Ohio’s lethal injection procedure and the larger death penalty issue…
The names, Dr. Mark Dershwitz and Dr. Mark Heath caught my eye as being familiar when I read the Blade article entitled, “Doctor testifies in challenge to Ohio’s lethal injection process.” Today’s article was about testimony from Dr. Mark Heath (who’s name was more familiar to me from his video taping of 9/11) who stated:
Heath, an assistant professor of anesthesiology at Columbia University, says it’s possible to perform lethal injection of prisoners in a humane manner, but that Ohio’s method falls below the standard for euthanizing household pets.
Dr. Dershwitz has been used as an expert witness in support of the current method of lethal injection for quite a few states. Some of the comments attributed to him:
It’s not about the prisoner. It’s about public policy. It’s about the audience and prison personnel who have to carry out the execution.
And I freely admit that a person who’s rendered paralyzed with a drug like pancuronium who also happens to be awake, that would be considered horrible. And those of us who routinely use pancuronium in our practice, take great pains to make sure that none of our patients are awake and paralyzed at the same time.
Interestingly enough, when you read the Columbus Dispatch, the Lorain County Assistant Prosecutor questioned if Dr. Mark Heath could be considered an expert witness:
Lorain County Assistant Prosecutor Tony Cillo questioned whether Heath should be considered an expert on Ohio’s lethal injection procedure. Cillo said that not all capital punishment states have a similar process.
I have found other instances where Dr. Heath has testified. There is also quite a bit of evidence as to his being accepted as an expert witness and the question Cillo raised could have been asked about their own expert witness. Dr. Mark Dershwitz has also contracted services to be in charge of the formulation of the drugs used in places like Alabama which would lead someone to speculate if there was a one drug option how that would affect his future contracts. Dershwitz also developed the protocols for Kentucky. In fact when you search, you’ll find that while Dershwitz has testified much more often than Heath, there have been several times when both were used as “experts”.
States like North Carolina Dr. Dershwitz has been used as the sole expert in cases where an inmate is challenging lethal injection being used, as can be seen by that link, the US Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, took issue with that.
For a very detailed look at some of the concerns with the three drug process, and how fraught with problems the current legal injection process is, reading what Georgia reported which included testimony from Dr. Heath is recommended.
Georgia was also the state involved in 1976 in Gregg V Georgia. Which if you read the whole opinion, we are still in 2008 where we were in 1976 when it comes to the death penalty:
Justice White:
Petitioner has argued, in effect, that no matter how effective the death penalty may be as a punishment, government, created and run as it must be by humans, is inevitably incompetent to administer it. This cannot be accepted as a proposition of constitutional law. Imposition of the death penalty is surely an awesome responsibility for any system of justice and those who participate in it. Mistakes will be made, and discriminations will occur which will be difficult to explain. However, one of society’s most basic tasks is that of protecting the lives of its citizens, and one of the most basic ways in which it achieves the task is through criminal laws against murder. I decline to interfere with the manner in which Georgia has chosen to enforce such laws on what is simply an assertion of lack of faith in the ability of the system of justice to operate in a fundamentally fair manner.
Justice Brennan repeats what he said in Furman:
“From the beginning of our Nation, the punishment of death has stirred acute public controversy. Although pragmatic arguments for and against the punishment have been frequently advanced, this longstanding and heated controversy cannot be explained solely as the result of differences over the practical wisdom of a particular government policy. At bottom, the battle has been waged on moral grounds. The country has debated whether a society for which the dignity of the individual is the supreme value can, without a fundamental inconsistency, follow the practice of deliberately putting some of its members to death. In the United States, as in other nations of the western world, the struggle about this punishment has been one between ancient and deeply rooted beliefs in retribution, atonement or vengeance, on the one hand, and, on the other, beliefs in the personal value and dignity of the common man that were born of the democratic movement of the eighteenth century, as well as beliefs in the scientific approach to an understanding of the motive forces of human conduct, which are the result of the growth of the sciences of behavior during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.”
Justice Marshall:
In Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 314 (1972) (concurring opinion), I set forth at some length my views on the basic issue presented to the Court in these cases. The death penalty, I concluded, is a cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. That continues to be my view.
When medical experts, lawyers and judges can not agree on the basic issues of constitutionality and the definition of cruel and unusual punishment, it’s no wonder the rest of us are torn on different sides of this issue.
We will never know if the death penalty deters murder. A murder that doesn’t happen is a hard event to measure. What I have always found ironic is the people that were opposed to the death penalty until someone close to them was murdered. Then they would change their minds. Why is that?
April 7th, 2008 at 9:16 pmLook at the Briley brothers from Virginia. They murdered a bunch of people and were put on death row. Then, remember? They escaped and more killing happened. They were subsequently caught and executed. I think, in this case it is reasonble to assume that the executions detered these murderous villians from killing again. Amen!
April 7th, 2008 at 9:22 pmI know I will catch hell for this post, but it’s how I feel.
First…my 2 cents in answer to Joe. “Conviction”(s) can be overturned by reality. It’s easy to forgo a real opinion or go with what is popular when the cause and effect have no bearing on a person’s personal life. Once a friend or family member is murdered or is the murderer..feelings come into focus and anger changes everything.
I have always felt the death penalty was a proper response to capitol murder. It is Biblical, just and fitting for cold blooded murder, especially where children are concerned. The kind of person who will kill a person for no reason, for money, for sex, for anything other than self defense or the defense of the unable is not fit to breath air any longer. I see absolutely no reason to have the public pay through ass to keep a cold blooded killer alive, fed and with better health care than I get as a free man.
I do see a problem with the manner in which the United States executes the penalty. We’re too freaking soft. So many people seem to forget why we are putting a certain type of criminal to death in the first place. They get caught up in the how and forget the why. We’re so weak in spirit that we cannot bare the thought of watching someone being in pain or uncomfortable as they die. We feel barbaric for killing them, uncivilized, almost as bad as the murderer for the manner in which we put them to death. We put emotion and our own human weakness ahead of logic, reason and order.
It’s not that I don’t “feel” just awful for those who watch and are horrified like the murderer’s family or even, like in this case, a family member of the victim. No, I do feel sympathy for them, but not nearly as much as I feel it is the point of execution. The “deterrent” in in the horror of being the murderer put to death and to those that watch. Btw…watching is not required, it’s something that you choose to do. As far as I’m concerned, a murderer doesn’t deserve an audience.
When you have to have a beloved pet put to sleep, it’s a tragic reality and since they did no wrong, it is hard to deal with. A convicted and sentenced murderer is not innocent, not blameless and not deserving of a nice, peaceful death. After all, their victim (s) most likely died in a terrible, brutal manner. So I personally don’t get all squeamish when it’s not a pleasant experience for the murderer.
In our efforts to be “Humane” to the murderer, all we are really doing is easing our own conscience and that defeats the purpose of scaring and horrifying would be murderers by making and example of the convicted. Think about it, even as in this case, the families of both the victim and the murderer were horrified and sicked by the piss poor execution job. I’d lay odds that the story of this event will in fact, deter at least one would be murderer from committing a murder. If we prevent 1 more murder this way, then the goal has been achieved.
Yes, lethal injection is a often faulty method. In the case of the botched job it was in fact a miscarriage of justice as the punishment was not fitting for the crime. Dropping a 200#, sharp blade on his neck would have been a sure thing the first time. Executions should be swift, sure and without fanfare.
My apologies to those with weak constitutions, but should you someday be called to the morgue to identify a beloved child, an elderly grandma, a husband, wife or close, personal friend…you will start to see things much more clearly.
I pray that those who hold that execution is an inhumane and cruel thing we do can always feel that way because if that changes, you will have joined the ranks of the countless people who’s lives have been forever damaged by a horrific crime.
April 7th, 2008 at 10:21 pm“It is Biblical, just and fitting for cold blooded murder…”
I think you skipped over the second half of the Bible, Chad. It’s called the New Testament. There’s this dude, Jesus Christ, and he has a few things to say about the old “eye for an eye” principle. Check it out sometime.
April 7th, 2008 at 10:42 pmImagine those who thirst for vengeance, believe they have seen the person who murdered their loved one executed then discover that the wrong person was convicted. Then not only would you have loved ones that are dead and never able to come back but also the knowledge that another innocent person was killed.
That’s my problem with the death penalty as there have been innocent people convicted and anyone who believes that the legal system is perfect enough that we should be meting out that type of “justice” has not spent much time researching how imperfect our legal system is. If you wrongfully convict someone and then discover they were innocent, you can’t give them back the time that was taken from them in prison. If they are dead? You can’t very well dig them up and say “sorry about that”. Ironically most who plead guilty to murder do so to escape the death penalty so those who have pled not guilty either didn’t do it or thought they had some chance of being found innocent or convicted of a lesser charge.
Then of course the whole financial inequity and the racial aspect of how many who murder and end up with life versus the death penalty.
Bottom line as far as this discussion though is if the general consensus is that the death penalty is constitutional, is the current system of lethal injection cruel and unusual punishment. There are those that feel it is and when you read the stories of how the three drugs are supposed to work versus the reality of how at times it is done? There are better ways if we are going to have a lethal injection system.
