The state within a nation that permits execution her refuses medical assistance in dying. That would be a cop-out; too soft a punishment.
They want her to die the way God intended, using a specific cocktail of drugs that knock her out, paralyze her, and then suffocate her in her sleep as a form of revenge. The state assumes this is the appropriate punishment, the words are on the paper; so it is written, so it shall be done.
The alleged rapists at many Ivy-league universities may be able to provide another source for a cocktail of effective drugs.
And, I think someone else mentioned that if the execution fails or is not complete on the same day, they need to provide care until the next attempted execution.
real answer: a death warrant expires at midnight, or after the execution protocol. after that, should the person still be alive, they return to prisoner status which the state is obligated to provide with medical care.
Honestly, I found it notable that the vast majority of victims’ families have reached forgiveness and sometimes even support clemency. In this case, the victim’s mom spent 30 years hoping and 12 hours watching for this offender to be killed.
What is notable about it? Most people don’t really seem to get any closure from the death penalty and regardless of what this mother wants I don’t think she is going to be able to let her daughter rest or that her daughter will rest with any amount of violence done to the perpetrators. People want these people to die but when they do it seems like it dosent ever really change anything.
For the same reason enemy combatants move from hated enemy to protected prisoner the moment they surrender. The same reason cops must move from violence to first-aid the moment the situation goes safe (YMMV in America, though).
She also warned them that she had a medical condition that made them ineffective. Unfortunately, the pigs who sign up to administer those drugs are in it for the pain and misery.
I doubt the medical staff would participate and the idea of an execution is that it's supposed to be quick and painless.
The same question has crosses my mind too though. Seems super bizarre to decide to do something like this and then pivot to life saving critical care as soon as you fuck up. I read that the people they have to obtain IV access as not well trained so the IVs tend to infiltrate (leak into the subcutaneous tissue) leading to only a partial dose being delivered to the bloodstream.
My guess would be because the "we're trying to kill her" thing is an extreme aberration of the regular order of things so as soon as the narrow window where that was somehow okay is closed the default practice of trying to help people kicks back in. Especially once she's in the hands of actual medical practitioners who take their oathes seriously.
Could also be that the prison literally cannot buy the drugs they need. A lot of these drugs come from "unknown sources" because medical companies don't like to sell drugs they know are going to be used for lethal injection.
So, this is going to sound like something an idiot would say, but, I'm honestly curious.
Why don't they just execute people with a slow overdose of heroin or fentanyl or something? I've heard that the actual cocktail isn't all that comfortable for the victim anyway, so let them drift off to sleep and not wake up. I know there must be a reason, and I'd be really interested to hear it.
Those require a lot more dosage, and don't kill quickly (which is what you want with an execution). Cops don't want to give a valid use for these drugs either. Prisons do want to experiment with slowly replacing atmosphere in a sealed chamber with nitrogen, sorta like what they used to do with the gas chamber - but nobody's tested this as an execution method and no state wants to be the one to fuck it up first.
Don't forget what I think is the most important reason for elaborate "humane" execution methods. Those ordering or tasked with the executions don't want to think of themselves as the "bad guys".
Historically what that means has varied strongly. But in our societies we have very little official appetite for being bad or cruel in a physical manner.
And then it's a matter of required competency. It seems to require real skill to decapitate a person with a sword cleanly. Hanging cleanly is much less simple than it seems. Killing is fairly simple. Killing in a socially acceptable manner much less so.
I don't even think that's the ultimate argument. Executions are final. There is nothing you can do when you find out someone wasn't guilty after all. And that happens way too often.
(Were this the case in the minds of these law&order judges, all would be struck down by 8th amendment. They are not, so at least one class of informed folk generally disagree.)
the official drugs come from EU pharm companies, and they stopped providing it to the states, because the bad pr associated with executing people. they have since are trying to make thier bootleg execution drugs.
But that something else I don't understand. Even DIY executions really should, scientifically, be a solved problem. Potassiumiodide as a leathal agent is essentially a stock compound that should easily be sourceable, even be made by oneself. Sure, pharmaceutical grade will be more difficult, but the goal is to kill someone. Afaik it's quite an unpleasant experience, so for the executioners to feel better it's proceeded by some sedative and perhaps a muscle relaxant. Both of those should be available as some generic noname drug. And even if not, those have been around for decades and are a solved problem that could be made in-state. If you consider how much money is thrown at the military-industrial complex and even at law enforcement with rubbish like tanks and heavy weapons for "law enforcement" the money for in-state manufacture of the required drugs should be available.
Maybe they can't find enough chemists/pharmacists without a conscience? But even so I suspect the real reason is simply them wanting to be cheapskates.
And if they want it cheap, they should man up and use one of those in old non-industrial methods. But I guess that makes them too obviously the bad guys.
Tldr: being so incompetent almost has to be a conscious choice.
