Ohio lethal injection takes 2 hours, 10 tries
 

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/LAW/05/2....ap/index.html

Capitol punishment is barbaric and just makes murderers of us all.

Executions get botched every now and again.

There weren't "ten tries" to execute him ... it took ten attempts to establish an IV line. BIG difference. Guy was a junkie, and they couldn't get a decent vein. Might be a good idea to consider a PICC instead of just an IV, but that's a surgical procedure and requires that an xray be taken to establish correct placement of the line.

Would have been nice had the fellow thought murder was barbaric before he beat and killed his cellmate in an argument over a chess game.

I'm against capital punishment but on the other hand, waah waaaah, dey hurt da wittle murdewer, waah. Was there a comfy cushion for his ass while they tried to find a vein?

Clarification: this man was not said to be an intravenous drug user. That reference was to the previous 'botched' execution of another prisoner where they could not establish an IV line.

This man was larger than usual and that was the reason the line was difficult to establish.

Also consider that most health professionals accustomed to putting in IVs would not participate in an execution. Totally my guess here, but it probably is done by a military trained field medic rather than a practicing medical specialist. There would have to be a doctor to certify the death and oversee the injections, but the doc is nowhere near the condemned man. That person is in a separate room.

A PICC is probably too invasive, being an order of magnitude more involved than a simple IV lock.

Can you tell I'm in a death penalty state? ugh.

what is so strange is that anyone cares that a PICC is too invasive. Dude, the guy is toast---who cares if its invasive?? He's not going to die of an infection.


I have very mixed feelings about the death penalty. I always feel bad for the person being executed and then I read what they did to their victim(s) and wonder what took the state so long to ice them. It's one of "those" issues.

I misread the article. Thanks for pointing this out. Even so, 265 pounds is not that fat.

I would doubt that some sort of a field medic, whether military or paramedic, was the one to establish an IV line.

Rule of thumb ... doctor = 10 tries, no starts.
Medic = 1 try, one start, while in the back of an ambulance doing 45 mph over potholes, with lots of turns. There was a line in an episode of Saved that made me laugh, because it's so true ... "Give me 10 seconds of smooth," because that's really all they need.

At VA I've poked till I say that's it. Go get an IV nurse. I try to let them have 3 shots, but not if they miss by inches.

I am against capital punishment but the way we run prisons today is very inefficient.

Manuel labor and community service is much better for punishment and they put something back to the community instead of just taking more in the form of taxes.

It could be easily avoided, along with the expense, by just stoning them. Stones are reusable.

No, not murders, killers.

Ten tries?

Just shove the damn needle into his aorta.

Ten tries. Scoff.

It usually takes three tries for me. I have tiny veins that "like to roll," apparently. My record is six.

I fully support it. Fast track em...

Ah Ha. I knew you were a slippery devil.

<sigh> Okay, for those of us who don't understand the protocols in a lethal injection execution, the wikipedia article is pretty basic. Even gives a line about why the needles used are sterile. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lethal_injection

It's not like people haven't thought about these things before. It is a very carefully considered and designed system that does not thoroughly please anyone.

Pro or con, any US execution will have to withstand scrutiny for any cruel and unusual punishment. We are currently not in a police state. These are our basic rights here. Yours and mine as well as the condemned.

You may not like that the prisoner is guaranteed an expeditious end, but understand there are innocent but interested people who MUST be witness to the execution. There will be a member of the press from the county where the crimes were commited and one from the county where the trial was held, both to testify that justice was done. There will be family and friends of the condemned as well as family and friends of the victims. Certain dignitaries will be included to represent both sides of the political issue of execution, as well as some interested parties that have previously petitioned to observe this particular execution. I think the only people that have to be there are the one or two members of the press and an observing physician.

Ten sticks would not be an unusual number for a large person with the layers of subcutaneous fat that can easily be acquired on the Death Row diet and exercise regimen.

There are two sites: bilateral arms. Only one arm? Then most likely a leg will be the back up site. They have to have a back up site to proceed.

