land.

An additional point to consider is that the AMA prohibits a doctor from assisting in an execution, meaning the person setting the IV is probably not exactly an expert. The facts of the case are a little weak, and I'm sure they'll figure out some way to execute this guy, but it's a pretty interesting legal argument.

One final thing: every person is guaranteed a lawyer (that wacky consitution again!), and by law, every lawyer must work as hard as they can for the betterment of their clients' case. I'm not saying every lawyer does that, but one of the big things every law student learns in his legal ethics class is the extent to which a lawyer is an advocate for his client. All this public defender is doing is serving his clients interest to the best of his ability.

Cap him with a 9mm to the back of the head. Problem solved. Whats the issue again?


I'd have a more respect for the ACLU if they didn't pick and choose which rights they sought to "protect." Find me a time they defended the Second Amendment and I'll buy you a cookie. But thats a completely different topic.

grizgrin wrote:Greebynog: In all seriousness and not trying to be a sarcastic twit, but you are right. It won't.

Too true mate, too true.

jfrazell wrote:Cap him with a 9mm to the back of the head. Problem solved. Whats the issue again?

Amazingly, the issue is how hard it is to kill a person. It's not that it's impossible to find somebody that'll shoot a person in the back of the head, it's just hard to do it so that you know the person will die as quickly as possible. Like it or not, that's been the trend in american Death Penalty jurisprudence since the Bill of Rights, but certainly for a little over a hundred years. If anything, death penalty proponents should want executions to be as flawless as possible. the idea of simply "putting down" a person quietly and quickly is a lot less bothersome than reports of people bleeding from the back of head while some deputy keeps firing. Every botched execution makes it easier to ban the death penalty outright.

I'd have a more respect for the ACLU if they didn't pick and choose which rights they sought to "protect." Find me a time they defended the Second Amendment and I'll buy you a cookie. But thats a completely different topic.

You've got a point, but it's a pretty academic point. The second amendment is vigorously defended by gun owners (a majority of Americans) as well as the NRA (one of the largest and most powerful organizations in the country) and the Firearm industry (a major industry with money to fun lawsuits.) The ACLU picks and chooses what they fight because they tend to defend people with no other recourse. The 2nd is well protected, the 5th amendment taking's clause generally gets fought by property owners who tend to have money, the 3rd amendment has never been used in court, etc. Personally, I'd like it if the ACLU at least filed amicus briefs on behalf of 2nd amendment law, but virtually no gun law has been upheld, so it's not exactly a fight they desperatly need to get into.

If the accusation is that the ACLU is made up of, and tends to support, bleeding heart liberals and their hippy dippy politics, well, that's probably more true than not, but no less true than when the Federalist Society comes down the mountain with some neo-fascist conservative nightmare. Yin and Yang make the world go round.

Polonius wrote:It's actually a pretty clever defense. First off, Ohio's execution protocols aren't the best to begin with, and a lot of policy is made by wardens, not by any legislature. My Civil Procedure professor actually sued successfully for several inmates after the warden said they could not make a final statement, only a written statement that could be edited by prison staff. Even Texas allows a last statement. Of course Texas also posts the last statements on their website. http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/executedoffenders.htm

Murders and villains or not, it's a little chilling to read somebody's last words when they know, 100% that they are going to die.

Anyways, I know the ACLU gets a bad rap because they tend to defend some pretty awful dudes. Trust me, they know these are bad guys. However, the relationship between the people and their government is regulated by the constitution, which prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment." This was written at a time when Burning at the Stake, hanging in chains, and Drawing and quatering were all legal in Britain, so Cruelty varies a bit from generation to generation. My point is, while this guy is a murderer and was sentenced to die, his rights are no less valid then mine or yours. That's not liberal wishing, that's civil rights jurisprudence. It's the law of the land.

An additional point to consider is that the AMA prohibits a doctor from assisting in an execution, meaning the person setting the IV is probably not exactly an expert. The facts of the case are a little weak, and I'm sure they'll figure out some way to execute this guy, but it's a pretty interesting legal argument.