Because citizens (even criminal ones) have a right not to be subject to cruel and inhumane punishment; and pulling the plug medically is very likely at least one of those. There's a question of if it is possible to reliably have humane executions, but clearly TN isn't good at it.
Because in those states and among those that support and are involved those executions, the suffering is the whole point, at least to some degree. Anything that makes it more humane lessens the punishment and nobody wants to be seen doing that, because in those minds that means you're defending murderers and pedo's and whatever
(I suspect this is largely untrue; this is clearly bad for the politicians and management over the executions, and afaict it has never been politically wise to botch an execution. No faster way to seem incompetent to your 'law&order' constituents. Note that inhumane execution methods have been rejected by the courts before, and are a real fast way to get yourself sued.)
Well technically yes, but defending them from what. IMO I don't get the point of gratuitous punishment.
IE I see 2 possibilities.
Someone can be rehabilitated. IE we think it's reasonable that after the punishment we consider them able to be low enough risk that more or less they can contribute to society and function as a normal person again.
Someone can't be rehabilitated. In which case punishment is completely meaningless, and we need to keep them away from any potential victims for the rest of their lives. Of which I do understand but not agree with the concept of shortening it.
But in the case of 2, I flat out don't get the concept of intentionally adding suffering in that point for any purpose other than keeping them from getting near innocents. If we've given up on changing them, then we've negated any potential purpose to the suffering, and thus it's just gratuitous and... makes those involved in it's execution the monsters.
That's sort of what they tried. They gave her a huge dose x2 of a barbiturate, which would kill in much the same manner. Problem is they missed the vein, x2
I recommend you let them take it rather than giving it yourself. Too many questions like "who are you?", "where did you get that?", and "how did you even get in here?".
I believe the companies that own the patents on those types of drugs forbid them from being used for lethal injection. It's why prisons are using weird mixes of drugs they acquire from unknown sources that don't seem to actually work the way they intend.
40 replies
The state within a nation that permits execution her refuses medical assistance in dying. That would be a cop-out; too soft a punishment.
They want her to die the way God intended, using a specific cocktail of drugs that knock her out, paralyze her, and then suffocate her in her sleep as a form of revenge. The state assumes this is the appropriate punishment, the words are on the paper; so it is written, so it shall be done.
The alleged rapists at many Ivy-league universities may be able to provide another source for a cocktail of effective drugs.
And, I think someone else mentioned that if the execution fails or is not complete on the same day, they need to provide care until the next attempted execution.
real answer: a death warrant expires at midnight, or after the execution protocol. after that, should the person still be alive, they return to prisoner status which the state is obligated to provide with medical care.
Only the horrific suffering of others can bring joy to a conservative. All conservatives are vile sadists. Every single one.
Honestly, I found it notable that the vast majority of victims’ families have reached forgiveness and sometimes even support clemency. In this case, the victim’s mom spent 30 years hoping and 12 hours watching for this offender to be killed.
What is notable about it? Most people don’t really seem to get any closure from the death penalty and regardless of what this mother wants I don’t think she is going to be able to let her daughter rest or that her daughter will rest with any amount of violence done to the perpetrators. People want these people to die but when they do it seems like it dosent ever really change anything.
For the same reason enemy combatants move from hated enemy to protected prisoner the moment they surrender. The same reason cops must move from violence to first-aid the moment the situation goes safe (YMMV in America, though).
Because the state fucked up and didn't want to make sure the drugs they used were fresh.
Basically cause they wanted to save money. But the monkey never curls in your favor.
She also warned them that she had a medical condition that made them ineffective. Unfortunately, the pigs who sign up to administer those drugs are in it for the pain and misery.
I think the question OP means is "Why not just end treatment and let her die now?"
I doubt the medical staff would participate and the idea of an execution is that it's supposed to be quick and painless.
The same question has crosses my mind too though. Seems super bizarre to decide to do something like this and then pivot to life saving critical care as soon as you fuck up. I read that the people they have to obtain IV access as not well trained so the IVs tend to infiltrate (leak into the subcutaneous tissue) leading to only a partial dose being delivered to the bloodstream.
My guess would be because the "we're trying to kill her" thing is an extreme aberration of the regular order of things so as soon as the narrow window where that was somehow okay is closed the default practice of trying to help people kicks back in. Especially once she's in the hands of actual medical practitioners who take their oathes seriously.
Could also be that the prison literally cannot buy the drugs they need. A lot of these drugs come from "unknown sources" because medical companies don't like to sell drugs they know are going to be used for lethal injection.
So, this is going to sound like something an idiot would say, but, I'm honestly curious.
Why don't they just execute people with a slow overdose of heroin or fentanyl or something? I've heard that the actual cocktail isn't all that comfortable for the victim anyway, so let them drift off to sleep and not wake up. I know there must be a reason, and I'd be really interested to hear it.
