Tennessee Sucks at Executions

[eric_erosfan]

I mean my old dog was gone in 3 seconds. Maybe they should have veterinarians conduct lethal injections.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...execute-inmate-2-lethal-injections-rcna600863

 

[AnAmericanDarling]

They shouldn't have the death penalty at all. If killing is wrong (and it is), then the government should also abide by that rule.

 

[rgraham666]

If the death penalty ever returns to Canada I am going to push for two provisos.

First, the method of execution will be a 9mm pistol bullet in the back of the head.

Second, the job of executioner will be filled by conscription. Every person eligible to vote in Canada could receive a letter stating, "You will appear at this prison at this date and time where you will kill this person."

I've found many supporters of the death penalty taco out at this point. Generally they want people dead but they don't want to do their own killing.

I would have people who refuse to do their duty treated like conscientious objectors in war time. They will be allowed to perform two years of public service instead of killing someone. If they won't do that, two years imprisonment.

I oppose the death penalty for three reasons.

First, you cannot fix mistakes.

Second, it is not carried out fairly.

Third, it is a political tool and not a judicial one.

 

[Rotadom]

She wanted a firing squad

 

[colddiesel]

Bring back Albert Pierrpoint. He hanged hundreds with total efficiency over 40 years. The US botched the 45 war trial hangings (excessively long drop tore their heads off + use of the ridiculous cowboy noose rather than a rope and washer.)

Then the absurd electrocution method which slowly cooked the victim filling the room with an awful smell - and that was before the victim lost control of their bowels and sprayed shit all over the execution chamber.

Finally slow poisoning - which sometimes worked and sometimes not.

Even old Albert realized that it was all completely pointless in the end.

 

[phtlc]

If the death penalty ever returns to Canada I am going to push for two provisos.

First, the method of execution will be a 9mm pistol bullet in the back of the head.

Disfigures the face where the bullet exits. Cruel to the family of the condemned

 

[phtlc]

Second, the job of executioner will be filled by conscription. Every person eligible to vote in Canada could receive a letter stating, "You will appear at this prison at this date and time where you will kill this person."

I've found many supporters of the death penalty taco out at this point. Generally they want people dead but they don't want to do their own killing.

I would have people who refuse to do their duty treated like conscientious objectors in war time. They will be allowed to perform two years of public service instead of killing someone. If they won't do that, two years imprisonment.

But that would even force those who are against the death penalty to make this choice. Conduct a referendum and make it clear that those who vote for it will have this criteria apply to them

 

[phtlc]

I oppose the death penalty for three reasons.

I tend to flip flop on Capital punishment. Obviously I worry about the possibility of a wrongfully convicted person being executed. Secondly I have reservations about a civilized society restraining a defenseless person who is no longer a threat so they can end their life. Lastly I'm at a loss how in this day and age we still cannot find a way to do it humanely.

I have heard families of murder victims say this will bring them closure however (although there are no studies after the fact that confirm it actually did).

I think a better solution for the purpose of providing the families of some victims closure is to ensure that life in prison actually means life in prison. For example Clifford Olson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifford_Olson murdered eleven kids, and received 11 "concurrent" life sentences which would have meant he would be eligible for parole in 25 years. Furthermore with the liberal parties "faint hope clause, people like him can be eligible for parole after 15 years. This means that the parents of the kid she killed would have to go through the torture of attending his parole hearings every few years (if they ever missed one and he got paroled however unlikely they would never forgive themselves). If he had 11 consecutive sentences without the faint hope clause he would have to at serve a minimum of 275 years in prison before being eligible for parole. If I were the parents of one of those kids I would be fine with that. If every 25 years he was granted parole only to start his next life sentence, I would never feel the need to attend his parole hearings and relive this. The parents never got a chance to get on with grieving their children while he was alive because they had to keep going to parle hearings. Now some may say that he clearly would never have gotten parole, but if you were one of the parents could you live with missing the hearing, however remote the chance? Would you ever be willing to take that chance?

