Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court justices appear divided over lethal injection case
ap on San Diego Union - Tribune ^ | 1/07/08 | Mark Sherman - ap

Posted on 01/07/2008 11:25:49 AM PST by NormsRevenge

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-40 last
To: NormsRevenge
Hmmm? So what is the Judicial ruling on Iranian punishment.
They don’t even build gallows.
Just pull the back hoe up, tie the rope around the neck of the prisoner and hoist him up.
They just did that eight times last week. And we worry about murderous criminals that have committed henious crimes?
21 posted on 01/07/2008 11:58:42 AM PST by Doc91678 (Doc91678)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

With the exception of the wrongly convicted man, if a murderer (and face it if on Death Row generally a murderer who did so gruesomely ) has to endure a few moments of excruciating pain before meeting their maker, I don’t see this as a problem.


22 posted on 01/07/2008 12:01:12 PM PST by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dmitry Vukicevich

I thought the same thing as you wrote. The victims suffered a lot more pain than these guys will.


23 posted on 01/07/2008 12:02:47 PM PST by rawhide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Bluegrass Conservative

24 posted on 01/07/2008 12:24:22 PM PST by Aristotelian ("Don't Tase Me, Bro!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
I once heard Judge Robert Bork make the argument that the constitutional test of cruel “and” unusual allowed cruel as long as it was not unusual or unusual as long as it was not cruel. Both elements had to be present to violate the constitution. I tend to agree with him but far too often our courts engage is establishing policy rather than interpreting law.
25 posted on 01/07/2008 12:46:28 PM PST by etcb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

What I like about this case is that it will take the lethal injection lawsuits out of the federal courts just like McCleskey v. Kemp took the racial disparity appeals out of the federal courts. Regarding California, I’ve been pleasantly surprised with the 9th Circuit lately. They’ve been upholding (and sometimes even reinstating) a lot of death sentences over the last few months.


26 posted on 01/07/2008 1:08:19 PM PST by Revenge of Sith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
“There is no painless requirement” in the Constitution, Scalia said.

What a concept. Caring about what is, and is not, in the Constitution. If he can get Justice Kennedy to think this way, this case won't be a problem.

27 posted on 01/07/2008 1:32:00 PM PST by Repeal 16-17 (Let me know when the Shooting starts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: xzins

“This is an ignorant intervention.”

No its not. There are some lethal injection cases in state supreme courts which are being delayed. I know CA for sure. This will put an end to them hopefully.


28 posted on 01/07/2008 1:34:58 PM PST by marajade (Yes, I'm a SW freak!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Brightside
Why not simply hire an anesthesiologist

and there you have it.

In Florida, and, I suspect, the rest of the Nation, the AMA forbids any medical professional to administer any drugs to cause death.


Of course they have no problems with 9th month abortions, but hey...
29 posted on 01/07/2008 1:37:16 PM PST by bill1952 (The right to buy weapons is the right to be free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Both sides in the case said they are bothered by the seemingly endless series of death penalty cases that come to the court.

True. These cases are a tremendous tax on judicial resources, at the expense of the rest of society. At some point, this needs to be seriously considered.

30 posted on 01/07/2008 1:40:22 PM PST by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Brightside

No MD will do it


31 posted on 01/07/2008 1:44:44 PM PST by cajungirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: etcb


Pain should not be held to be "unusual" -- if
inflicted by the condemned person on his victim.

.


32 posted on 01/07/2008 1:58:39 PM PST by OESY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: JoeSixPack1

For sheer drama and deterent effect, nothing beats a public hanging. What's another needle in the arm to a druggie?

33 posted on 01/07/2008 2:12:13 PM PST by Vigilanteman (Are there any men left in Washington? Or are there only cowards? Ahmad Shah Massoud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Supreme Court justices appear divided over lethal injection case

The SCOTUS would be 5-4 on the color of the sky...

34 posted on 01/07/2008 2:31:24 PM PST by Onelifetogive (* Sarcasm tag ALWAYS required. For some FReepers, sarcasm can NEVER be obvious enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
“You have the right to die with dignity,”

That's the purpose of the paralytic drug that they argue against.

Even if the IV isn't inserted well and the drugs take a few seconds longer to take effect, they don't suffer long, and if the injection site were truly messed up, the paralytic wouldn't be as effective either.

Since the sedative is administered first, it is also doubtful that they are really suffering even if the drug that stops their heart takes a bit longer to take effect.

The three drug method works, and is reasonable. There is no good reason to stop it. If someone wants to develop and even better method of executing condemned prisoners, there is nothing wrong with that, but there is not sufficient reason to stop the current method from being used.

35 posted on 01/07/2008 2:39:49 PM PST by untrained skeptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gunservative
The lefty Justices are more than welcome to give the drug cocktail a try to see whether it constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment”

I don't give a damn if it's cruel, as long as it reamins usual.

You've got to have both together
You can't have one, without the other.

What part of "AND" don't Liberals understand?

36 posted on 01/07/2008 2:52:15 PM PST by ApplegateRanch (If God wanted murderers & rapists hanging from trees, He wouldn't have created so many stones!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
In interview with the Ky prisoner, he stated 'a 30.06 to the side of the head' was sure and painless.

Lets give prisoners the pro choice vote...

37 posted on 01/08/2008 12:58:24 AM PST by Gilbo_3 (A few Rams must look after the sheep 'til the Good Shepherd returns...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Execution should be painful. There should be an element of fear to the death. This isn't euthanasia so much as punishment. The punishment needs to generate an aura of foreboding to the extent that future potential criminals will weigh the consequences of their actions and perhaps decide not to commit crime.

Otherwise, as a matter of punishment, there is no point to extinguishing a life if it is not to protect others.

On that grounds, hanging, shooting and electrocution are viable methods.

If the Supreme Court prohibits executions, I suspect there will be a rash of "posses" ensuring justice will be carried out. Such is the responsibilities of citizens when the government fails to enforce the law.

38 posted on 01/08/2008 1:21:16 AM PST by Caipirabob (Communists... Socialists... Democrats...Traitors... Who can tell the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

1) Hanging was the standard mode of execution at the time the “Cruel and Inhuman” clause was written. I gather that no form of execution less painful then several minutes of fully conscious suffocation and a broken neck was seen as violative of that clause by the Constitution’s authors.

2) I don’t agree with the crowd eager for an executed inmate’s pain, or at least indifferent to such pain. If law and society requires an execution, let it be done as easily as circumstance and technology allow. However there is no such a thing as a gentle execution and that much be accepted.

3) I’ve considered the question in the past and the only truly quick, painless, and humane form of execution I can arrive at is a high caliber bullet unexpectedly fired into the back of the condemned’s head. This is however done at cost to the shooter. Even the Nazis found this to do great psychological harm to their executioners, so how much more to decent contemporary prison officials who would be given this task.

4) The lethal cocktail seems the best compromise the current state of society will permit.

5) The next president can almost certainly count on three Supreme Court appointments and if a dem will assuredly appoint anti DP justices. Regardless of public support for the practice it is only a matter of time until the court puts so many restrictions and roadblocks as to effectievely abolish capital punishment.


39 posted on 01/08/2008 1:28:01 AM PST by tlb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bluegrass Conservative

That’s for catfish (bullheads)!!


40 posted on 01/08/2008 6:24:15 AM PST by Sacajaweau ("The Cracker" will be renamed "The Crapper")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-40 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson