Posted on 05/01/2014 6:18:49 AM PDT by shortstop
He’s dead, isn’t he?
Clayton Lockett.
The guy in Oklahoma.
If he’s dead, how do they figure that his execution was botched?
And that was the official word: “botched.” Every news story used it, the White House used it, the activists used it, the Democrat politicians used it.
They said his execution was botched.
And yet he is, in fact, deader than a door nail.
And that’s just the way it should be.
Because, if we can wipe away our crocodile tears for Clayton Lockett, we ought to remember Stephanie Nieman for just a moment. She was the teen-aged girl who came home to fine Clayton Lockett and some of his pals burglarizing her home.
So Clayton Lockett shot her.
Three times.
With a shotgun.
We don’t have weepy texts from journalists, but we believe there was some agony involved. Maybe even some writhing and moaning.
Because Clayton Lockett blew her to pieces.
But not enough to kill her or, some fear, even knock her unconscious.
So he and his buddies buried her alive. And she would die there, alone and terrified, with dirt in her face.
But the White House didn’t mention that.
Rather, the White House went on about how the “botched” execution of Clayton Lockett was inhumane and wrong.
Bull crap.
The state of Oklahoma set out to kill him, and he died. Score that a win.
Did he wince and writhe?
Maybe so.
But, it turns out dying is a b-word, and hopefully Clayton Lockett learned that.
Of course, every indication is that he was unconscious through the entire procedure.
But if he did suffer, it’s because of progressives’ opposition to the death penalty.
See, in the years-long fight to end the death penalty, progressives have repeatedly pointed to its supposed cruelty. That has led to an abandonment of quick, certain means of execution.
As it turns out, the hangman’s noose – properly done – is instant and humane.
But that’s all gone, and now we use drugs.
When the Europeans will sell them to us. When the activists don’t harass the providers of the drugs into cutting off the supply.
And so it is that states are thrashing about for a new combination of available drugs.
In Oklahoma, they used the drugs Florida has had success with. One to make the condemned unconscious, another to paralyze him, and a third to stop his heart. Oklahoma either blew the dosage or the IV.
But no harm, no foul.
Because Clayton Lockett is dead.
And before we make him some folk hero, perchance we ought to recognize that 1. He had it coming and 2. We can make it a lot quicker if we really want to.
For example: Firing squad.
Though condemned as gruesome, death by modern firing squad is instantaneous. The bad guy doesn’t even hear the bang. He’s dead by the time the sound gets there.
Hanging, also condemned as gruesome, provides instantaneous death when done right.
And if we’re absolutely enamored with using drugs, how about heroin? It’s plentiful and, sadly, effective.
Go to your corner dealer, ask him how much you’re supposed to use, use five times that much, and pull the sheet over the dead man’s face.
Or maybe we should just go to the veterinarian.
We’ve all seen how quick that stuff takes down poodles, we ought to try it out on murderers.
Not to be crude – or disrespectful of the memory of your beloved pet – but if a certain amount will kill a 50-pound Labrador retriever in the blink of an eye, about four times that certain amount ought to have the same effect on the garden variety murderer.
And failing everything, just ask any Chicago gangbanger how to kill somebody. They’ve got a lot of expertise built up there.
Sadly, none of that will happen.
Instead, as the White House finds new ways to turn criminals loose, as punishment of criminals is denounced as a race way by other means, as we are offering free college to convicts, we will hear even more cries to end the death penalty.
And activists – by which I mean, the White House – will point to this “botched” execution and say that maybe it is time to move on.
They will be wrong.
Abandoning the death penalty across much of America has done nothing but embolden criminals.
Does the death penalty serve as a disincentive to crime? It sure does for the guy who gets executed.
And Clayton Lockett got executed.
His death wasn’t botched.
His life was.
And the other night he paid the price for that.
Just like he deserved.
***Yes, he was killed, but we don’t allow cruel and unusual punishment, such as torture by painful death.***
Whenever I hear anyone talk about us not allowing cruel and unusual punishment, and torture by a painful death, I am reminded of the grisly ways the victims of these murderers were treated, as well as death by starvation and dehydration (no food or water until death is achieved) as we as a nation did to Terri Schiavo. She was not convicted of any crime, yet her death was barbaric. So I disagree that we don’t allow cruel and unusual punishment. We do. At least we have...and to innocent people never charged with any crime.
