Florida Rep Wants The Firing Squad Back

[Gravekeeper]

So, my question remains: what, exactly, is keeping the death penalty states from simply using a different anesthetic in the executions? How can the threat of not supplying this particular drug be so severe that it would inhibit states' rights to execute people?

Actually, they did begin to switch to an alternative. But its manufactured by a Danish company, who has likewise since refused to sell it to anyone that was going to use it for capital punishment. That was back in July, so only a few months ago. They haven't had enough time to find an alternative yet with all red tape, testing etc that I imagine needs to be hurdled.

[Canarr]

Ah, okay; the Danish product is already the alternative - I must've missed that.

Still don't get it, though. According to that article I quoted above, the Hospira drug has already been replaced in hospitals, so apparently, there are other drugs out there that can put someone to sleep, and must already have been thoroughly tested. Why not just use one of these?

[Gravekeeper]

Ah, okay; the Danish product is already the alternative - I must've missed that.

Still don't get it, though. According to that article I quoted above, the Hospira drug has already been replaced in hospitals, so apparently, there are other drugs out there that can put someone to sleep, and must already have been thoroughly tested. Why not just use one of these?

I'm going to assume that again its because the company behind it objects to the usage. The Danish alternative, for example, is still being manufactured and still in use. So hospitals can use it just fine, but States can't. So it may be that there's no need for hospitals to find another alternative, and thus not another option on the board for States to look into.

They will probably keep running into the same moral objection from international manufacturers and governments until a like minded US company comes up with something.

[Canarr]

Still, I find it hard to believe that all usable anesthetics are either manufactured by foreign companies or by morally outraged anti-death-penalty protesters. There's gotta be *some* drug companies left in the US, doesn't there? Or has that been outsourced, as well?

Maybe someone with a pharmaceutical background could shed some light on this?

[Andara Bledin]

You know, it amuses me that the representative for the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation sees nothing wrong with ignoring the possibility that some of the drugs that they want for executions may have been acquired outside of legal means.

Kent Scheidegger was quoted as saying, "Justice should not be held up because of the way someone filled out a couple of forms."

Actual justice can wait until all the ducks are lined up in a perfect little row.

article at ArgusLeader.com

^-.-^

[Gravekeeper]

Still, I find it hard to believe that all usable anesthetics are either manufactured by foreign companies or by morally outraged anti-death-penalty protesters. There's gotta be *some* drug companies left in the US, doesn't there? Or has that been outsourced, as well?

That's actually an interesting question. I know that quite a bit of it has indeed moved to other countries, since its cheaper to manufacture elsewhere then keep the money in the US for the lucrative tax breaks. So I think a lot of the research and development, testing etc is done in the US. But when the recipe is perfected it may be shifted elsewhere for actual manufacturing.

You know, it amuses me that the representative for the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation sees nothing wrong with ignoring the possibility that some of the drugs that they want for executions may have been acquired outside of legal means.

They were apparently. For a while they were using an unlicensed version from a company in London that was run from the back of a driving school. Apparently there's a number of allegations that it was ineffective/expired and may have caused undo pain and suffering.

[Jester]

And now it's time for me to say some things that are going to be rather unpopular. Something new and different for me.

I will preface my comments by saying that, generally, I a political and social liberal. I have no problem with homosexuals marrying or serving in the military, I think the Drug War is a farce and things would improve across the board if we legalized and regulated all drugs, and I understand the motivations, if not fully agreeing with the actual execution, of the Occupy movement.

That being said, I have absolute NO issue with the idea of bringing back firing squads for the sick, depraved fuckers that received the death penalty.

Yes, there have been innocent people wrongly accused and convicted of horrible crimes. This point is an argument against the death penalty in general, however. If we are going to have a death penalty (an entirely different debate), I see no issue with the methods proposed by the legislator in question, even if he himself does across as kind of a douche. At one point both electric chairs and firing squads were used to carry out executions in this country, and unlike some other methods used, I do not believe either one was ever classified by the Supreme Court as violating the 8th Amendment's strictures against cruel and unusual punishment. Also, I feel the need to point out that the vast majority of death row inmates are NOT innocent of their crimes.