Those require a lot more dosage, and don't kill quickly (which is what you want with an execution). Cops don't want to give a valid use for these drugs either. Prisons do want to experiment with slowly replacing atmosphere in a sealed chamber with nitrogen, sorta like what they used to do with the gas chamber - but nobody's tested this as an execution method and no state wants to be the one to fuck it up first.
I mean someone did test it.
That was with Zyklon-B (hydrogen cyanide).
That isn't a pleasant/humane way to go - people exposed to it suffer greatly before they die.
The execution is supposed to be the ultimate form of punishment, it’s meant to suck.
Don't forget what I think is the most important reason for elaborate "humane" execution methods. Those ordering or tasked with the executions don't want to think of themselves as the "bad guys". Historically what that means has varied strongly. But in our societies we have very little official appetite for being bad or cruel in a physical manner.
And then it's a matter of required competency. It seems to require real skill to decapitate a person with a sword cleanly. Hanging cleanly is much less simple than it seems. Killing is fairly simple. Killing in a socially acceptable manner much less so.
No. It's not. The punishment is ending the life. What you are describing is legally cruel and unusual.
Execution is cruel and unusual so checks out.
I don't even think that's the ultimate argument. Executions are final. There is nothing you can do when you find out someone wasn't guilty after all. And that happens way too often.
(Were this the case in the minds of these law&order judges, all would be struck down by 8th amendment. They are not, so at least one class of informed folk generally disagree.)
the official drugs come from EU pharm companies, and they stopped providing it to the states, because the bad pr associated with executing people. they have since are trying to make thier bootleg execution drugs.
But that something else I don't understand. Even DIY executions really should, scientifically, be a solved problem. Potassiumiodide as a leathal agent is essentially a stock compound that should easily be sourceable, even be made by oneself. Sure, pharmaceutical grade will be more difficult, but the goal is to kill someone. Afaik it's quite an unpleasant experience, so for the executioners to feel better it's proceeded by some sedative and perhaps a muscle relaxant. Both of those should be available as some generic noname drug. And even if not, those have been around for decades and are a solved problem that could be made in-state. If you consider how much money is thrown at the military-industrial complex and even at law enforcement with rubbish like tanks and heavy weapons for "law enforcement" the money for in-state manufacture of the required drugs should be available. Maybe they can't find enough chemists/pharmacists without a conscience? But even so I suspect the real reason is simply them wanting to be cheapskates.
And if they want it cheap, they should man up and use one of those in old non-industrial methods. But I guess that makes them too obviously the bad guys.
Tldr: being so incompetent almost has to be a conscious choice.
Does this mean I should replace my giant bottle of ibuprofen that expired 5 years ago?
Nah, just take twice as much.
Because citizens (even criminal ones) have a right not to be subject to cruel and inhumane punishment; and pulling the plug medically is very likely at least one of those. There's a question of if it is possible to reliably have humane executions, but clearly TN isn't good at it.
Ok but she asked for different modes of execution and they denied it so a big part is probably bureaucracy.
Because in those states and among those that support and are involved those executions, the suffering is the whole point, at least to some degree. Anything that makes it more humane lessens the punishment and nobody wants to be seen doing that, because in those minds that means you're defending murderers and pedo's and whatever
(I suspect this is largely untrue; this is clearly bad for the politicians and management over the executions, and afaict it has never been politically wise to botch an execution. No faster way to seem incompetent to your 'law&order' constituents. Note that inhumane execution methods have been rejected by the courts before, and are a real fast way to get yourself sued.)
But they literally are.
Well technically yes, but defending them from what. IMO I don't get the point of gratuitous punishment.
IE I see 2 possibilities.
Someone can be rehabilitated. IE we think it's reasonable that after the punishment we consider them able to be low enough risk that more or less they can contribute to society and function as a normal person again.
Someone can't be rehabilitated. In which case punishment is completely meaningless, and we need to keep them away from any potential victims for the rest of their lives. Of which I do understand but not agree with the concept of shortening it.
But in the case of 2, I flat out don't get the concept of intentionally adding suffering in that point for any purpose other than keeping them from getting near innocents. If we've given up on changing them, then we've negated any potential purpose to the suffering, and thus it's just gratuitous and... makes those involved in it's execution the monsters.
And anyone who plants a tree is providing aid and comfort to them.
red states love to show conservatives they are tough on crime, by having executions wether or not if its valid for such an extreme punishment.
Seems more humane to just give her an OD of morphine
That's sort of what they tried. They gave her a huge dose x2 of a barbiturate, which would kill in much the same manner. Problem is they missed the vein, x2
I read they used 7 needles!
Me trying to give blood.
I recommend you let them take it rather than giving it yourself. Too many questions like "who are you?", "where did you get that?", and "how did you even get in here?".
I believe the companies that own the patents on those types of drugs forbid them from being used for lethal injection. It's why prisons are using weird mixes of drugs they acquire from unknown sources that don't seem to actually work the way they intend.