April 7th, 2008 at 10:54 pmI used to be very pro-death penalty. Now I am not so sure. Not so much because I care about murderers, but because I think it is an easy way out. They should have to sit and rot and think about what they have done, and maybe do some bitch work for the state at the same time. It is more of a punishment.
April 8th, 2008 at 2:37 amThere are different kinds of murder. The Death Penalty has been and will always be argued and I seriously doubt we will ever know exactly the intent of the Bible in relation to the law, humanity and so on before we meet Jesus personally.
The Bible states in many places about the eye for an eye, revenge, evil for evil etc being wrong. The question then becomes, is the Death Penalty a revenge killing or is it carrying out the law? The Bible states in both the Old and New Testaments the “Civil Laws” for the purposes of civil order and civil behavior are to be followed. The Death Penalty is a civil law in our society. The premise of the Death Penalty is to protect society from the murderer. The only way to inprison someone and carry out that mandate is to place the convicted in isolation 24 hours a day where they never have physical contact with another human being again. We don’t do that, we put them in the prison population and murders happen in prisons all the time. Once a person has committed murder and is in prison for life they have nothing to lose by murdering again.
Even if we say, put a murderer in prison for life on the 1st murder conviction, then if they murder while in prison we execute the death penalty, how likely is that? We’d be hard pressed to find a jury that would call for the death penalty for a prison murder as we often as a society say that if 1 murder kills another murderer then it is a big whatever.
Carrying out the death penalty is is not revenge though it may seem that way to some. A revenge act would be done by the victim’s family or friends in the streets somewhere. Capitol punishment is carried out using civil law(s) and executed by the legal system.
Bible quotes are easily interpreted to suit the persons) quoting.
for example:
Exodus 21:12-14
12″Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death. 13However, if he does not do it intentionally, but God lets it happen, he is to flee to a place I will designate. 14But if a man schemes and kills another man deliberately, take him away from my altar and put him to death.
Matthew 5:38-41 (Words of Jesus in red.)
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; 40 and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; 41 and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile.
John 1:16-17
16From his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. 17The law indeed was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ
Romans 13:1-5
1Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. 2Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval; 4for it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore one must be subject, not only because of wrath but also because of conscience.
Then there are many studies and information that will indeed help steer the validity of capitol punishment. If you are so inclined read some of these. Naturally there are just as many on the abolishionists side of thinking. Hence my statement that the argument will continue into infinity.
http://www.wesleylowe.com/cp.html
http://www.antideathpenalty.org/
Ben and Lisa…I understand your conflicts and I agree that the system can and does fail at times in some cases. So many of the prisoners on death row have been there for years. In several of those old cases, the evidence was shoddy and perhaps falsified. However, in death penalty cases prosecuted today, the evidence is usually overwhelming and conclusive based on DNA, (not that that is without flaw), eyewitness testimony and in some cases video and other related evidence.
As for the drug coctail used in Ohio and other places to carry it out, well, there are lots of other compounds and chemicals that would work better. I would have no problem using a leathal dose of heroine, or other recreational drugs, using the same drugs they use on horses or any number of other drugs that would produce the same result.
April 8th, 2008 at 8:08 amDon…I have read the Bible starting with the New Testement and then the Old. In fact…it was open to both while I typed my comments.
April 8th, 2008 at 8:13 amChad,
April 8th, 2008 at 6:24 pmI knew you were going to catch hell for bringing up the Bible. Don, your response about the New Testament is flat out stupid. The New Testament does not cancel out the Old Testament. Christ did not come here to dictate government and punishment…but, certainly, His Father, in the Old Testament laid down those rules. Which include capital punishment. God does not change.
If there’s one thing I can take, it’s the heat from my opinions. The problem as society has evolved is that the Bible is often used to help free the guilty of just punishment rather than adhere to it’s principals and doctrines. Some of the quotes of Jesus words are taken so far out of context that people read the line(s) of interest and forget to read the preface or ignore to whom he was speaking. Jesus did not come to abolish the law, he expanded on it. Most of what he said concerning this expansion was in response to hypocrites, pharisees and other religious folks that had religion and law but no relationship.
In fact, it is commonly accepted that capitol punishment is not addressed in the New Testament. One can only conclude from that, there was nothing to add or change. While some parts of the Bible are hard to understand and somewhat fuzzy to our human understanding, the parts relating to the Death Penalty are clear, concise, and to the point. No grey area whatsoever.
Something I find interesting in this the lack of comments on such a hot, contemporary subject. Is it too hot to touch or are people so afraid of the pro/con opinions that they are unwilling to share? Considering how many people read this blog every day and how many lighter subjects get dozens of posts, there is some irony here. The deep, darker subjects relating to our human condition are so often left for but a few to debate. Subjects like the Death Penalty, race, sexual orientation, rape, the most sensitive things like abortion and child molestation all seem to strike fear and loathing into the hearts and keyboards of normally active posters. Curious how what really matters is often left off the to do list.
April 8th, 2008 at 7:03 pmAs we’ve seen when we tried to discuss the issue of race, some conversations/debates are not conducive to the blogs. In the years I’ve debated similar topics, they always end up being circular in their discussion with very little room left for opinion changing.
People are more hesitant to discuss these types of issues because they are many times based on their individual personal belief system. It’s easier to debate roads or trash or some other topic that does not require them to share any of their personal philosophy on the net.
April 8th, 2008 at 7:10 pmIf it were up to me, the person sentenced to death for murder would be put to death in the same manner as the person they killed. But, that’s inhumane. The ONLY way I am against the death penalty is if it is carried out without 100% certanty that the person that is being executed actually committed the crime. If there is even a shadow of a doubt, all avenues need to be explored to remove that doubt. But if it is with 100% certainty, then there shouldn’t even be an appeal process. But I’m also wickedly mean and evil at times, so that may have bearing on what I am currently saying.
In all seriousness though, I’m sorry if I seem harsh and callous, but if you purposely take another persons life, I don’t give a crap if your death is painful!
April 8th, 2008 at 7:17 pmAs we’ve come to expect from you, Kooz, you utilize insult-hurling as a substitute for a reasoned response. But I will commend you for refraining from issuing thinly-veiled threats, as I’ve seen you do on other forums.
You say:
“I knew you were going to catch hell for bringing up the Bible.”
This is manifest nonsense. I’m criticizing Chad’s support of the death penalty, not his Christianity. This is a cheap rhetorical tactic on your part, and I’m not buying it.
Chad,
Jesus Christ was wrongly accused of criminal conduct, tried in a kangaroo court, and suffered through a brutal execution spanning three days. I’d venture to say that, in addition to his transcendental achievements, Jesus is the ultimate poster child for due process rights and humane punishments. Do the wrongful acts of others grant us a license to kill? I’d say not, and I’d bet my right arm Jesus would hold the same. If your reading of the teachings of Jesus have led you to different conclusions, we’ll have to agree to disagree.
April 8th, 2008 at 7:26 pmI’ll share my philosophy regarding the death penalty:
I don’t believe in killing people, and I have a strong preference for non-violent means of conflict resolution. In fact, I’d say that non-violent conflict resolution is the essence of civilized society.
I won’t allow criminals and their wrongful conduct, no matter how savage, to force me to deviate from my moral standards. That is because I believe that morals should come from the light of reason, and not be influenced by emotional, retributive responses to the acts of criminals. Criminals do not set my moral standards for me — I decide for myself what moral principles are sound.
The only way I’d kill another human being would be if I were forced to do so to protect myself or another person. Executions serve neither purpose. Since the State acts (partly) on my behalf, executions are essentially the same as ME killing another in absence of any justification I find acceptable. I’d rather not subcontract out retributive “justice” to the State when incarceration is a readily available alternative.
April 8th, 2008 at 7:49 pmDon- You said a lot in that Jesus was wrongfully convicted. So far, that part of the debate has not been broached. We were/are talking about justly convicted persons who are sentenced to die via the civilian law which is by this quote and others, deemed appropriate under God’s law.
From the New Testament: Romans 13:1-5
“1Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. 2Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval; 4for it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore one must be subject, not only because of wrath but also because of conscience.”
verse #1 being key to the God instituted governing body(in this case, Ohio and the Civilian laws including capitol punishment.)
Do I personally agree with every law in Ohio or anywhere for that matter? Of course not. But the Bible also clearly outlines that they are still to be followed even if not just, even if the ruling bodies are corrupt and even if what the law says is somehow contrary to what we, as civilians cannot/will not understand. The act of capitol punishment is killing, but it is not murder.
Lots of people are killed every day for no good or just reason. The taking of the life of a person who has murdered someone in cold blood, not in self defense, not in the defense of someone who cannot defend themselves in mortal danger, not for any reason prescribed under God’s law, that is an act that can only be met with the strict adherence to the word of God.
So I guess we must agree to disagree.
April 8th, 2008 at 8:02 pmYet, Jesus also said in the Sermon on the Mount:
38: Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Many believe that in this section he repudiates much of what was said in the Old Testament, especially related to the death penalty.
