Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, July 24, 2014

Days before Arizona murderer Joseph Wood gasped and snorted for more than 90 minutes and died nearly two hours after his execution began, a conservative federal appeals judge called for replacing lethal injection with firing squads, saying the public must acknowledge that executions are "brutal, savage events." "Using drugs meant for individuals with medical needs to carry out executions is a misguided effort to mask the brutality of executions by making them look serene and beautiful -- like something any one of us might experience in our final moments," U.S. 9th Circuit Court Chief Judge Alex Kozinski wrote in a dissent in the Arizona death penalty case of Joseph Rudolph Wood III.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

rcade

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

"But executions are, in fact, brutal, savage events, and nothing the state tries to do can mask that reality. Nor should we. If we as a society want to carry out executions, we should be willing to face the fact that the state is committing a horrendous brutality on our behalf."

Arizona Sen. John McCain (R) said of Wood's execution, "I believe in the death penalty for certain crimes. But that is not an acceptable way of carrying it out. And people who were responsible should be held responsible. The lethal injection needs to be an indeed lethal injection and not the bollocks-upped situation that just prevailed. That's torture."

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"...and not the --------upped situation that just prevailed. That's torture."

Reading the threads here the idea of torturing people to death seems to be quite popular with some folk.

#1 | Posted by REDIAL at 2014-07-24 08:11 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"If we as a society want to carry out executions, we should be willing to face the fact that the state is committing a horrendous brutality on our behalf."

I think I agree with him and that we should have a body of witnesses, sort of like jury duty, where regular citizens in a fairly large number have to watch it live, in person. Either we are willing to be present and witness the execution or there is something we think is really wrong with executions. Witnesses should be allowed to bow out only if they go on record as being opposed to executions. When we have enough such records then we might be able to claim a majority opposed to it.

#2 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-24 08:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

When we have enough such records then we might be able to claim a majority opposed to it.

Ah so force people to be a part of executions to further your political opinions.

Classy, danni. Pure class.

#3 | Posted by jpw at 2014-07-24 08:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm generally opposed to the death penalty but this guy apparently was on death row for 25 years,whats another couple hours.Tough luck dude.

#4 | Posted by bruceaz at 2014-07-24 08:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

Executions should be public and available for purchase on pay-per-view.

And they should be shown in right-wing churches.

#5 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-24 09:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Ah so force people to be a part of executions to further your political opinions."

Baloney. I offered a way to avoid service as a witness to an execution but if you support execution then you should be willing to witness what it is you support. If you can't witness it then you really can't support it except in a state of denial about what it is you really support.

#6 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-24 09:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

I think all the folks on death row should be forced to have a portrait of their victims in their cell wall forever.

#7 | Posted by homerj at 2014-07-24 09:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

Baloney. I offered a way to avoid service as a witness to an execution...

Yeah, be forced to witness the execution or lie. Great idea.

I see why you like it though, it bumps the numbers supporting your opinion.

but if you support execution then you should be willing to witness what it is you support.

You support abortions. Would you be OK with a law forcing you to witness abortions or lie to get out of it?

If you can't witness it then you really can't support it except in a state of denial about what it is you really support.

I repeat my previous question.

Also, I should mention I'm not pro-death penalty. I have serious issues with it beyond the cruel and unusual punishment debate. I just can't believe you'd advocate what you're saying with a straight face.

#8 | Posted by jpw at 2014-07-24 09:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I just can't believe you'd advocate what you're saying with a straight face."

That society should have to witness the effects of their decisions? YOu find that objectionable? You are welcome to your opinion but I feel, quite strongly, that mine is actually ethical and correct because when a government can execute without wide spread attention it leads to governmental murder and I actively and positively oppose any such thing.

#9 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-24 09:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

Danni, you dodged the abortion question

#10 | Posted by eberly at 2014-07-24 10:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

You support abortions. Would you be OK with a law forcing you to witness abortions or lie to get out of it?

#8 | Posted by jpw at 2014-07-24 09:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

Apples and oranges. Abortion is one person deciding to end her pregnancy that only involves her and her Doctor. Execution involves the whole State taking the life of a killer. Not the same thing.

#11 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-24 10:10 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Nobody supports abortions,safe legal and rare is what we support.Men,fcs,a rubber could eradicate this problem but no it's the -----.If you can't feel (keep it up)
With a condom on,don't even bother.

#12 | Posted by bruceaz at 2014-07-24 10:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

You support abortions.