I find it disturbing that people would line up to do something like this. An execution is a serious affair. I don't think any of those numbwits really understand the value of a human life, if they are so eager to take one.

Consider me one of those numbwits.

However, I understand the value of a human life. The killers and rapists on death row, however, clearly do not. They not only took and/or destroyed people's lives with their actions, they profoundly affected their families and friends as well.

Yes, an execution is a serious affair. But I know that there are many cases where I wouldn't blink an eye if offered the chance to be part of the firing squad for some of these disgusting creatures. And I'd have a lovely meal afterwards. Why? Because, quite simply, through their own willful actions, these people have done horrible things and no longer deserve, in my opinion (and that of the courts that sentenced them) to be part of society or life on this planet anymore.

Hmm, when it comes to the death sentence, I'd have to insist that the process is carried out by properly trained and supported personnel.

This I DO agree with. Which is why, while I would be WILLING to volunteer for the job, I would leave it to those actually trained and tasked to do so. While I am in favor of the death penalty, I do not and cannot support a lynch mob mentality.

This company has decided they will NOT sell it to ANY state that supports the death penalty.

In effect this company is trying to FORCE states to forfeit their right to have a death penalty.

Their right to do so. And rather refreshing to see a corporation actually refusing money that is being offered them.

Some may call this a victory move.
I call it attempting to turn democracy into dictatorship

No, they are simply refusing to sell their product to those who would use it in ways they do not want it used. It would be like me refusing to sell one of my Arizona State shirts to a University of Arizona fan, as I am sure they would do all kinds of horrible things to it. Doesn't mean I am trying to dictate who U of A fans live their lives or show their fandom.

Fascinating reading. Heartily recommended.

I'm intrigued. So, the name of the book is....what?

That is the GOVERNMENT trying to force the hand.

What they are ignoring is that the Federal Government is trying to hog-tie state rights. STATES decide for themselves the death penalty by LAW. The government shouldn't be using things like the FDA to impose its will and attempt to nullify individual state laws.

Stop it. Just stop it. I won't go into all the other stuff people have already gone into, such as the FDA and regulations and such. That territory has been admirably covered already, by those with far more knowledge about the subject than I have.

I will simply ask you a simple question:

WHY would the federal government, WHICH ITSELF HAS A DEATH PENALTY, be trying to force State governments to abandon their own death penalties.

What? There's a federal death penalty? Yes, there is. If you don't believe me, ask Timothy McVeigh, who was executed by that very government for the bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, or Ted Kaczynski, who was only spared the same federal death penalty by pleading guilty to his crimes as the notorious Unabomber.

Yeah, let's let civilization as a whole slide backwards for the sake of petty vengeance!

First of all, it is not petty, nor is it vengeance.

It is just and necessary to remove such creatures from our society for the actions they have committed.

I know you were not talking about the death penalty as a whole, but that is a common argument used against it, and I just had to address it.

Yes, I am a vengeful person. I will seek vengeance, BRUTAL vengeance, on anyone who harms my loved ones. I have never been shy about saying that. And it can be argued that such acts are neither just nor legal. So be it.

That being said, the death penalty is both just and legal, meted out by the justice system to those who have shown that they have no place or purpose in our society.

Also, when was the last time there was any murder case that was "beyond a shadow of a doubt"?

Well, let's see.

Ted Bundy.
John Wayne Gacy.
Jeffrey Dahmer.
Ed Gein.
Andrew Cunanan.
Mark David Chapman, who killed John Lennon.
Richard Ramirez, aka the Night Stalker.
Gary Leon Ridgway, aka the Green River Killer.
Denis Rader, aka the BTK Killer.
Theodore Kaczynsk, aka The Unabomber.
Andrei Chikatilo, aka the Butcher of Rostov.
Joel Rifkin.
Arthur Shawcross.
Peter Sutcliffe, aka the Yorkshire Ripper.
Herb Baumeister.
Edmund Kemper.
Angelo Buono and Kenneth Bianchi, aka the Hillside Stranglers.
Richard Trenton Chase, aka the Vampire of Sacramento.
Carl Panzram.
Albert Fish.
Jerry Brudos.
Fred and Rosemary West.
Leonard Lake and Charles Ng.
Adam Berkowitz, aka the Son of Sam.