Which is why using the Bible is always interesting since you can find a portion that will prove or disprove an argument…
April 8th, 2008 at 8:19 pmMatthew 5;17-20 is concerning the laws brought down by Moses
From book of Matthew Study http://www.yashanet.com/studies/matstudy/mat6b.htm
CHAPTER 5:17-20 TEXT:
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
5:17 the “Law”
Christian Bibles consistently refer to “the Law,” meaning the Law of Moses, as given in the first five books of the Bible. The Hebrew term for this is the Torah. However, the correct translation of “Torah,” is not “law” (not in the western legal sense of the word). Rather, Torah is correctly translated as revelation or instruction from God.
The same set of verse in easier launguage:
17
13 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.
18
Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.
19
Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 14
20
I tell you, unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
The Sermon on the Mount is 2 vast chapters long.
Vs 38 and 39 are just about the most taken out of context in the Bible.
Example. If someone murders my brother and I, in turn, find and murder them then I am just as guilty of murder as the person that murdered my brother. However, if the person is arrested and justly convicted in a civilian court, sentenced to the death penalty and it is carried out, it is following the law(s) both God and civilian.
April 8th, 2008 at 8:41 pmIf you look at the whole chapter that includes the Sermon on the mount it addresses more than just the “eye for the eye” aspect, it is one of my favorite parts of the bible, since it includes the beatitudes, it also addresses adultery, murder, divorce, etc. including:
25: Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.
The God of vengeance and revenge is not the same God that Jesus describes, with his focus being on loving God and loving each other, those were what he stated to be the most important two.
This is where this discussion always breaks down, between the belief that God supports the death penalty and/or that Jesus would not.
April 8th, 2008 at 9:04 pmTwo comments…first…Chad in response #3 above said….
“The kind of person who will kill a person for no reason, for money, for sex, for anything other than self defense or the defense of the unable is not fit to breath air any longer.”
As astute readers of this blog will recognize – so much of what I have to say gets tied into the abortion argument. Think about abortion – and then re-read what Chad said in the statements just above…kind of puts things into an interesting light I think.
So – to me the abortionist is “killing for money” – so by Chad’s definition is “not fit to breath air any longer”.
It is also interesting to think of the fact that Chad feels it is OK to kill someone if they are “defending the unable”. By that token – applied to the abortion argument – would seem that it is OK to kill an abortion doctor…since who is more “unable” to defend themselves than the helpless baby in the womb. Please note – I am not defending killing an abortion doctor (you’ll see below – I am opposed to the death penalty – or killing of people in general) – but based upon Chad’s statement it seems he would be OK with killing an abortion doctor – since he would be helping to “defend someone unable to defend themselves”.
It is just interesting to take this “death penalty” topic and apply it a little differently – but not too differently….abortion is certainly a “death penalty” to the baby – who 100% of the time happens to be the innocent party…
Having said THAT – my SECOND point is to bring in some higher reason to the biblical discussions. The Catechism of the Catholic Church happens to have this to say about the Death Penalty…
“2267. Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.”
So…there you have it. It is all about protecting the public at large. As long as we can safely protect the public at large – the death penalty has no business being in our great country…
It really does demean and detract from our moral standing – and should be abolished as long as we can protect the public at large. Of course – I am not for giving them a high life while in prison – their existance should be one of penance for the harm that they have done – which would still allow them to walk out of jail one day if they were wrongly convicted….
April 8th, 2008 at 9:26 pmMy understanding is this: Jesus always deferred to the Father(God) as to whom he answered to. He was sent of the Father to save we, the people from our sins and ourselves. Even the night before his own Crucifixion, in his prayer to the Father, he asked if the cup could pass from him, meaning his impending horrible death. Even though Jesus had the power to do whatever he wished, he did not as it was not his (Our) Father’s will. He followed God’s direction even unto his human death. And he knew exactly what was coming. In fact, Jesus followed God’s law and path from before his first human breath to his last and still is. he was/is completely sinless and he never broke a single commandment, not a single law. You and I (and everyone else)on the other hand, do it all the time. This is why I am thankful for the mercy of God that is beyond my comprehension. I count myself among the greatest of sinners and always will. This is the nature of the human sin nature. We are not now, nor will we ever be perfect until God is finished perfecting us. The end result is not possible on this side of the grave.
April 8th, 2008 at 9:28 pmTShak…In my opinion abortion is the most awful of all murder and yes, I consider abortion murder. I do not advocate over running the clinics and killing the Doctors who perform the murder. It is the choice of the woman to have and pay for that “service”. (tho it is often publicly funded by tax dollars through planned parenthood and other organizations) Abortion is legal and lawful in the United States 1 of the many civilian laws I abhor and firmly believe should be reversed. Since it is currently law, I defer to the Romans chapter above.
The Abortion law, the Death Penalty law can be changed by voters. Until such a vote changes the law, I defer to the Romans chapter.
I’m not gonna touch the Catholic Religion other than to say that having a faith in a religion is not the same as having a relationship with God.
April 8th, 2008 at 9:46 pmas I said in post #3….how do you prevent the murderer from murdering in prison? Only complete isolation with zero human contact could acomplish this. Under our human understanding, that is cruel and unusual.
April 8th, 2008 at 9:52 pmChad,
I certainly wasn’t trying to imply you were for any of those statements – but your words – when applied to the abortion argument – just seemed intriguing to me. Just applying your name to my statements seemed to bring them home better….at least to me.
How would you have applied the “Romans” argument to the civil rights disobedience of Martin Luther King’s time? They were certainly “going against authority” – and today we applaud them for that.
Finally – in the best of both worlds – the Catholic Religion provides a true follower with a faith in a religion (the one true religion) AS WELL AS having a strong, grounded relationship with God. They don’t have to be mutually exclusive you know
. Boy how I love the Catholic faith – it has a fantastic answer for all of our questions – and does – at its very core – lead you to a profound, deep relationship with God!!!!
April 8th, 2008 at 9:55 pm….”as I said in post #3….how do you prevent the murderer from murdering in prison? Only complete isolation with zero human contact could acomplish this. Under our human understanding, that is cruel and unusual.”….
Oh come on – are you telling me that TODAY – EVERY convict with the death penalty given to them kills other prisoners while on death row?
I’ll give you that this does happen – but I doubt that this happens with a great frequency – but I admit I don’t know for sure.
While we can never know with certainty what will happen – I don’t think you need to have 100% total isolation in every case. I’m pretty sure that the prison offiicals know – with some degree of certainty – who will be a greater danger – and who will not be….
If a convicted killer goes into prison and seems hell-bent on killing others – then maybe isolation is what they need – and what may bring about repentence….just a thought….
April 8th, 2008 at 10:00 pmFirst, I believe everyone has their own path to follow to a relationship with God. Be it in the Catholic Church, or any other God based Church. Religious freedom is the greatest thing ever. Personally, my experience with the Catholic Church has been mixed. My spouse is Catholic and I am not. I attended for many years her family church and personally found it too steeped in the rigors of “religion” rather than delving deeply into Bible based teachings. All the ceremonial stuff seems to cloud the importance of teaching the Bible and leaves me feeling blah rather than engaged. On the flip side, the Southern Baptists doctrine is the other extreme. A relationship with God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit in my mind was never to be so formal and after Jesus came here, we no longer needed a go between with God. Jesus opened a direct line…himself. That is the crux of salvation…through Jesus. Nothing and nobody can do what he has done.
As long as the believer is based in the salvation through Jesus, the particulars of a organized religion’s activities really don’t matter. it whatever works for the individual and their relationship with God. I would never let a religion dictate my relationship with God, that’s what I trust the Bible for and seek to do my best with my understanding as it is and grows.
It’s getting late and I’m tired so I will have to think about the MLK issue and since it’s off topic, perhaps we can revisit it on another thread? One thing I know, the “Word” doesn’t change by various circumstances. It is what it is. Peace to all
April 8th, 2008 at 10:26 pm“The taking of the life of a person who has murdered someone in cold blood, not in self defense, not in the defense of someone who cannot defend themselves in mortal danger, not for any reason prescribed under God’s law, that is an act that can only be met with the strict adherence to the word of God.”
So you say, Chad, but I’ve read every Bible quote you’ve posted on this thread, and not one seems to be on point with your theory that the death penalty is some sort of divine mandate.
Moreover, if murder is an act that can “can only be met with the strict adherence to the word of God,” by which I presume you mean the penalty of death, are we somehow defying God’s law by declining to employ the death penalty in favor of life imprisonment?
In the New Testament, probably the closest thing to a commentary on executions was Jesus stopping the stoning of a prostitute, telling the gathered crowd, “let ye without sin cast the first stone.” I don’t think it’s outrageous to interpret this statement as disapproval of capital punishment. But, I suppose, you could argue that Jesus was merely showing disapproval of executions in absence of formal legal proceedings…
While we’re on the topic of capital punishment, let me ask you this: since you are such a stickler for following God’s law as set out in the Old Testament, do you approve of the death penalty not only for murder, but also for all the other transgressions punishable by death in Old Testament law? Do you also approve of slavery? Polygamy? Women treated as chattel? After all, all those things were OK in the Bible, and God’s law “never changes.” Right?