--------. She supports the right to choose.

#13 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-24 10:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

Conservatives are at war against women. They want to return them to mere property.

#14 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-24 10:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

I just can't believe you'd advocate what you're saying with a straight face.
#8 | Posted by jpw

Oh please.
If executions were public events they would fill the public square.
Just like in Saudi Arabia.

#15 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-24 10:32 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Oh please.
If executions were public events they would fill the public square.
Just like in Saudi Arabia.

Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-24 10:32 PM | Reply

They used to be public events with a meal afterwards.

#16 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-24 10:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

That state-sanctioned killings are not public events is nearly as big a disgrace as hiding from us the flag-draped coffins of those sent to die by the state.

Both are indicative of the same lack of morality.

#17 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-24 10:44 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

'public must acknowledge that executions are "brutal, savage events."'

If done right they're nothing worse than what puts meat on the table.

If done wrong.........

#18 | Posted by Tor at 2014-07-24 10:49 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

That state-sanctioned killings are not public events is nearly as big a disgrace as hiding from us the flag-draped coffins of those sent to die by the state.
Both are indicative of the same lack of morality.

#17 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

I agree, regarding the morality.... well thats relative.

#19 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2014-07-24 10:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

"judge called for replacing lethal injection with firing squads"

i repeat my (ignored) solution with an amendment: a good stiff shot of heroin, which is cheap, would take the executionee out quick. i know, it's too easy, and being painless doesn't satisfy the torture advocates.

i really think this snafu business is the road to executions being outlawed, which they should be, regardless of popular opinion (in the U.S., that is; popular opinion in the civilized world looks down on capital punishment).

#20 | Posted by kenx at 2014-07-24 10:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

You are welcome to your opinion but I feel, quite strongly, that mine is actually ethical and correct because when a government can execute without wide spread attention it leads to governmental murder and I actively and positively oppose any such thing.

#9 | POSTED BY DANNI

If you were to watch the execution, you should also be subject to the reason they are being executed. Seems reasonable.... no?

#21 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2014-07-24 11:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

regarding the morality.... well thats relative.
#19 | Posted by AndreaMackris

Relative? Relative to what? What are you talking about???
The state can be honest and forthright about the people it kills, or it can try to hide it.
If those are morally equivalent to you, you're a bigger weasel than I had imagined. And I imagine you as quite a large weasel indeed.

#22 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-24 11:07 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

Whatever happened to a good ol' fashioned crucifixion? I mean, if it was good enough for OUR LORD....?

#23 | Posted by Harry_Powell at 2014-07-24 11:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

To be fair, the judge called for firing squads, not burning crosses.

That his message resonates so well with people who want burning crosses is merely a coincidence.

And that his message resonates so well with people who say they don't want burning crosses, yet vote the same way as the people who do want burning crosses -- again, merely a coincidence.

Politics are strange that way. Plenty of "coincidences."

#24 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-24 11:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

I agree Harry,and we have nail guns now,but I think 16th century English disemboweling and drawing and quartering would really draw the crowds.Having said that some of tbese folks I'd garrot myself.

#25 | Posted by bruceaz at 2014-07-24 11:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'll repeat what I've said many a time before:

Silly Lefties....

We nasty evil conservatives would be overjoyed and happy to carry out relatively painless, and even low cost, executions, as gentle as an typical injection, an passing out like before surgery....... BUT ==YOU== MAKE THAT IMPOSSIBLE. So we take whatever execution type we can get, and CORRECTLY blame you if has to be nasty. You want 'more humane' executions? No problem, you just need to stop preventing them.

Stop driving up the cost, and Then using that as a justification to end executions.

Stop preventing the supply of medical grade drugs used in executions.

And above all, stop pissing on the memories of victims while you pretend compassion.

#26 | Posted by USAF242 at 2014-07-24 11:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

Execution involves the whole State taking the life of a killer. Not the same thing.

I understand that.

I was thinking (and was expecting arguments from) the privacy angle.

I don't think an inmate loses their right to privacy during their execution. It's not like anyone can show up if they want to.

But even then, the question was rhetorical (figured that was obvious given HIPAA).

#27 | Posted by jpw at 2014-07-25 12:01 AM | Reply | Flag:

She supports the right to choose.

OK. So some support the right for the state to choose the death penalty.

Any more semantics to hide behind?

If executions were public events they would fill the public square.
Just like in Saudi Arabia.

Never claimed otherwise.

