Ohio lethal injection takes 2 hours, 10 tries

[Sundae]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

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

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.

[Flint]

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.

[TheMercenary]

I fully support it. Fast track em...

[lizzymahoney]

<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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

It is a very carefully considered and designed system that does not thoroughly please anyone.

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

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

[Beestie]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

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.

[DanaC]

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.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by DanaC

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.

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.

[lizzymahoney]

Originally Posted by Griff

A cop recently suggested to a friend of mine that he take "care" of a situation himself, my friend didn't find this acceptable.

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

[Aliantha]

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

[DanaC]

:P

[jinx]

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

[Flint]

Originally Posted by jinx

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Flint

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.

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.