April 9th, 2008 at 12:24 amNot a mention that the “cocktail” used has been banned for use on animals as it is inhumane to them.
Now a days it is one injection for a family pet and they are gone.
For us, we use, a chemical mix that sometimes does not work properly.
April 9th, 2008 at 5:00 am“As long as the believer is based in the salvation through Jesus, the particulars of a organized religion’s activities really don’t matter. it whatever works for the individual and their relationship with God.”
If I understand this correctly, maybe not, one has to believe in Jesus to get salvation but what ever works for the relationship is okay.
So, if a person believes in God, but does not hold that Jesus was anything more than a person who had a spiritual vision, the person does not gain salvation.
I always was under the impression that the Bible is a religious text and that is why it is so revered and held in esteem and not merely the writings of people and is the corner stone and glue of most religions and with out the writings they would not exist.
Just asking, and I really have no desire or need or effort to change anyones opinion, the concepts seem to run head long into each other.
April 9th, 2008 at 5:05 amInteresting to see chapters and verse being posted, which were written thousands of years ago and the debate revolves around the personal interpretation of words in a book and not the crux of the issue.
Kinda makes one wonder why, we here, spend time debating the meaning and application of words written, while other places have moved ahead and outright banned capital punishment and the sky did not fall.
April 9th, 2008 at 5:19 amwoooooooooooooooow
I am pro choice. Now that is out of the way.
I say we televise executions. Pay per view. $200 a feed. And not lethal injection, gas or overfeeding. Firing squad, electric chair, wild animal attack, or any other detestable means which a convicted will suffer a lot for the benefit of an audience.
I also want to add I am for victim’s families to have retribution. If a family member was killed by another’s hand, I fully endorse a family member who has been elected by the family to mete out the inevitable task of revenge to the death of the restrained convict, however long it takes.
Altho I appreciate each of yours beliefs, there are those of us out here that feel that compassion encourages and does not deter violent behaviour.
Capial punishment is intended to send a message that violent behaviour will not be tolerated in our society.
There’s a lot to be said about an excecution in sold out soccer field.
April 9th, 2008 at 5:26 amBrian, let me juxtapose two of your ideas:
“Firing squad, electric chair, wild animal attack, or any other detestable means which a convicted will suffer a lot” will “send a message that violent behaviour will not be tolerated in our society.”
This simply makes no sense to me.
You seem to be advancing the idea that violent behavior should not be tolerated in society, yet, you are willing to totally abandon that principle because a subset of our society engages in violent criminal behavior. So, in effect, you are allowing the savage criminal conduct of others to function as your moral yardstick.
Certainly, there is “a lot to be said about an excecution in sold out soccer field.” It sounds like Rome at its absolute worst. I’m sorry, but your proposal sounds like someone looking for the thinnest of justifications to set up a system of execution-as-sport to gratify their own latent desires. I hope that’s not the case.
Finally, I’d argue that life imprisonment is deterrent enough “to send a message that violent behaviour will not be tolerated in our society.” It strains credulity to argue that faced with spending the balance of one’s life in prison, a criminal would proceed with a crime, but would refrain if the death penalty is in place. Does anyone really believe that violent murders are immediately preceded by some kind of rational cost-benefit calculation?
April 9th, 2008 at 8:10 am“Does anyone really believe that violent murders are immediately preceded by some kind of rational cost-benefit calculation?”
Not in my opinion.
If that was the case, the people committing the crimes would give thought, at the moment or time leading up to the crime, gave thought to the end result.
Crimes of passion or theft and others are so emotional that one’s thoughts are clouded.
Mankind has been executing people with all means of sanctioned death and the crimes are still committed.
Almost makes one think, that we are not as advanced, at dealing with problems as we think we are.
April 9th, 2008 at 8:24 amI will start with some information and resources which I encourage all to fully read the links along with the quotes I take so that it’s within context.
Don, in answer to your mandate question, the answer is here:http://www.bpnews.net/BPFirstPerson.asp?ID=15079
“First, capital punishment is not unbiblical or extra-biblical. In fact, we can reasonably say that it is a biblical mandate from Genesis 9:6. Old Testament commandments consistently exalt the sovereignty of God over the lives of men. The New Testament does not vacate those commandments and priorities. As Genesis 9 establishes the role of human government in the administration of justice, Romans 13 continues that theme in the New Testament.”
“In answer to inequity: “Second, capital punishment in America is not fairly administered. Some victims are more emotionally compelling than others. Some of the accused also have greater luck tugging at the hearts of jurors. Additionally, the poor often lack the resources to obtain competent legal defense. Those who oppose the death penalty for these reasons have a valid point.
How do we address this point, though? Inequity is more likely to acquit the guilty than condemn the innocent. Poor legal defense could result in a false verdict. Some say we should ban laws and penalties being badly administered. Alright, but the tax code is not applied fairly either. Some get away with paying too little, some ignorantly pay too much. Too tough to fix? Let’s ban it, too. And so it goes with traffic laws, welfare and a lot of other things that we will not do away with.”
In further response to the mandate and the refusal to follow the law with regard to imprisonment rather than the death penalty:
“This brings us back to the biblical mandate. God told Noah that a reckoning for bloodguilt was demanded by the image of God in the victim. It is thus the person of God who is offended by murder whenever man wrongly takes the prerogative of God on himself. God specifically assigns this mandate to governments in Romans 13:1-7. We should not, in anger or sorrow, despise the image of God to spare our own feelings. A nation that determines a penalty for a crime and does not regularly assign that penalty breaks faith with its people and the God who established it.”
Polygamy was for a short time, allowed by God for the purposes of repopulating the Earth and then later in the OT abolished. The fall of man started with Adam and continues to this very day. As you read through the Bible, God decided to show mercy where he in the early days did not lest we all be wiped out.
The Out of context Prostitute question: John 8 text in full:
1 But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.
2 Now early[a] in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people came to Him; and He sat down and taught them. 3 Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, 4 they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman was caught[b] in adultery, in the very act. 5 Now Moses, in the law, commanded[c] us that such should be stoned.[d] But what do You say?”[e] 6 This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear.[f]
7 So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up[g] and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” 8 And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience,[h] went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. 10 When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her,[i] “Woman, where are those accusers of yours?[j] Has no one condemned you?”
11 She said, “No one, Lord.”
And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and[k] sin no more.”
12 Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, “I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.”
The meaning of this seems to be in that the accusers were in fact hypocrites. I have yet to find anywhere in the Bible where Jesus forgave and absolved a murderer from the consequences of the crime.
Nc….according to the Bible, the only way to Heaven is through salvation in Jesus. John 3:16 is the 1st reading, then you have the rest of the New Testament. If you read it and see the same repeated pattern that there is no other way except for the road that Jesus paved and only through him can anyone get to Heaven. Every human must die physically once as a result of Adam’s sin. Salvation is so that we can have eternal life. It doesn’t absolve sin’s earthy consequences. Salvation stops the separation between God and man as in going to Heaven rather than Hell. It is written in the Word that not everyone will believe in God, but it is his desire that all will. He made us of free will so that we would chose him over everything else. Not everyone makes that choice. Salvation absolves sin separation between us and God, prevents Hell, but doesn’t alter rest of the consequences of sin.
In the context of the post related to Murders. They too can receive salvation, but that doesn’t absolve them of the earthly penalty.
April 9th, 2008 at 9:19 am“In the context of the post related to Murders. They too can receive salvation, but that doesn’t absolve them of the earthly penalty.”
Agreed, kill all the murders and let God sort em out in the end.
April 9th, 2008 at 9:25 am“Nc….according to the Bible, the only way to Heaven is through salvation in Jesus. John 3:16 is the 1st reading, then you have the rest of the New Testament. If you read it and see the same repeated pattern that there is no other way except for the road that Jesus paved and only through him can anyone get to Heaven.”
With all due, respect, I’ll look ya up, when we get there and I do not follow the writing of the Prophet(s), but, the New Testament was written to help spread the word of a new way of thinking, at least as I understand it.
The Bible, a book, contains a great many things and the two halfs almost contradict one another at times.
April 9th, 2008 at 9:25 amEvery man must answer for himself to God. We all have our own beliefs. I do not begrudge you yours or anyone else theirs. I guess we must all hope that we are right eh? If either of us is wrong, we will not see eachohter.
April 9th, 2008 at 9:35 am“Polygamy was for a short time, allowed by God for the purposes of repopulating the Earth and then later in the OT abolished. ”
Okay, sort of a step to the side, but interesting, how some people still cling to the past.
“SAN ANGELO, Texas — Girls as young as 13 were forced into “spiritual marriages” with men and subjected to sexual and physical abuse at a West Texas polygamist community, state investigators alleged in court documents released Tuesday.”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-04-08-polygamy_N.htm
“The provincial government will have to decide whether to send to the courts the question of the legality of practising polygamy in Bountiful, after a decision by a senior lawyer was made public yesterday.