Paul Bernardo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bernardo. Life sentence for the kidnapping, forcible confinement, sexual assault and first degree murder of Kristen French (not a life sentence for each crime, but in total for all four), Life sentence for the kidnapping, forcible confinement, sexual assault and and first degree murder of Leslie Mahaffy (not a life sentence for each crime, but in total for all four), life sentence for the sexual assault and manslaughter of Tammy Homolka. This under normal circumstances means he would be eligible for parole after 25 years but due to the faint hope clause he would be eligible for parole after 15 years. The parents of Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy were barely able to mourn their children as they had to prepare to relive the horrors of the original trial every time this piece of human filth came up for parole. Had he received CONSECUTIVE life sentences without the faint hope clause for the first degree murders of Kristen and Leslie those alone would have guaranteed 50 years in prison before parole eligibility. Throw in consecutive sentences for 2 counts kidnapping, two counts forcible confinement, three counts sexual assault and one count manslaughter (oops and I forgot one count of indignity to a human body) he would never have any hope of getting out of prison before reaching about 120-140 years of age. This would have allowed the parents of Leslie Mahaffy and Kristen French to forget him and truly mourn their daughters and move on.

 

[rgraham666]

I tend to flip flop on Capital punishment. Obviously I worry about the possibility of a wrongfully convicted person being executed. Secondly I have reservations about a civilized society restraining a defenseless person who is no longer a threat so they can end their life. Lastly I'm at a loss how in this day and age we still cannot find a way to do it humanely.

I have heard families of murder victims say this will bring them closure however (although there are no studies after the fact that confirm it actually did).

I think a better solution for the purpose of providing the families of some victims closure is to ensure that life in prison actually means life in prison. For example Clifford Olson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifford_Olson murdered eleven kids, and received 11 "concurrent" life sentences which would have meant he would be eligible for parole in 25 years. Furthermore with the liberal parties "faint hope clause, people like him can be eligible for parole after 15 years. This means that the parents of the kid she killed would have to go through the torture of attending his parole hearings every few years (if they ever missed one and he got paroled however unlikely they would never forgive themselves). If he had 11 consecutive sentences without the faint hope clause he would have to at serve a minimum of 275 years in prison before being eligible for parole. If I were the parents of one of those kids I would be fine with that. If every 25 years he was granted parole only to start his next life sentence, I would never feel the need to attend his parole hearings and relive this. The parents never got a chance to get on with grieving their children while he was alive because they had to keep going to parle hearings. Now some may say that he clearly would never have gotten parole, but if you were one of the parents could you live with missing the hearing, however remote the chance? Would you ever be willing to take that chance?

Paul Bernardo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bernardo. Life sentence for the kidnapping, forcible confinement, sexual assault and first degree murder of Kristen French (not a life sentence for each crime, but in total for all four), Life sentence for the kidnapping, forcible confinement, sexual assault and and first degree murder of Leslie Mahaffy (not a life sentence for each crime, but in total for all four), life sentence for the sexual assault and manslaughter of Tammy Homolka. This under normal circumstances means he would be eligible for parole after 25 years but due to the faint hope clause he would be eligible for parole after 15 years. The parents of Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy were barely able to mourn their children as they had to prepare to relive the horrors of the original trial every time this piece of human filth came up for parole. Had he received CONSECUTIVE life sentences without the faint hope clause for the first degree murders of Kristen and Leslie those alone would have guaranteed 50 years in prison before parole eligibility. Throw in consecutive sentences for 2 counts kidnapping, two counts forcible confinement, three counts sexual assault and one count manslaughter (oops and I forgot one count of indignity to a human body) he would never have any hope of getting out of prison before reaching about 120-140 years of age. This would have allowed the parents of Leslie Mahaffy and Kristen French to forget him and truly mourn their daughters and move on.

Familiar with both those monsters. Neither has been paroled. I doubt either will be.

I believe that extreme cases make for bad laws.

 

[rgraham666]

Disfigures the face where the bullet exits. Cruel to the family of the condemned

Is there any method of execution that won't traumatized the family not the condemened?