One final thing: every person is guaranteed a lawyer (that wacky consitution again!), and by law, every lawyer must work as hard as they can for the betterment of their clients' case. I'm not saying every lawyer does that, but one of the big things every law student learns in his legal ethics class is the extent to which a lawyer is an advocate for his client. All this public defender is doing is serving his clients interest to the best of his ability.

That Texas link is really creepy. Reading that stuff makes me glad I'm not involved with any part of that process.

Does anyone know why shooting someone is deemed cruel and unusual?

Originally it was discontinued in many states, not because fo cruelty to the murderers, but because the executioners tended to get squeamish.

I'm not sure what your argument is Polonius, its really hard to screw a firing squad execution of some sort. Of course if that doesn't work, the guillotine was always effective. If thats not effective stick him in a box. Drop said box into the ocean. Problem solved. Plus its Green by adding vital nutrients into the local biosphere. If its Green it has to be ok...

lifeafter wrote:

That Texas link is really creepy. Reading that stuff makes me glad I'm not involved with any part of that process.

Does anyone know why shooting someone is deemed cruel and unusual?

The last statements are just... sad. I know I realized I don't have the stomach for the apparatus of it all.

As for firing squad being C&U? Well, I don't think it does. It's just much more personal (somebody has to aim and pull the trigger), and the possiblity for error is higher. Utah used the firing as recently as 1996, but has since banned it for future sentances. Two other states have it as a backup.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_by_firing_squad#Firing_squads_in_the_United_States

jfrazell wrote:Originally it was discontinued in many states, not because fo cruelty to the murderers, but because the executioners tended to get squeamish.

I'm not sure what your argument is Polonius, its really hard to screw a firing squad execution of some sort. Of course if that doesn't work, the guillotine was always effective. If thats not effective stick him in a box. Drop said box into the ocean. Problem solved. Plus its Green by adding vital nutrients into the local biosphere. If its Green it has to be ok...

I was being a bit nitpicky, I suppose. I was saying that a 9mm to the back of the head is easy to screw up. An keep in mind, screwing up isn't just measured in if he's still alive, but in how long it took to die. Given that states that used it recently have banned it, I'm guessing it's harder to administrate than we think.

Polonius wrote:

jfrazell wrote:Originally it was discontinued in many states, not because fo cruelty to the murderers, but because the executioners tended to get squeamish.

I'm not sure what your argument is Polonius, its really hard to screw a firing squad execution of some sort. Of course if that doesn't work, the guillotine was always effective. If thats not effective stick him in a box. Drop said box into the ocean. Problem solved. Plus its Green by adding vital nutrients into the local biosphere. If its Green it has to be ok...

I was being a bit nitpicky, I suppose. I was saying that a 9mm to the back of the head is easy to screw up. An keep in mind, screwing up isn't just measured in if he's still alive, but in how long it took to die. Given that states that used it recently have banned it, I'm guessing it's harder to administrate than we think, due to the squeamishness you mentioned.

That may be the case. but at the end of the day, pushing a switch, pulling a lever, or pulling the trigger is pretty much the same.

I know it will never and can never be done this way. But I think giving the person going to be put to death a gun with one bullet in it would be a good idea. If they have come to terms with the inevitability then they will finish the job themselves.

I've read about 12 of those last statements, and I think I might try to read all of them (over a long period of time). This is eerily entertaining.

Edit: This one is hilarious http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/clarkjameslast.htm

Except, those switches and levers all have the potential for error, and that's a minor problem in a world in which meat comes in neat, little, plastic-wrapped, bloodless packages.

If we still butchered our animals fresh, a lot of this silly squeamishness would go away.

Agreed.
Unfortunately there are lots of people out there who aren't squeemish at all. Hence the whole need for death row in the first place.

Amen to that. We should really return to firing squads.

Damn murderous yanks!!!


Just kidding, I don't like fat people so do whatever you like with him

They should turn him into Soylent Green!

I think his lard would aid in hanging.

Hanging is a problem for fat guys, because it's easy to accidentally pop the guys head off...