Leonard Doust, a senior member of the B.C. bar, agreed with the conclusions of a special prosecutor last year — that having the state pursue polygamy charges against members of the breakaway Mormon sect in the Creston Valley enclave near the U.S. border would likely fail.”
http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=a6115828-24bd-4b93-97a1-ca8dcdadb4ca&k=4543
Poloygomy is alive and well, in some places, despite what would appear a ban on it, through the Bible. The leaders use the words to justify their stance and actions, just as some use the words to justify their stance or actions.
April 9th, 2008 at 9:39 am“I do not begrudge you yours or anyone else theirs. I guess we must all hope that we are right eh? If either of us is wrong, we will not see eachohter.”
If more people would exercise this type of comment, maybe there would be more dialog, instead I am right and you are wrong, blah blah blah.
Like the Rabbi said in that old story, you are right, too!
April 9th, 2008 at 9:43 amNC said “Poloygomy is alive and well, in some places, despite what would appear a ban on it, through the Bible.”
If polygomy is banned by the bible, then it is something we should not do, eh?
April 9th, 2008 at 9:56 am“If polygomy is banned by the bible, then it is something we should not do, eh?”
If one follows the words and tenants of the writing, sure.
Do the leaders in Texas and up north follow the words written or are they interpreting the words they see fit to suit their goals.
But, then again there are a great many things that the words tell us to do or not to do, and the followers fail to abide by them, go figure.
April 9th, 2008 at 10:00 amChad, if God truly “believed” in the death penalty for murder, why did he not kill Cain in return for his murdering his brother?
Realistically God created/allowed the death thousands so we can’t really say God is against murder. We would have to say God was selective of who he allowed to live. If the story of Noah is accurate, God wiped out the whole planet save one family. God says “Thou shall not kill” yet of course we do kill.
Hence we have conflicting evidence about God when it comes to murder. We are also conflicted as a society as far as killing people. It’s okay for God to kill people and to have others do quite a bit of “smoting” if it is done in his name, it’s okay for a government to kill children and other innocent victims during a war, that’s felt to be an “unintended consequence”, so if the “eye for the eye” was truly followed we would live in a different society.
We are selective about who “we” feel deserves to die. In effect from a biblical standpoint the very process of deciding who is to live and who is to die is one that would conflict with God since that is supposed to be his decision of when it is “our time”. Being fanciful for a moment, let’s say a convicted murderer is killed or dies in prison, perhaps God had some involvement with the “free will” aspect.
Our God is supposedly a merciful God yet we have biblical evidence to the contrary. The inescapable reality whether you believe in God or not was that the Bible was written to control people’s behavior because the fear of God controlled people more than the love of God. Stories of horror passed down from generation to generation about what God did to those who did not obey as well as to answer general questions about “why are we here” is what parts of the Bible is.
Many of us turn to the New Testament as the answer, and most theologians agree that Jesus would not support the death penalty. Not being a theologian, but having read volume after volume on this discussion, when asked the question WWJD? I believe he would not support the death penalty, and I believe if God truly wanted someone dead? They’d be dead…
Which then leads to an interesting item about death, we are when we die, depending on your belief of the requirements necessary to enter heaven, allowed to escape this earthly place. Since even those who murder could under the right circumstances enter heaven, we are actually rewarding them for their behavior by allowing them to enter heaven. A few years ago, I actually did quite a bit of research on the “last words” of prisoners executed by the state, realizing that if these men believed in God, this was their last chance to have their sins forgiven. Some still stated prior to receiving a lethal injection, gas chamber or electric chair that they were innocent…
April 9th, 2008 at 10:04 amI suppose then, that if you “follow the words and tenants of the writing”, then you would have to conclude homosexuality is also wrong. Unless you would prefer to pick and choose what is right in the Bible, for yourself and others.
April 9th, 2008 at 10:05 am“Unless you would prefer to pick and choose what is right in the Bible, for yourself and others.”
I prefer to let people decide what is right and wrong and not to dictate or decide for them.
The words in the books, are that words, and words can mean many things to many people, and can be used to justify what ever stance is being proposed.
April 9th, 2008 at 10:13 amAll sorts of current human behavior is against the word of God. The “World” has taken over as it was written thousands of years ago to do. Examples are everywhere.
On Polygamy…context is very important. Taking into account such things as life expectancy, then…and now. Taking into account civilian law, then and now. In the historical view, a person reached “Adulthood” at puberty. Human conditions have changed as sin has changed us. Now we know that most people don’t reach what is commonly accepted to be adulthood until they are in their mid 20’s. Sexual adulthood and mental adulthood are very different things.
In the case of these current “ranches”, children are forced into it by creepy old men who are in their self serving sicko minds contorting and blaspheming the word of God. The word of God is very specific about the abuse/bringing harm to a child.
April 9th, 2008 at 10:15 amYou would also Not Again, never want to have slept with a woman when she was menstruating, and some of those who do practice polygamy would be guilty of violating Leviticus since some of them have taken sisters, though of course the punishment in Leviticus is different for these varying “abominations”. Though of course those who commit adultery are supposed to face the same punishment of death as those who commit acts of homosexuality. However a literal translation of Leviticus would mean that it’s okay to be a Lesbian. There is no tenant that states a “woman shall not lie with a woman” only that a man shall not lay with a man as he would a woman. Cursing your mother or father is also grounds for death under the same chapter.
So, we are selective about which parts of the Bible we decide to follow as a society and as individuals when it comes to certain acts.
Leviticus is probably one of the most debated chapters of the Bible when it comes to the years I’ve had similar discussions online when it comes to adultery and homosexuality.
April 9th, 2008 at 10:21 amChad, those “creepy old men” are following the biblical tenant of marrying a “woman” after she has her first period. Something many faiths including the Jewish religion followed for eons with girls being married sometimes before they were teens to be able to start bearing children since sex was for procreation. They are using the Bible in the same manner many others do, justification for their particular behavior. It’s not considered abuse in the bible to marry a young girl, as long as she has passed puberty.
The Bible as a whole is not very kind to women when it comes to what it states they should “obey”. Mary was stated by many biblical scholars to be only 14 or 15 when she gave birth to Jesus.
April 9th, 2008 at 10:32 amLisa said. “You would also Not Again, never want to have slept with a woman when she was menstruating”
Agreed. I can admit to never wanting to have to do it again.
April 9th, 2008 at 10:35 amlol Not Again, at least that’s only grounds to be cast out from the rest of us rather than to be put to death.
April 9th, 2008 at 10:36 amYou wouldn’t do that to me, would you?
April 9th, 2008 at 10:37 amNot Again, I’ve eaten shrimp, worn mixed clothing, and done quite a few things that would make me either be cast out or stoned too. So…of course not. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone…
April 9th, 2008 at 10:39 amI suppose that one of the most interesting and frustrating things about the Bible is the way people from all walks of life walk away from a reading of the whole or parts with different interpretations. Free will and different levels of understanding make it very hard for everyone to be on the same page, so to speak.
Lisa, while I see the conflicts in our understanding of the Bible and it’s various meanings I know what Jesus did….and didn’t do. He never once challenged the law of God. Jesus was clearly about forgiveness and redemption in the context of the afterlife. Not to be overly concerned about the short time on Earth, but rather your place in eternity. I firmly believe that while Jesus is of the stance that non should perish, is not happy when someone is killed without just cause and is deeply saddened at the loss of human souls, he would not stand in objection to carrying out the law in terms of the execution of cold blooded murderers.
I don’t claim to be a Bible scholar, and I very well could have a inconsistent view based on my current understanding of many things. God does a lot that we, as humans cannot understand as it is written “Who can know the mind of God?” “We will not every understand his ways as we are not God” etc…. His anger was inspired by our failings. His wrath is well documented as is his mercy. He is God..and has the power and authority to do different things at different times in human history.
There is this though. Our understanding of death and God’s views are often at odds. We think of death in terms of losing physical life, God’s definition is often about separation from him. Separation from God is eternal and human death is but a wisp in the air.
April 9th, 2008 at 10:39 amChad, I’m not a biblical scholar either, I think you and I equally know the bible, though my level of biblical knowledge doesn’t typically come into play here on Glass City.
I would however suggest that when Jesus prevented the crowd from stoning the woman who was accused of adultery by asking those present who were without sin to cast the first stone, he was challenging God’s law. The most simplistic explanation I can offer would be that Jesus showed us how we should try to live and what we should try to do realizing most of us will fail. Yet he still loves us.
April 9th, 2008 at 10:48 am“done quite a few things that would make me either be cast out or stoned too.”
Bob Dylan stoned or ……Uttering the name of……
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Erthun0Pauc&feature=related
April 9th, 2008 at 10:50 am“I have yet to find anywhere in the Bible where Jesus forgave and absolved a murderer from the consequences of the crime.”
Well, I’d argue that those responsible for the execution of Jesus carried out a murder, and those who stood by and did nothing aided and abetted that murder. About all of these people, Jesus prayed not for their deaths, but asked that God forgive them because “they know not what they do.” At any point, Jesus could have called forth legions of angels to his defense, and laid waste to his persecutors, and he did not.