 

[rgraham666]

But that would even force those who are against the death penalty to make this choice. Conduct a referendum and make it clear that those who vote for it will have this criteria apply to them

If they don't want to kill somebody they have an out.

If capital punishment returns to Canada and does so under the circumstances I list I regard executioner as a public duty. Like being a soldier or someone working to support the war effort during war time.

If capital punishment just returns I will oppose it.

 

[eric_erosfan]

Is there any method of execution that won't traumatized the family not the condemened?

Did your elderly dog's death at the vet's office traumatize you? Mine just stopped moving and they were gone without any indication they just died.

When you get general anesthesia for a medical procedure do you remember anything between putting on the mask and waking up in recovery?

I feel like the science of peaceful death is not rocket science.

 

[rgraham666]

Did your elderly dog's death at the vet's office traumatize you? Mine just stopped moving and they were gone without any indication they just died.

When you get general anesthesia for a medical procedure do you remember anything between putting on the mask and waking up in recovery?

I feel like the science of peaceful death is not rocket science.

And yet we keep fucking it up. I suspect because there is an unconscious wish among those who support the death penalty for the victim to suffer.

Which is another reason I do not support capital punishment. It's vengeance, not justice.

ETA: After thinking a bit I believe that the efforts to 'humanely kill' are just another method of avoiding responsibility for our actions. "They died peacefully."

Fuck that noise. If I'm going to kill somebody I want to feel responsible for it. No looking away for me.

 

[Sign54]

They shouldn't have the death penalty at all. If killing is wrong (and it is), then the government should also abide by that rule.

I mean, Canada doesn't have it yet Saudi Arabia does. Canada isn't perfect, but I'd rather trust them than a Muslim theocracy that is cartoonishly evil where everything is segregated.

 

[phtlc]

Familiar with both those monsters. Neither has been paroled. I doubt either will be.

I believe that extreme cases make for bad laws.

Only if you use extreme cases to create sweeping one size fits all laws. I'm saying for cases involving exceptional cruelty, we should have provisions that ensure the guilty parties will be guaranteed to grow old and die in prison.

 

[phtlc]

Is there any method of execution that won't traumatized the family not the condemened?

No, but we should avoid needlessly aggravating that trauma.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Firing squads work

 

[phtlc]

Firing squads work

If I was going to be executed that's how I would want to go. I'm no executionologist, but from what I have read it has a good history of being quick without undue suffering.

 

[rgraham666]

Firing squads work

Those involve the one thing I hate most about executions. Avoidance of responsibility.

Whether it's a masked hangman, one blank in a rifle, or a machine that injects the juice we try to avoid saying, "It's not my fault." Which is why I mentioned my desires if capital punishment is returned to Canada.

We'll have to take responsibility.

 

[Bray123]

The head of Tennessee’s prison system is resigning, Gov. Bill Lee announced Saturday...

https://apnews.com/article/tennesse...christa-pike-456e4c5e3e203be44744bcf839c11d4f

Taking responsibility for foul-ups sounds so old-school nowadays.

 

[eric_erosfan]

And yet we keep fucking it up. I suspect because there is an unconscious wish among those who support the death penalty for the victim to suffer.

Which is another reason I do not support capital punishment. It's vengeance, not justice.

ETA: After thinking a bit I believe that the efforts to 'humanely kill' are just another method of avoiding responsibility for our actions. "They died peacefully."

Fuck that noise. If I'm going to kill somebody I want to feel responsible for it. No looking away for me.

I have had this argument with a coworker many years ago. I have shot many predator animals on my small farm overbthe years and every single time I feel sorry for the animal I have killed because I know it is only doing what it is naturally wired to do. Humans do not have that hunting instinct to survive. If they murder another human in the first degree it is a senseless, useless criminal act.

I would feel less emotion pulling the trigger to put down a human murderer than the many predators on my farm.

 

[73Seahawks]

They shouldn't have the death penalty at all. If killing is wrong (and it is), then the government should also abide by that rule.

I 100 percent staunchly SUPPORT the death penalty.