And while most of the aforementioned are American, since they are the ones I am more familiar with, let's not forget Canada:

Paul Bernardo and his lovely wife Karla Homolka.
Robert Pickton.
Wayne Boden, aka the Vampire Rapist.
Clifford Olson.
Peter Woodcock.

And there are many, many more I could name, but I am trying (for the most part) to stay away from cases that have some questions about them or with which I am not that familiar, such as the Boston Strangler.

Would you like me to cite some more cases for you?

Unless you've got HD video or you had a 20 minute firefight with the cops in broad daylight, there's always a shadow of a doubt.

And the shadow of a doubt with those on the above list is....what?

To be fair, Bernardo and Homolka DID have videos, which were unfortunately not found until after the plea deal with Homolka was reached. Which is why a brutal killer is free to walk the streets. The Canadian streets.

You know they'd be selling tickets to it within 6 months.

Try six seconds. And they'd be sold out just about as quickly.

When you legitimize the crazy, it stops hiding in the basement and starts wandering the streets thinking its crazy is the norm. That's the US's entire political problem right now. ;p

Really? And here I thought the big problem was corporations and banks financially raping the American people with the government's complicit approval.

[Gravekeeper]

First of all, it is not petty, nor is it vengeance.

It is petty, and it is vengeance. Look at your tone through half of your post.

( Also, good morning! Don't see you over on the dark side of the moon here that much. ;p )

It is just and necessary to remove such creatures from our society for the actions they have committed.

But they are removed from our society by being imprisoned. Taking their life on top of that is vengeance. Simple as that. Its an additional punishment being metted out because removing them from society isn't enough to satisfy the masses. An eye for an eye is required. That is very definition of vengeance.

Well, let's see.

While a powerful statement on the surface, it's flawed. My point ( while admittedly not well articulated due to my sarcastic bastard tendencies ) was that its rare to have a case with overwhelming evidence and thus the possibility of tragic mistakes too high. You just provided a list of horrible, blatant serial killers and rapists from a time span of over 30 years. Terrible people yes, but exceedingly rare people that barely make up the smallest tiniest fraction of murder cases. Also, because of their various psychosis, some of them ended up sitting on mountains of evidence.

Plus, Canadian examples are kind of moot seeing as we do not have the death penalty and thus no one's life is being endangered if the evidence or prosecution was faulty in any way. Indeed, some of those on your list aren't on death row even in the US.

Really? And here I thought the big problem was corporations and banks financially raping the American people with the government's complicit approval.

That's certainly not helping. But the monster the GOP created to oppose Obama has slowly taken over the GOP, and the political spectrum seems largely dominated by just the random noise they're making. To the exclusion of actual problems or solutions.

But it's a big country, it can have more than one big problem. ><

[Rapscallion]

I'm intrigued. So, the name of the book is....what?

Executioner: Pierrepoint.

Rapscallion

[Gravekeeper]

Executioner: Pierrepoint.

Rapscallion

Will have to remember to take a look for it, and try not to act suspicious while purchasing it. ;p

[Jester]

It is petty, and it is vengeance. Look at your tone through half of your post.

*I* am vengeful. I find these people disgusting and deplorable. So my tone will reflect that. That does not, however, make the death penalty itself vengeance.

And while I admit you can make some argument for that point, there is no way you can say it's petty. How is it petty? In what way is it petty to return upon a loathsome killer that which they meted out to one or more others?

Actually, if we as a society WERE petty, we would do just that...give the killer what they gave their victims.

We don't.

We go out of our way to make executions humane and not cruel, while these killers have done nothing of the sort for their victims.