I’ve seen nothing in the New Testament where Jesus even comes close to suggesting we ought to employ violence as a means of conflict resolution, even when he was personally wronged. Rather, his words and actions strongly suggest that we eschew violence.
And besides, the question is NOT whether murderers should be “absolved,” but rather, whether the death penalty is a morally defensible response.
And wasn’t Paul a violent criminal prior to his conversion? If he’d been executed, you’d be missing an big chunk of the New Testament, right?
April 9th, 2008 at 10:51 amHere lay an interesting aspect. What God/Jesus/The Holy Spirit can and will do vs. what we as humans can/will do as sactioned by God.
God appears to have used many individuals to meet a higher purpose in the long run in terms of his plan whereas it is inconsistant with his laws and rules to us. This would seem to apply with Paul.
God, being God, can and will do whatever he sees fit to do even if we don’t get it. (This is often the case in my world). We, on the other hand are subject to God and we are to do as he says. Do we do it? With any consistancy? nope. Do we pay for that one way or another..yup.
April 9th, 2008 at 11:17 amHey Don?
Thanks for your insight.
April 9th, 2008 at 11:32 amI would love to add to this thread but my history has too many losses which have way too many feelings attached to them so instead I am going to continue to read the many entries regarding the death penalty.
April 9th, 2008 at 11:46 am“Thanks for your insight.”
LOL…for real, or am I being a pain in the butt?
I wasn’t sure if your death penalty proposals were serious or not (I was assuming not), but for the sake of advancing the discussion I tried to give a serious response.
Believe me, I make no excuses for violent crime, and I certainly understand the desire for retribution when innocents are harmed, particularly where children are involved. I’ve felt anger and the desire for vengeance, and can relate when I read or hear others describe those same feelings. What I am arguing is that we ought to resist the urge to act out of anger or vengeance. When the State straps a person into an electric chair, or injects poison into their veins, make no mistake — they act as our agents. Any satisfaction we may feel when a criminal is executed is far outweighed, in my view, by the extent to which we debase ourselves and our society by carrying out that execution.
By all means, we should allow ourselves to feel outrage when innocents are victimized. Those are normal, healthy feelings to have. But remember, an execution is not an act of the criminal, but rather OUR act. OUR decision. OUR opportunity to display our values. I say, the best way to repudiate the acts of violent criminals is by having the moral strength to refrain from violence ourselves.
April 9th, 2008 at 1:00 pmDon, I believe you’ve added some insight to the discussion, then again I think we are coming from a similar plane of thought on this topic. Which is why though I am personally against the death penalty, I believe that if we are going to have the State execute people it should be done in the best manner possible with today’s available technology.
As some of our Supreme Court justices have pointed out, the manner of death which is considered “cruel and unusual punishment” has changed as society has changed. We look as a society at types of punishment we used to inflict on people such as beheadings and whippings as to be barbaric when they are done by others, because we have at least attempted to progress as a society.
April 9th, 2008 at 1:11 pmAs usual – two comments:
1) I’m sorry – but continuing in my path of equating this discussion and our abortion feelings in this nation – this paragraph just makes me hurl….
—”As some of our Supreme Court justices have pointed out, the manner of death which is considered “cruel and unusual punishment” has changed as society has changed. We look as a society at types of punishment we used to inflict on people such as beheadings and whippings as to be barbaric when they are done by others, because we have at least attempted to progress as a society.”—
We look at a medical cocktail injected to inflict death (peacefully it is thought) on a convicted murder and we scream “CRUEL – UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT” – but we can do the barbaric things associated with Partial Birth abortion (scissors – head – vacuum – need I say more) – and want to say “Well – if it was the mother’s CHOICE – then it is OK – no debate needed”. Sorry – our dichotomy as a society is just appalling.
2) Loved the bible discussion and references here – but I go back to one of my original statements……if you followed the truth of the Catholic Church – all of your questions about the “conflicting nature of the bible” would be explained. I was once concerned as most people can be – thinking that there are lots and lots of contradictions in the Bible – but when I take each one – one by one – and research how the Catholic Church explains them – my concerns melted away. I tell you – the Roman Catholic Church has the answers to all these issues and answers – but instead we think we have to “reinvent the wheel” – each and every generation – an explanation isn’t good unless the “Holy Spirit” revealed it to me and me alone during my quest… The bible doesn’t say that’s the way it should be. My advice – read the bible – have a personal relationship with God/Jesus – but when doubts and concerns like this raise their head (and they will to be sure) – go to the Cathecism and do the research. I’m betting you will find peace of mind there…
April 9th, 2008 at 6:27 pmLisaRenee – your comment above –> “The Bible as a whole is not very kind to women when it comes to what it states they should “obey”.”
Are you referring to the verse that states that wives should “obey” their husbands?
April 9th, 2008 at 6:33 pmNo TShak it’s a bit more than the “obey” aspect. Women were treated as property, with very few rights. Right from Genesis woman was “cursed” because Adam didn’t say “ummm no thanks”. Look how long it took women to be treated as individuals with voting rights and we are still discriminated against today. The patriarchy system stems from the Bible.
I am a Roman Catholic, so I don’t personally believe in abortion, however I do not believe it is my right to take my religious beliefs and demand that others follow them if the law conflicts with my religion which is the case when it comes to abortion.
The death penalty is basically the same argument, do religious beliefs both for or against have any bearing on what the law is? It should not but just like abortion and almost every social issue, we do bring our own belief system into why we are against or support it.
There are atheists who do not believe in abortion or who do not believe in the death penalty, so it’s not always based on religion but most times the topic of abortion or the death penalty comes up religion, a particular religion or an absence of religion comes into play into the discussion.
April 9th, 2008 at 7:23 pmFaith and adherence to one’s faith, called into question and discussed, but what about the lethal injection method used?
Some inmates are not executed humanely and have been seen to be suffering and not the quick and “painless” death as advertised.
Sure, some will say they deserve it, but then we need to take out the humane statement and call it something else.
I can bring a pet to a vet and one injection and the pet is gone, humans have tubes come out, chemical mixes not potent enough or other failures.
April 9th, 2008 at 7:59 pmNC, you are right, that is the basic point, that if we are going to have a death penalty that the method of death could be done in a way that would be more humane.
April 9th, 2008 at 8:01 pm“…if we are going to have a death penalty that the method of death could be done in a way that would be more humane.”
Yup, and the answer is not in religious text, it is in us, to decide.
Sorta like the analogy to the former Roman way of dealing with the problem, which was more political that any thing, or do we search for a real solution, or dare I say it, we have not evolved enough to stop wacking each other over trivial matters.
April 9th, 2008 at 8:06 pmThe solution is not religion based, but the discussion on how religion has influenced where people stand on the issue can be helpful. Not as far as changing minds but seeing where the other person is coming from.
At least we know we can civilly discuss religion…
April 9th, 2008 at 8:09 pm“At least we know we can civilly discuss religion…”
Of course, we can.
“Not as far as changing minds but seeing where the other person is coming from.”
Changing minds, is a long process. One needs to only look at where we where and where we want to be and dream.
Like Reverend Rose stated, “The key to understanding is communication.”
Then when we understand can the changing begin.
So what do we understand from today, some hold that the words in the book are to be adhered to and some think that they are loosely based and some do not see the words as any thing more than words, some point out the apparent conflicts between sections, some do not see the differences.
The inmate slated to die, wants equity, with the end solution, and I guess till we all agree on the issue of capital punishment, we could at least make the end quick and not drag it out.
April 9th, 2008 at 8:18 pmI want to thank everyone for a very engaging conversation on a very sensitive subject. It’s been both challenging and encouraging to me and has revealed a lot to me in both myself and others.
I respect all points of view on this, even where we part thoughts. Life and death issues are complicated and it’s comforting to know that those of us engaged here in this thread have given it great thought and are willing to express opinions even when they will be challenged. The direction of the death penalty in America and the world is ever changing as understanding changes. We know we didn’t solve it, but the debate was great and we all seem to be in agreement that until the issue of capitol punishment is resolved, that the method where employed should be swift and as humane as possible. This shows that we are at least mindful of the consequences of our actions and what we want to say in terms of capitol crime and punishment.
Peace to all
April 9th, 2008 at 9:50 pmI have to wonder, speculating here, how one would react had they received a phone call, and the caller ID showed a loved one, and you answer, and a person you don’t recognize tells you that they have your loved one and they wanted you to be the last person this loved one talked to before they killed them.
So while you’re on the phone helplessly listening to the torture of your loved one as they begged for their life, not knowing where they are, not being able to reach out and save them, then in an instant you hear a gunshot and silence.
Then the person picks up the phone and tells you that they enjoyed what they did and hung up.
Where will your compassion be then?
Or is it more sanitized because you never received a phone call?
No, had this happened to someone close to you, it wouldn’t be compassion, it would be vengence.
Do you know someone personally that has taken a life? I know a couple. And in all honesty, I’d rather they not dwell amongst us.
