Florida Rep Wants The Firing Squad Back

[Canarr]

Panacea: thanks, that kinda clears it up... so convicts are objecting against the use of other anesthetics - even ones already used in hospitals to induce coma or similar?

[Andara Bledin]

Convicts are objecting to the lack of full testing of other anesthetics for the purpose of putting people to death. That is, at best, a stalling tactic. And, under the circumstances, something that should be done regardless.

^-.-^

[Canarr]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the anesthetic is just one of three drugs used in the execution, yes? The point of the anesthetic is to put the condemned to sleep, so that there is no cruelty involved when the other two drugs kill him?

So, where's the problem? To me, it seems that any drug that succeeds in putting someone to sleep quickly enough, and deeply enough that the other drugs won't wake him, would fit the bill.

[Gravekeeper]

*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.

The very definition of vengeance is retribution exacted for injury or wrong.

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?

Petty: "Marked by narrowness of mind, ideas, or views. Small-minded."

Small-minded: "Having or showing rigid opinions or a narrow outlook; petty."

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

Hence the sentence of "life in prison without possibility of parole". Also the risk of a death row inmate escaping is rather minut, and seems exclusive to the ineptitude of Texas. I can only find incidents of 11 noteworthy death row escapees since he 1980s. They were all recaptured. Some before they even got off of the prison grounds. -.-

The most recent is from 2005 when a death row inmate escaped, yet again in Texas, by taking off his jumpsuit and flashing a fake ID at the prison guards. That's the level of genius we're dealing with down there apparently. He was recaptured a couple days later.

Also, you could view death itself as an escape. Which is where this swings back to religion. In order to view the death penalty as a punishment, you need to hold specific religious beliefs that there will be punishment in the afterlife. Otherwise you're allowing him to escape from a life of miserable incarceration.

Secondly, the death penalty removes them from society permanently.

But so does a life sentence. This is my point. The threat has been neutralized by their incarceration and their life is already essentially over. They merely exist from that point on with a life time to contemplate what they did and why they're there now. So stacking the death penalty on top of that has no reason aside from just wanting to squeeze more retribution and thus vengeance out of it.

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

No. As is evident, I think the death penalty is for revenge and I do not believe the State should be able to decide who lives or dies.

Whether or not said killers actually received said penalty does not make their cases any less of good examples of such overwhelming cases.

But again, those cases make up only the tiniest fraction of cases, and my issue is that such slam dunks are not even remotely common. Essentially it becomes an issue of which is the more acceptable risk: That a convicted death row felon might somehow escape or that the State might execute an innocent man ( Which at the moment seems to have a greater chance of happening ).

[Panacea]

Panacea: thanks, that kinda clears it up... so convicts are objecting against the use of other anesthetics - even ones already used in hospitals to induce coma or similar?

Correct. And as Andara tells us, it is a stalling tactic. The courts have been rejecting their arguments and executions are resuming with the new drugs.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the anesthetic is just one of three drugs used in the execution, yes? The point of the anesthetic is to put the condemned to sleep, so that there is no cruelty involved when the other two drugs kill him?

So, where's the problem? To me, it seems that any drug that succeeds in putting someone to sleep quickly enough, and deeply enough that the other drugs won't wake him, would fit the bill.

The problem is there is evidence that the sedation is insufficient to mask the pain caused by the potassium chloride, which is the drug that actually kills the condemned by inducing a fatal heart attack.

I've administered KCL therapeutically, and I can tell you, it burns like a bitch when given in a concentrated form (we often give "K riders" of 20 mEq in 50 ml bags over four hours). Usually I have to run normal saline along with it to dilute it in order for the patient to tolerate it. Warm compresses usually works too. But often it burns up the vein, and we have to restart the line.

The dose used for lethal injection is, I believe, far higher than 20 mEq.

The third drug is a paralytic, vecuronium bromide. It stops breathing, and prevents the inmate from leaping off the table when the KCL hits the veins.

It's been proposed to simply use an ultra high dose of sodium thiopental, and overdose the patient to death, literally "putting him to sleep." But it's never been tried and now it cannot be tried because the drug is no longer available.

[blas87]

I'm pretty happy being narrow minded, simple and petty and drinking my Koolaid than being smug with myself for considering my beliefs to be above others simply because it'd be taking the Utopian la-la land "be the better person" route, and that makes it right and everyone else's wrong and backwards.

[Gravekeeper]

I'm pretty happy being narrow minded, simple and petty and drinking my Koolaid than being smug with myself for considering my beliefs to be above others simply because it'd be taking the Utopian la-la land "be the better person" route, and that makes it right and everyone else's wrong and backwards.

Er.....what? Was anyone even arguing that? I thought we were having a rather engaging discussion about humanity and the power of the State. Also, since when exactly did Utopia become a bad thing? Seeing as that would be a society free of crime to begin with. ;p

Also, no offence, but you've use the drinking the Kool-aid thing a couple of times now. You...do know what it means right? As you're essentially saying "I'm an idiot with no critical thinking skills that mindlessly believes whatever I'm told by others". You sure you want to be saying that, even sarcastically? ......and what does it have to do with this thread?

[blas87]

*look at what's under my name*

Of course, it's in jest and a joke.

Of course, if I'm not allowed to joke or participate, I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that my opinion wasn't wanted around here and this debate was soley for intelligent discussion only. My apologies.

[Andara Bledin]

When a joke is so far inside that there's only one or two persons get it, it may be a bit too obscure to get upset when others don't get it.

^-.-^

[Canarr]

I believe it's a reference to PepperElf's post about being able to lead a horse to water, but not to keep it from drinking Kool-Aid. Still, a bit too obscure to be upset about Gravekeeper's inquiry, I'd say.

[Panacea]

*look at what's under my name*

Of course, it's in jest and a joke.

Of course, if I'm not allowed to joke or participate, I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that my opinion wasn't wanted around here and this debate was soley for intelligent discussion only. My apologies.

We want you to share your opinions in meaningful debate, to defend them intelligently, to refute the actual arguments of those you disagree with rather than make blanket statements or insulting those you are debating with.

Explain your point of view! Defend with reason. Explain with examples why your opponents are wrong, rather than getting defensive and angry.

[Gravekeeper]

Of course, if I'm not allowed to joke or participate, I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that my opinion wasn't wanted around here and this debate was soley for intelligent discussion only. My apologies.

I second what Panacea said.

You are quite welcome to provide your opinion and join the discussion, however the only thing you have contributed so far is sarcasm and hyperbole aimed at arguments no one has even made. Now you are adding overly dramatic victimization.

[Panacea]

I would add that the reason I've been posting on Fratching so much lately is because I want a lively debate on the issues where others respond intelligently to my arguments and counter arguments, creating an engaging, intellectually stimulating discussion.

I get that more often here than I do on my local news blog, which is filled with cranks (left and right) who prefer one liners to a real discussion and aren't prone to changing their minds in the face of convincing evidence.

So blas, I would really, really love it if you stepped up and and defended your point of view with well thought out arguments that force me to think about my responses.