But they are removed from our society by being imprisoned.

Imprisonment holds the possibility of escape or release. Death does not.

Taking their life on top of that is vengeance. Simple as that. Its an additional punishment being metted out because removing them from society isn't enough to satisfy the masses.

First of all, I do not have any problem with vengeance. There are times when vengeance is right and just and fair. We should not look upon it as a bad thing, because, frankly, it's not. Not in these cases.

Secondly, the death penalty removes them from society permanently.

Thirdly, these people did not simply imprison their victims. They ended their lives, often destroying the lives of their loved ones as well. And yet so many of them are allowed to live to a ripe old age, either because of a lack of a death penalty or the delays in the process to reach said penalty. THIS is fair? How?

My point was that its rare to have a case with overwhelming evidence and thus the possibility of tragic mistakes too high.

Fair enough.

But would you be in favor of a death penalty for cases where there IS overwhelming evidence, such as Gacy and his brethren?

Plus, Canadian examples are kind of moot seeing as we do not have the death penalty and thus no one's life is being endangered if the evidence or prosecution was faulty in any way. Indeed, some of those on your list aren't on death row even in the US.

Both good points, and both completely besides the point. I was pointing out cases where there was proof beyond a shadow of a doubt, cases that were or would be appropriate for the death penalty. Whether or not said killers actually received said penalty does not make their cases any less of good examples of such overwhelming cases.

[Rapscallion]

Will have to remember to take a look for it, and try not to act suspicious while purchasing it. ;p

Amazon, just saying. I picked up a used copy fairly cheap, since that edition was from the ... 60s?

Rapscallion

[Hyena Dandy]

Except the definition of "civilized" is basically a backwards-fowards scale. Upon which killing someone in a public spectacle is definitely less morally advanced then killing them privately. Though you are correct in that both are odious.

As far as I know, the definition of civilized only requires that there be cities, rather than entirely hunter-gatherer or only small villages. I don't consider not killing people in public an ADVANCE. We are as civilized today as we were 100 years ago.

Nevertheless, I consider it a terrible thing. It seems to me where you choose to execute someone is entirely unrelated to being civilized or not civilized.

[Panacea]

Wow, i see many people didn't bother reading up on the FDA, hospira, and sodium pentathol.


i already provided links. you can take a horse to water... but if the horse wants to drink the funny tasting koolaid in stead, ain't much you can do to stop it.

First of all, the link you provided does not say what you claimed it did, to wit that the federal government was somehow engaged in a conspiracy to force states to stop using lethal injection. The one link you provided in this entire thread does not address the FDA at all. You offer no proof of your ridiculous claims regarding the FDA's role, and complete ignored my previous post explaining just what it is the FDA does (being a health care professional, I think I have an understanding of the regulatory bodies that affect my professional practice).

If you really must have a link, Wikipedia does a good job describing what the FDA does: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...deF9-g&cad=rja

PepperElf, I like you. But you haven't the first friggin' clue what you are talking about and you are getting angry because your points have been completely rebutted. Rather than address that argument (the rebuttal of myself, FArchivist and others) you insult us.

Still, I find it hard to believe that all usable anesthetics are either manufactured by foreign companies or by morally outraged anti-death-penalty protesters. There's gotta be *some* drug companies left in the US, doesn't there? Or has that been outsourced, as well?

Maybe someone with a pharmaceutical background could shed some light on this?

The various states have been trialing the use of other drugs, but these efforts have been slowed down by inmates who are suing saying the proposed new anesthetics haven't been tested and proven to work in lethal injection, and could cause undue suffering. It's a specious argument, and the courts are rejecting them but these things take time to work their way through the system.

If nothing else, we could find ourselves using massive doses of morphine sulfate, which is cheap and available.

Or we could put all the heroin we seize to good use and use it for lethal injection.

[Rapscallion]

Or we could put all the heroin we seize to good use and use it for lethal injection.

As per Harold Shipman, I guess.

Rapscallion