April 10th, 2008 at 4:48 amBrian, the last person I knew well who was murdered the person who did it got less than a year in jail. Because he was stoned and lost control of his car and murdered her…but now he’s free and he’ll soon be driving again.
So, the death penalty doesn’t address all of those who are murdered. Would I have wanted him dead? No, because it won’t bring her back, however it would have been nice if he would have actually spent more time in jail and at least never be able to legally drive again.
I’m sure most people go through a time period where they want vengence, but the majority of those who murder not only don’t receive the death penalty but they don’t even spend life in prison. So, for the majority of those in the very position you describe? If that is the type of vengence they are seeking, they most likely did not get it.
April 10th, 2008 at 8:37 amno, they did not get vengence because the guy was never caught, but I talked to the guy who lost his wife this way and I have to tell you, it’s a very emotional situation.
Vehicular Homicide, Manslaughter, Second Degree Murder, etc, fall under an avenue society agrees upon, but ruthless first degree murder, or even including sexual predators, deserve to be expolited and money raised to recoup the investment of putting them down.
April 10th, 2008 at 11:37 amIn a way that kind of reconfirms why I feel the way I do about the death penalty. We are so selective over who we think it’s okay to kill for killing. When someone is killed, no matter if it is with a weapon, or a car or accidental or on purpose, that family has lost a loved one that can never come back. We expect one group to just get over it, yet another should be able to seek vengeance.
Let’s say a person went through what you described and the person who murdered them made a plea deal of guilt, they would not face the death penalty. It’s really not up to the families and many times their wishes are not followed. There have been those who wanted the death penalty and it did not happen, and those who wanted life in prison with no parole that were instead given the death penalty. So while I totally understand the grief and the horror a family goes through when someone they love is killed? Most of those who are killed are lucky if the person spends a few years in prison.
The courts have assigned a degree of murder that is felt to be more unacceptable, so has society and I understand that. Yet to me, the reality is inescapable, that if you are killed – you are dead…
April 10th, 2008 at 12:05 pmI know Lisa, and I agree somewhat, but until someone close to you perishes in a violent manner by the hand of another, you can’t appreciate the sense I make.
Those two losers from Columbus Street that massacred those three men on Ohio Street two years ago is a perfect example.
I know that an accidental death, or an unintended death is still death, but the one way to kill, by the malicious intent by another to deprive life, deserves to to perish.
And to perish by Pay per View will help recoup the investment that was made in maintaining this individual.
April 10th, 2008 at 5:31 pmWhat percentage of death row convictions are wrong – that the person convicted is really innocent? Do a few wrongs mean the other 99% do not get put to death? So do they instead spend the rest of their lives in jail? In regards to my post #1, my first post – as a former US Marine, I learned compassion. But anyone who would savage, rape, murder anyone of my children, I will come for you – the killer, and I will have no mercy on you.
April 10th, 2008 at 6:45 pm“The courts have assigned a degree of murder that is felt to be more unacceptable, so has society and I understand that.”
Actually, is the legislatures that make the laws and regs that the courts are to enforce and interpret.
Ones does petition the courts to change the laws, we turn to the legislatures and ask for change.
April 10th, 2008 at 7:45 pmNc, it’s the court system which includes the prosecution, grand jury process, plea deals, etc. that determines what level of felony etc., that I was referring to but yes it is the legislative branch that writes the actual laws.
Joe, as a grandmother and a parent of five, I understand where you are coming from. However if one of your children is killed no matter the method of the murder, it’s a scenario where some do want revenge and that’s an understandable emotion. A child killed by someone who should not have been behind the wheel and left to suffer and die by the roadside will never get the death penalty, yet the child still suffered pain, and died. Most rapists don’t get the death penalty and the pain they cause forever for their victims does not end. Louisiana is the only state that has a death penalty stipulation for rape cases that has been used since 1964.
A few years ago when debating the death penalty someone asked me what I would want if someone raped and murdered one of my children. Having already experienced what it feels like to have children die of medical causes, and as a former rape victim both are devastating. Yet I do know that I’d personally prefer for that person to have to spend the rest of their natural life in prison over the death penalty. It would not bring me any peace of mind to have that person die.
In 2000 it was stated that in the past two decades, federal and state courts have overturned 68 percent of the death sentences they have reviewed because of serious errors in their trials, according to a new study. And in cases sent back for retrials, 82 percent of convicted capital defendants received new sentences that were other than death — including 7 percent who were found innocent.
Then as I stated earlier, looking at the last words of those who were executed, the number that proclaimed their innocence to the very end was well over 20%.
A federal judge has given a conservative estimate that 32 and as many as 40 of the 58 death-row prisoners freed from 1991 through 2002 were factually innocent.
There have been those who have been executed who were innocent, one example is Leonel Herrera.
April 10th, 2008 at 8:21 pmTechnology has advanced itself where not only is it rectifying the mistakes of the past, it’s preventing these same mistakes in the future. Advances that were once appreciated on tele and cinema are utilized daily in forensics.
A pause for those whom perished innocently, but as with everything else in our society, lessons were learned from the mistakes.
Every day, people are dying at the hands of others. It’s gratifying to see the distinct degrees of compassion shown in this thread towards their fellow man and their desire to destroy.
I am so very grateful that I don’t lack a conscience.
April 10th, 2008 at 8:54 pmIt takes me to the moment that Brad Pitt took the lid off the box as Kevin Spacey antagonizes Brad about the contents.
It’s that edge, like the decision Brad has to make in the moment, which our society teeters on.
April 10th, 2008 at 8:59 pm“Where will your compassion be then?”
Brian, this is a red herring. My (and I think, Lisa Renee’s) opposition to the death penalty is not based on “feeling sorry” for condemned inmates. I am primarily concerned about the moral and spiritual damage we do to ourselves by carrying out executions.
So, yes, this means that on my view, the principle applies even when the victims of crime are loved ones. Of course, if someone close to me was killed, I would crave justice, or perhaps even vengeance. Those would be perfectly natural feelings to have under such circumstances. However, I would not be a very principled person if I abandoned my opposition to the death penalty only when I was personally touched by the crime, would I?
For that matter, if I am ever murdered, my wish is that my death NOT be used by others as a justification to carry out an execution.
Maybe I should add that to my will.
April 10th, 2008 at 9:01 pmBut Don, my perspective of spiritual differs from what you’ve shown.
But it’s not about that.
It’s about “removing from society” any opportunity for this individual to “destroy another family.” This person had forfiet any right at all to co-mingle in our society again. Ever.
I understand the variables involved. But in my opinion, I stand by how I feel.
And I do appreciate your view on this issue, and I appreciate your compassion. And I’m not red herringing anything, I’m being “my” realistic.
April 10th, 2008 at 9:09 pmBrian, I understand your position, but life in prison without any chance of parole serves the same purpose as far as keeping them out of society. Personally if I were someone who murdered someone I’d rather die than face that. That’s why some have actually volunteered to end the appeal process to be executed.
April 10th, 2008 at 9:12 pmIt would not be revenge. That is a simple, emotional reaction. I think of the little girl in Florida, clutching her doll, being buried alive, after being savaged and raped. And no one to hear her cries. I see another little girl from Florida walking home through the car wash, when a man grabs her by the arm and leads her away, to rape and death. Both criminals now on Florida’s death row. For me, it would be a sense of duty.
April 10th, 2008 at 10:31 pmCouey is an example of how the legal system fails when it comes to convicted child molesters, had he been kept in prison, monitored better or had received treatment the death of Jessica Lunsford would have most likely not happened. Realistically most believe he’ll die in prison before the over 12 years it will take for the death penalty to be enforced. Smith another person with a criminal record for drug use and a history of mental health issues. Carlie Brucia’s family that was at the trial stated that the death penalty did not help them feel any different about her loss. Which now with the appeal process will not end for at least the next decade, perhaps longer.
To me having to go through that over and over again would be worse than having that person locked up with no chance of being released.
April 10th, 2008 at 11:00 pm“It’s about ‘removing from society’ any opportunity for this individual to ‘destroy another family.’ This person had forfiet any right at all to co-mingle in our society again. Ever.”
Yes, there are some criminals who must be permanently removed from circulation. But as Lisa Renee correctly points out, capital punishment is not necessary to achieve this.
“I think of the little girl in Florida, clutching her doll, being buried alive, after being savaged and raped. And no one to hear her cries. I see another little girl from Florida walking home through the car wash, when a man grabs her by the arm and leads her away, to rape and death.”
Yes, but how is this not an emotional appeal?
Moreover, what do we gain by executing the perpetrators of these crimes, that we do not achieve with life imprisonment? Do we “get even?” What is the payoff?
April 10th, 2008 at 11:35 pmDon, as an aside…glad that you’ve had time to post recently.
Missed your thoughts.
April 10th, 2008 at 11:37 pmDon, more space in the prisons for this next generation of losers.
Unless, of course, you find it morbid to televise the execution via pay-per-view to recoup the investment of boarding the condemned, then you’ll be paying for more prison space, because society isn’t getting any more compassionate and churning out entitled youth.
Because in case you missed it, the population of the United States has just surpassed the 300,000,000 milestone and quite a few of those will be murderous reprobates and child molesters.