Most licensed or certified nurses of any level, doctors of any degree or field, Physician's Assistants, etc., will refuse to participate in an execution. One, it's gross. Two, it's a very touchy subject. Three, the chamber is a long ways from civilization usually, often an hour or more drive from the nearest sizable city. Four, the job does not pay well. It's not specifically against most standards of practice, but is ethically questionable. What the prison is often seeking for a job candidate is someone who is willing to risk career and is having a hard time finding other employment. Not the case with the jobs I've mentioned. The doctor observing is on retainer and does not have to get dirty by actually doing any of the things that bring about death. Doc is only there to observe, then listen to the heart and sign the death certificate.

The person inserting the cannulas will be a prison employee, not a jobber like the doc. Usually male, usually accustomed to working with Death Row inmates, and he could possibly be the prison nurse. This person would have to be vetted by the facility. It would not be someone hired for the day. Anyone who is not keeping up with IV skills could have problems when performing under close scrutiny.

I don't have a stake in this. I have a philosophical interest. I am a little more acquainted with Death Row routines and executions because I have an acquaintance on Death Row and an ex who will witness that execution as an impartial member of the press.

YES, that's the American way...whatta country.

I see it differently.
The worse they are, the more clearly it illustrates how wrong murder is and that is what we become by murdering them.... we just become what they are.

Killers? NOT!
Killing a guy strapped to a bed or chair is murder... in no possible universe can that be construed as self-defense, what a joke!!!
"OH GOD! He blinked at MEEEEEEEE!!!"

It has nothing to do with self defense. All that kill are killers. There are different kinds of killers... murderer is one of those kinds. Executioner is another, as is euthanizer, and soldier.
Oh, don't forget gun owner and woman scorned.

Life in a concrete box or death. The only difference is time. And we aren't just like they are. They killed an innocent. We killed a killer.

Right, we murdered a murderer, making us one too.
Thanks for making my point.

I think I made a distinction that constitutes a separate point. But don't let that stop you from giving yourself a self-awarded, self-congratulatory pat on the back of yourself.:rolleyes:

Quite aside from the moral question, I have always had a slight difficulty with the idea of the state having the right to inflict death upon one of its citizens. There are too many variables and unsafe convictions to say without shadow of a doubt, that all those executed were guilty of the crimes for which they died. Any one of us could be falsely accused of a crime, we'd just need to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Personally I think its barbaric. It degrades the society that allows it, in my opinion. This is why the majority of civilised, liberal democracies have abandoned it as a measure.

Hmmm...I'll just wait for the flame wars after that last few sentances. lol

:P

I would switch huge for slight. When the State authorizes killing, what it is doing is cracking the door to uncivilized behavior. Sometimes killing is in self-defense and is necessary. If someone invades your home or your country it becomes necessary. To kill for revenge or because someone might be a threat, introduces uncivilized behavior to a civilization which may be more fragile than we acknowlege. Whenever the State authorizes killing it sanctifies it and lowers the threshhold of acceptable violence. A cop recently suggested to a friend of mine that he take "care" of a situation himself, my friend didn't find this acceptable. A President of mine recently crossed the line and so men are being trained to believe its ok to kill because they're in a war-zone. Eventually they will come back to civilization many of them changed, having moved or erased that line between acceptable and unacceptable violence.

I'm not gratified to learn that this is not particular to Florida.

Same here. And the lovely nurses always joke about it and try to make me feel better by telling me it's a useful trait and my veins are just protecting themselves, while I'm turning green and thinking, blood, omigod they're talking about blood and eventually choke out that I'd rather not know.

To the shame of my Mum, who finds it all fascinating and actually watches them do it. I think I was adopted.

I'm from Texas
 

First, if there is a .000~01 percent chance that an innocent person is wrongly executed,
then we are condoning the execution of innocent persons .000~01 percent of the time.

Next, I believe that the state-sanctioned execution of one innocent person is not acceptable.

Finally, we know that our system cannot be 100% accurate in establishing a guilty party.

Therefore, by a series of connected, logical points, I cannot support the death penalty.

I completely agree with flint, and yet I see nothing wrong with killing a murderer. So, what do we do?

What do we do? Ask ourselves what we hope to gain through the death of a murderer, and then ask ourselves if this outweights what we lose through the death of an innocent person who has been wrongly accused and convicted.

Does the death of 1,000 murderers carry more "value" than the death of one innocent person, executed in error? How many murderers do we have to execute to accrue the "price" of one innocent life? Overall, is there any actual "gain" of any kind we obtain through the execution of a murderer?