I of course was referring to the Constitutional protection.
In practical terms, Oklahoma has authorized three means of execution. The preferred means is lethal injection, with the alternative of the gas chamber. Their law states that only if both of those have been declared unconstitutional, should they use the firing squad.
This law needs to be changed. This is because the firing squad is the *least* prone to error, and *least* prone to legal challenge.
Those opposed to the death penalty have made lethal injection impractical, so it should be discontinued, or kept in reserve as an alternative means. So the change in the law should be *first*, the firing squad. Second, the gas chamber, and third, lethal injection.
Why they don’t use massive overdoses of heroin is beyond my understanding, since they seem to insist upon the criminal being comfortable while dying.
Yes, but it’s a shame that we allow better conditions for those convicted of heinous crimes vs those who are innocent.
Don't ask me how I know this....:-)
Someone needs to ask Dear Leader how he assures that the victims of his drone attacks die instantly without suffering.
That’s as it should be. The supremes were never meant to be the sole arbiters of what the constitution says. We the People were. Has it been lost on you that our liberties are being stripped by the courts? Do you still believe it can be reversed by winning elections? Are you willing to just let your kids live in subjection because the supremes said it’s cool?
Our liberties have been stripped by the courts and that’s by design. The left have succeeded in their long march through the institutions and are implementing their agenda. The same people who designed the judicial tyranny also control every facet of federal government and the media. They will not allow elections to reverse what they’re doing. Why would they? I’m convinced that something will happen to secure liberty for future generations and know it’s not going to happen by the Supremes’ interpretation of the constitution. They’ve already blown it. We still have natural rights whether or not 5 leftists understand them. Why would you allow 5 leftists to tell you what your rights are? Can’t you read? Can’t you reason?
Abortion too. They rip babies apart. I don’t think they have trials. What do the supremes say about that?
Lockett was a four time felon who shot a 19 year old girl with a sawed off shot gun while robbing her house. He and his accomplices buried her alive.
So no, it wasn’t botched, it was a rare moment of real justice. the founders messed up on slavery and IMO they messed up on prohibiting cruel punishment. people who murder innocent people in horrible ways deserve to die horribly as well. At least that’s the way I see it.
I should have included aborted babies in my post. Of course, they are the most innocent of all, and they do feel pain. What’s up is down, and what was down is up.
The attendant suffering of the “botched” execution was not intentional. There was a guilty verdict with a successful execution.
The victim of the crime was found arbitrarily guilty by the perpetrator and subjected to an intentional infliction of unspeakable pain and horror before dying.
Does one pay any particular attention to the cruel and unusual punishment meted out to an innocent victim or is the perpetrator paramount?
Just asking.
Ain't that a botch?
He’s dead, Jim! Mission accomplished.
“Execution itself is not considered cruel or unusual under the law. The means of execution may not either. Those who call for cruel and unusual punishment are advocating the same triumph of emotive nonsense over Constitutional principles as those who advocate BLM murder of Cliven Bundy because he disgusts them with his plainspoken opinion.”
If a perpetrator repeatedly shoots and victim and then buries her alive when he finds she’s not dead, there are those who would advocate meting out the same punishment in turn to the perpetrator. Would that be cruel and unusual punishment that didn’t fit the crime?
Someone who wishes to mete out the death penalty to someone whose words are offensive has not a Constitutional bone in their body. They are just hateful idealogues whose wishes would be punished by the law if put into practice.
IMHO
I love the parts where the media & ‘his mama’ is crying about how ‘inhumane’ it was while this POS died.
Has anyone told ‘mama’ yet what this POS did to get the death penalty?
I heard that he shot a teen age girl 2 times with a shotgun, and then watched while his ‘homies’ buried her ALIVE.
Is there any brain cell in the craniums of these whiners that can compete with how INHUMANE his actions were in the first place?
IMO, he could have been staked on a bed of fire ants, and slathered with maple syrup as a fit method of dying.
NO sympathy from this citizen.
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.