Nice to see that you admit that permanent removal is an option with you tho.
and all due respect, I do appreciate your insight.
April 11th, 2008 at 6:09 ambecause society isn’t getting any more compassionate and it’s churning out entitled youth.
that’s better.
April 11th, 2008 at 6:11 amOne of the issues I have with “Life Imprisonment” is that it also does not satisfy the goal. Being behind bars does limit their ability to kill and harm, but it still allows them social interaction to some degree and they have a fairly comfortable existence, aside from being behind bars. “Humane” declarations like 3 meals, warm bed, in a lot of cases media, games, sports, human contact, etc. Frankly, that’s a lot more than a whole lot of folks have in their “freedom”.
Going back to what I said in an earlier post about having to totally separate the cold blooded murderer from all society we’d have to build special facilities that could house that person from the date of incarceration to natural death in a manner that would not allow them any human contact whatsoever. It would have to allow them only the very barest of essentials to live on, water and just enough food to stay alive. We would also have a means of delivery that would not involve seeing or talking to them. This would mean a soundproof, windowless cell, no medical care, no books other than a Bible, no media, no nothing. This would be the equivalent of the death sentence without killing them.
Here’s the hitch, all of the above is considered “Cruel and Unusual” punishment, if not flat out torture. In our society, we are far more concerned in the treatment of prisoners and their being treated “Humanely” than we are about the homeless, the drug addict, the lost but not convicted. There is a serious flaw in our thinking here and this is why life imprisonment isn’t really just punishment either. It’s not even close under the law as it is written and accepted.
The quality of the life of a murderer should be something we do not think about. Not slaying them in the gallows is plenty of mercy. We have no obligation to allow them the comforts of life as we know it. We are not duty bound to provide medical care, prolonging their life, we have no obligation to allow them to exercise in fresh air, we have no reason to ever speak to them again.
I’m not addressing the whole prison population, only the cold blooded murderers. Any crime short of murder/child predators, I don’t get all fussy about as far as treatment, just murderers and people that harm children. Though, in all reality, our prison system is far to cushy to be effective even for the thieves and drug dealers. For it to be as effective as intended, it would have to be a worse existence than being homeless. Mercy is one thing, comfort is our weakness.
April 11th, 2008 at 6:46 am“n our society, we are far more concerned in the treatment of prisoners and their being treated “Humanely” than we are about the homeless, the drug addict, the lost but not convicted.”
Appearances of our singular point of view, may lead us to have narrow vision and narrow thinking, but there are a great many people that do worry and work to correct the conditions for the ones mentioned, while we spend billions and if not trillions on other issues and we have the social programs cut.
“We are not duty bound to provide medical care, prolonging their life, we have no obligation to allow them to exercise in fresh air, we have no reason to ever speak to them again.”
I have often wondered why do we keep people alive in prisons, with medical and mental health care, when they are scheduled to die.
But then we get into the ethics of medicine, a doctor takes an oath to save lifes and yet we expect some to also take them.
April 11th, 2008 at 9:16 amDon in #79 stated –> I am primarily concerned about the moral and spiritual damage we do to ourselves by carrying out executions.
——
NC in #89 stated –> But then we get into the ethics of medicine, a doctor takes an oath to save lifes and yet we expect some to also take them.
——
Sorry – can’t get off the subject – but how many people who are “against the death penalty” don’t speak out so forcefully against abortion. And I’m counting all of the “personally opposed but…” people in this category. In my opinion – if you aren’t going to stand up for the defenseless child being murdered through abortion (by a doctor who took an oath to “heal”
– then your pandering on and on about how bad the death penalty is doesn’t hold water – I can’t even take you seriously. In my mind this conviction goes against 80% of the Democrats out there (and it goes without saying Hill and Barack are some of the worst offenders).
What I’m trying to get at – to be blunter than I’ve said before in these posts – is – how can it NOT be hypocracy (?sp?) to be so opposed to the Death Penalty but not to be fighting mad, up in arms, storming the gates protesting about our abhorent abortion policy in this country.
Virtually every reason I have heard brought up about why the Death Penalty is “wrong” is there in spades as the same argument for why abortion is wrong – and yet people can still pretend that those two are not connected.
Let me throw out another statistic here…
In the 200+ years of our country – we have executed through the death penalty – less than 30,000 people.
In the 30+ years abortion has been legal – we have executed through reported abortions – over 40 million people.
As I’ve stated – I’m opposed to the Death Penalty – I have spoken out against it in many forums – but don’t you think that it is a bit offensive that a Death Penalty topic generates almost 90 posts – and any mention of abortion gets barely any attention….
Talk about “Moral and spiritual damage” being done to our country….if we don’t develop a consistent life ethic and moral policy in this country – how can we ever expect to continue to be a great nation?
With the likes of Hill and Barack carrying the Democratic banner – this type of hypocracy does way more moral and spiritual damage to us as a nation than anything I can see.
40 million babies……40 million citizens (with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit…
…..how can that not haunt our nation and reduce these other topics in importance…..
I just hope that people come to realize this when we pull the lever…(or mark the ballot, tap the touchscreen, etc.)
April 11th, 2008 at 8:52 pmI can say that with regards to abortion, as my ex wife and me, delivered a baby prematurely, which is considered an abortion in some states, that the stats doe not tell the whole story.
There are many reasons why people abort. Not all are just simply to abort for birth control reasons.
One person’s morality is possibly an intrusion into another’s freedom and so on.
But we still have not touched on a humane way to execute, if we must, the current system is not as humane as some claim it is.
April 12th, 2008 at 4:54 amNC,
Yes – you and I have discussed this in the past – and we have exchanged our stories before. I completely understand that your case was something that does not occur, thankfully, to many people and your situation was not in line with the mainstream abortion discussion. However, that doesn’t mean we can’t talk about the other 95% of abortions that occur. The responses to your comments are:
1) I agree – not all abortions are for birth control reasons – but more than 90% are (probably more like 98% are). Would my arguments be any less disturbing if I only said that we have had 36 million abortions. It is the same magnitude of concern…by and large – abortion – as abhorent as it is (even if for just the 90% of the cases) – is a huge moral problem in this country.
2) How can my campaign to end the killing of an unborn baby be called an “intrusion on someone else’s freedom”? That just makes no sense to me. How about the line that “abortion is intruding on the freedom of the baby”? Why in the world doesn’t that enter into anyone’s thinking. Is the baby so unimportant in this world. But I guess to at least one presidential candidate we know that a baby is considered “punishment”.
3) We are arguing about a humane way to execute a person – when we don’t even investigate how abortions are done. A nice saline bath, severed limbs, scissors to the brain – please don’t tell me that those are “humane ways” to execute an abortion… If we killed prisoners on Death Row the same way we performed abortions in this country – the people above who want to view executions may get more than they bargained for. It would resemble the Christian executions of the Roman time – not a “humane” society like all of the posters above are pretending we have in this country. Perhaps I would be much more sympathetic to the pro-abortion crowd if I would see such blogs and posts arguing about a “humane” way to end a pregnancy – debating whether Partial Birth Abortion was really needed – etc., etc., etc. But no – Planned Parenthood, NARAL, Emily’s List, etc. would be shutting down those discussions I’m sure…..
Just something to think about…….
April 12th, 2008 at 6:57 am“Would my arguments be any less disturbing if I only said that we have had 36 million abortions.”
The comments are not disturbing to me, at least.
“How can my campaign to end the killing of an unborn baby be called an “intrusion on someone else’s freedom”? ”
If one feels it is their right to do what they want, like own guns for instance, and others disagree, there is the friction.
Same here, some want to be able to access abortions and some do not want others to be able too.
And the stats do not tell us, how many of the abortions were medically necessary or some other need, just one big number for a shocking response.
“Why in the world doesn’t that enter into anyone’s thinking.”
It doesn’t? How can we be so sure.
“A nice saline bath, severed limbs, scissors to the brain – please don’t tell me that those are “humane ways” to execute an abortion…”
They are not all like that.
But abortion is not executing a person convicted of murder, etc., and there has to be, if we are to go on executing people, while some also hold that life is sacred, a better and more humane way and the abortion folks on both sides can mull about the ways to work together, instead of shouting at each other with placards.
April 12th, 2008 at 10:36 amSupreme Court upholds Kentucky’s use of lethal injections
“The justices, by a 7-2 vote, turned back a constitutional challenge to the procedures in place in Kentucky, which uses three drugs to sedate, paralyze and kill inmates.
“We … agree that petitioners have not carried their burden of showing that the risk of pain from maladministration of a concededly humane lethal injection protocol, and the failure to adopt untried and untested alternatives, constitute cruel and unusual punishment,” Chief Justice John Roberts said in an opinion that garnered only three votes. Four other justices, however, agreed with the outcome.
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter dissented.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080416/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_lethal_injection;_ylt=A0WTcVbsDQZI79gAxBas0NUE
April 16th, 2008 at 10:35 amGood decision. Rope would be cheaper though.
April 16th, 2008 at 11:12 am