If so, would you knowingly pull the trigger and blow one innocent person's brains out, in order to get whatever reward you expect to receive by executing one million murderers?

These are not hypothetical questions.

Ok. Let's say we don't execute any murderers, becuase as you pointed out, the state makes unacceptable mistakes - what do we do with them?

As regards the question of whether capital punishment is morally justified, that is a non sequitur.

...unless "inconvenience" is a justification for the state-sanctioned execution of innocent human beings.

Yeah. But, but. the bible says.

Yes they are, because you are missing the point of execution.
It has nothing to do with revenge, payback, even the score or balancing the scale.

When the courts have determined that a person is not, and will not, be allowed back into society because they pose a danger to the population, then they are separated from society permanently. Murdering someone is only one of the reasons to be found a danger to society.

What point would there be to run the risk, or the expense, of keeping this person in prison? They will never be an asset, always a liability.
That was their choice, when they found they couldn't be compatible where they were, they chose to become a problem rather than finding some place they could be compatible.
Discarding liabilities is good practice.

The courts are not 100% perfect, so some percentage of the people we execute will be innocent.

Simple question: what do we gain to justify the death of those innocents? What is "worth" an innocent death?

Does it really make that much difference to them to be in maximum security?
What about the ones that say, "Yeah, I did it and would rather die then be locked up. Would you honor their wishes?

Poor fella, should have had 20 false starts and each time told him, "fake!", "Ok, not really, we are going to kill you", "fake!", "well not this time." "Fake!"

Over and over till you spring it on him.

Mailer, Executioner's Song...

A little long, but a WONDERFUL book.

Funny, as always, two different things and neither of them matter any more than what Sponge Bob says.

These questions appear to deviate from the stated goal of separating them from society, and enter the realm of execution as punishment.

I don't know what their preference would be, however I do know that if we choose to execute individuals based on the outcome of a system that isn't 100% infallible, then there will be some percentage of innocent people wrongly executed by the state, with our consent. Can you disagree?

Either we can ignore that reality, or we can state that it is acceptable as a trade-off for something. What that "something" is is what I am asking you.

What is the price of one innocent human life? What can we get in return for knowingly executing an anonymous human being, that will make it okay?

You must know the answer, since you support doing so.

Justice is not vengeance. Vengeance is not justice.

Oh, and the ones that asked to be killed would be requesting a "suicide by state" - a variation of "suicide by cop" that differs by being completely avoidable (not a split-second reaction). It really has nothing whatsoever to do with this debate, unless we are discussing killing as punishment.

Of course it does. You said you don't want executions because we might fry an innocent person, if I understand your position.

So, I asked about situation where making a mistake is not an issue. If you still don't want to execute, even though he requested it, then your argument is not the accidental frying an innocent. It's personal belief, moral position, whatever, it's how you feel.

Not at all, just a more practical way than locking them up with the related hassles for the next 40/50/60 years. Nothing to do with being punitive.There's no perfect system. How many people did your hospital kill last year? Did the hospital close because they might kill someone? At least stop all elective procedures. Should we replace all stairs with ramps so those thousands of people don't die? Damn near anything we do, including getting out of bed is statistically more dangerous, than the risk of being falsely executed.

Remember the alternative is not fields of clover and bucolic afternoons, it's being Big Bubba's bitch for the rest of their life.

Hospitals serve a purpose in society, but carry risks as well. I'm convinced that by default we should have hospitals despite the risks. I'm not convinced that by default, we should execute criminals. I think the default is not killing people, unless a reasonable justification can be supplied. I'm still waiting to hear that justification.

The specific reason I said that your questions appear punitive in nature is that you were asking about the criminals preference, IE which would they prefer: death or jail. That is not a question about what serves society, it's a question about what punishes the criminal more harshly. Do you understand how I might get that impression?

I ask again: is "convenience" a reason for state-sanctioned executions, even knowing that innocents might die with your consent?

I disagree. You asked this (a "GOTCHA" hypothetical):

Your scenario, applied to reality, necessitates a system where the state has the power to issue state-assisted suicides. We aren't debating assisted suicide, we're debating capital punishment.

The criminals wish to be executed (or not) does not factor into capital punishment.

And, to be specific, a "confession/request-to-die" does not create a situation where all doubt is removed.

This hypothetical creates a scenario that is exponentially more complex, when you apply it to reality.

Wrong. My position is based in IRON-CLAD LOGIC. I repeat:

With a .000~01 percent chance that an innocent person is wrongly executed, we are condoning the execution of innocent persons .000~01 percent of the time.

I know that the system isn't infallible, and I don't support the state-sanctioned execution of innocent persons; therefore, by a series of connected, logical points, I cannot support the death penalty.

Either you disagree that the system is imperfect, or you think that innocent deaths are acceptable. Those are the only options.

No it is not.

Yes it is so.

Only in your world, and homey don't play dat.

Explain specifically how you disagree. Elaborate at will. Go ahead. Shoot me down.

Capital punishment is not a deterrent against crime it is punishment for that criminal element and cheaper than housing them for 60 years. We need to cut down appeals to less than 5 years and clean out the cells for new meat.

An imperfect system is inevitable

Deaths of innocents is inevitable

We can only do what the elected representatives of the people will do, because to do otherwise would lead to more imperfection and more innocent deaths.

An imperfect system is inevitable, but luckily the death sentence is not the default option. You have to consciously decide that innocent deaths are a jutifiable trade-off, for...well for whatever it is you think the death sentence accomplishes. Which is...?

Hey man, I respect you for coming right out and saying what you think. There's something to be said for being able to state a clear position.

Shoot you down? You've made up your mind, with your "IRON-CLAD LOGIC", that I only have two choices. I reject that notion. Your "IRON-CLAD LOGIC" may limit your thinking, but not mine.

While I agree it's a cheaper and more practical option than housing them for 60 years, the idea that it's punishment went out with sword fighting and knickers.

Almost 200 hundred years ago, in Philadelphia, the legal/criminal justice community started to change their thinking from the old world 'draw & quarter' them for revenge and an example to others. They decided they didn't want to become what they had rejected in Europe. It didn't take very long for that position to become accepted.

While I agree that the public is divided, with some feeling it's punishment/revenge/pay back, that's not the official position of the legal/criminal justice community. Since they are running the show, their's is reality while yours and mine are only opinions. That's why we aren't allowed to lynch people, they hate competition.

Personally, the only difference between a rut and a grave is the depth, and the ultimate rut is a cell.


And Wesley Cook (Mumia Abu Jamal) is guilty as hell.

Clearly advocating murdering lots of innocents... thanks for clarifying what you want.

Clearly proving that would be a big task on your part. "Lots" is at best an overstatement. "Murdering" would be your opinion, nothing less.

So, you feel they are about to kill you at any minute from their cage, so you must protect yourself LOL!?
The burden of proof is on you since you are so hot to trot to murder them before their appeals are up & spend as many tax payer dollars as possible, murdering them being so much more expensive than keeping them alive.

Who is being murdered? They are being punished by society for heinous acts. Who says they are dying before their appeals are up? Pretty clear to me. Yea, but basically it is a cost benefit ratio.

Logic "limits your thinking" to what is actually possible. Think of this as a flowchart:

- Do you believe that the judicial system is 100% infallible?

If Yes: You have not "limited your thinking" via logic. (This is not an actual option).
If No: Then you must acknowledge the possibility that people will be wrongly convicted/sentenced/executed.

- Do you support the state-sanctioned execution of innocent human beings?

If Yes: You must consciously accept innocent deaths as a trade-off for the benefits of the Death Penalty.
If No: You do not accept innocent deaths as a trade-off for the benefits of the Death Penalty. You cannot support the Death Penalty.
If No, BUT you SUPPORT the Death Penalty: You have not "limited your thinking" via logic. (This is not an actual option).

Are you familiar with the term Cognitive Dissonance?

What are the third and fourth choices?

The human beings who are being murdered.
If you kill someone for any reason other than immediate self-defense, it is murder.
You can dehumanize them all you want, but murdering innocents is not cost effective.
Once it becomes clear it has happened your state will be liable and should have to pay the family of the murdered victim millions because assholes supported state-sanctioned murder because they wanted to feel powerful and cool and for NO OTHER REASON.
Punished implies you are teaching them something, if one is murdered, they have learned nothing... your bulb is petty dim these days.