 

[butters]

In case anyone's wondering why there are such differences between human and animal euthanasia, here's what AI had to say (some of which I knew, some I didn't):

AI Overview
Veterinary euthanasia drugs like pentobarbital actually are used in some human executions today, but traditional multi-drug execution protocols differ significantly from animal euthanasia standards [0.15].
DVM360 +1


Veterinary vs. Human Execution Methods

• • Veterinary standard: Veterinarians use a single, large dose of a barbiturate (usually pentobarbital) to quickly and painlessly induce unconsciousness and stop the heart.
    DVM360
  • Human execution standard: Most U.S. states traditionally use a three-drug cocktail: an anesthetic (to induce unconsciousness), a paralyzing agent like pancuronium bromide (to stop breathing), and potassium chloride (to stop the heart).
    FindLaw +1

Why Paralyzing Drugs Are Banned in Animals

• • Prohibited in veterinary care: Research by legal scholar Ty Alper highlights that 42 U.S. states explicitly ban paralyzing agents for animal euthanasia.
    SSRN eLibrary +1
  • Masking pain: Animal welfare groups and veterinary guidelines reject paralytics because if the initial anesthetic fails, the paralyzing drug prevents the animal from moving, gasping, or showing outward signs of agony, effectively masking distress.
    DVM360 +1
  • Used in humans: Conversely, human lethal injection protocols have historically relied on these paralyzing agents to keep the body still for witnesses, raising constitutional debates over whether it conceals cruel and unusual suffering.
    Death Penalty Information Center +2

Availability and Sourcing Issues

• • Single-drug shift: Due to shortages and European export bans on traditional lethal injection drugs like sodium thiopental and pentobarbital, several states and the federal government have turned or considered turning to pentobarbital (the same active ingredient used in pet euthanasia) for single-drug executions [0.15].
    NPR
  • Pharmaceutical restrictions: Pharmaceutical manufacturers often restrict the sale of pentobarbital and specialized euthanasia solutions for capital punishment, making it legally and logistically difficult for correctional departments to acquire them through normal veterinary supply chains.

^^ further example of treating humans worse than animals. Saying that, though, I quite understand the stance of some pharma companies not wishing their product to be used to kill peope.

 

[rgraham666]

I have had this argument with a coworker many years ago. I have shot many predator animals on my small farm overbthe years and every single time I feel sorry for the animal I have killed because I know it is only doing what it is naturally wired to do. Humans do not have that hunting instinct to survive. If they murder another human in the first degree it is a senseless, useless criminal act.

I would feel less emotion pulling the trigger to put down a human murderer than the many predators on my farm.

And then evidence comes out after the murderer is executed that exonerates them.

What now? Can you raise the dead?

 

[butters]

I have had this argument with a coworker many years ago. I have shot many predator animals on my small farm overbthe years and every single time I feel sorry for the animal I have killed because I know it is only doing what it is naturally wired to do. Humans do not have that hunting instinct to survive. If they murder another human in the first degree it is a senseless, useless criminal act.

I would feel less emotion pulling the trigger to put down a human murderer than the many predators on my farm.

The problem I have with your argument here is that it ignores the fact that psychopaths (particularly those who kill or harm others repeatedly) ARE doing what they are wired to do and pity for them after being killed isn't such a terrible thing. You can hate what they did, even hate what they are, but pity the fact they were acting naturally (for them).

It also ignores the fact that people sometimes kill for reasons they believe to be for entirely sound reasoning, like saving their own lives or the lives of others. Isn't the battered spouse, having endured violence at the hands of their partner for years, who believes if they try to leave the partner will kill them/other loved ones, often the planner of a murder? Or kill the other person out of pure fear and a need for it all to stop in the moment of an attack on themselves? I suppose my thinking here is a little clouded by my own ignorance of the whole 'degree' matter; say a student, abused by a teacher for years, returns to the scene decades later, having plotted with cold deliberation exactly how to murder the abuser and carries out an execution of their own... how does that stand in the 'degrees of murder' thing?