If you're having trouble following the conversation, ask one of your parents to explain it to you. Otherwise, stop throwing out semantics and non sequiturs.

#28 | Posted by jpw at 2014-07-25 12:03 AM | Reply | Flag:

Stop preventing the supply of medical grade drugs used in executions.

When drugs are used in executions, they are no longer medicine.

#29 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-25 12:06 AM | Reply | Flag:

So some support the right for the state to choose the death penalty.

Just as some support the right for the state to choose slavery.

Did you have a point, do you think?

#30 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-25 12:07 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Did you have a point, do you think?

Yeah. I guess it either sailed over your head or you're trolling.

#31 | Posted by jpw at 2014-07-25 12:12 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

I don't think an inmate loses their right to privacy during their execution. It's not like anyone can show up if they want to.

But even then, the question was rhetorical (figured that was obvious given HIPAA).

Posted by jpw at 2014-07-25 12:01 AM | Reply

You lose your right to privacy when you become state property.

#32 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-25 12:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

You lose your right to privacy when you become state property.

Is this your opinion or fact?

Citations will be necessary.

#33 | Posted by jpw at 2014-07-25 12:18 AM | Reply | Flag:

Is this your opinion or fact?

Citations will be necessary.

Posted by jpw at 2014-07-25 12:18 AM | Reply

civilrights.findlaw.com

Inmates do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their prison cells and are not protected from "shakedowns," or searches of their cells to look for weapons, drugs, or other contraband. - See more at: civilrights.findlaw.com

Also if inmates had a right to privacy the media would be barred from witnessing it. Tis why there are two viewing rooms. One for the condemned family and another for the victims family and the media.

#34 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-25 12:24 AM | Reply | Flag:

I don't think an inmate loses their right to privacy during their execution. It's not like anyone can show up if they want to.

You can lose a right to privacy and still not have anyone show up if they want to.

That anyone can show up if they want to is not how we determine if a right to privacy has been lost.

Hope this helps. Doubt it will.

#35 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-25 12:31 AM | Reply | Flag:

So some support the right for the state to choose the death penalty.

Any more semantics to hide behind?

You're the one trumpeting a false equivalence between a state and an individual.

If an individual opts to walk down the street without any clothes on, that is not the same as the state stripping them naked and forcing them to march.

I guess those subtleties just go over some people's heads.

#36 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-25 12:36 AM | Reply | Flag:

Inmates do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their prison cells and are not protected from "shakedowns," or searches of their cells to look for weapons, drugs, or other contraband.

For safety and security reasons, I'm sure, not because they're "state property".

en.wikipedia.org

I've been trying to find the rationale for executions being closed but to a limited few people but have been unable to find anything.

The above contains links to federal and a couple of state statutes regarding who is allowed to be present as witnesses to executions.

In any case they're far from public and allowing the media to be present may be proof of transparency.

In any case, this conversation has gone far afield from what I intended.

#37 | Posted by jpw at 2014-07-25 12:38 AM | Reply | Flag:

That anyone can show up if they want to is not how we determine if a right to privacy has been lost.

Hope this helps. Doubt it will.

No, it doesn't Zed Jr.

So mandating executions be conducted publicly would not indicate a loss of privacy rights?

You're the one trumpeting a false equivalence between a state and an individual.

I was the one asking a rhetorical question regarding whether Danni would hold the same view that one must witness something they support if it's one of her sacred cows.

I guess those subtleties just go over some people's heads.

I guess some people have to hide behind hype literalism to avoid thinking.

#38 | Posted by jpw at 2014-07-25 12:42 AM | Reply | Flag:

So mandating executions be conducted publicly would not indicate a loss of privacy rights?

Have you looked at the history of why we no longer have public executions?
The privacy lost in a public execution is that of the executioner.

#39 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-25 12:43 AM | Reply | Flag:

would not indicate a loss of privacy rights for the condemned?

#40 | Posted by jpw at 2014-07-25 12:44 AM | Reply | Flag:

Have you looked at the history of why we no longer have public executions?
The privacy lost in a public execution is that of the executioner.

I've been trying to find explanations for the legal statutes behind closed executions. I stated such in my post to Larry.

#41 | Posted by jpw at 2014-07-25 12:44 AM | Reply | Flag:

I've been trying to find the rationale for executions being closed but to a limited few people but have been unable to find anything.

The above contains links to federal and a couple of state statutes regarding who is allowed to be present as witnesses to executions.

In any case they're far from public and allowing the media to be present may be proof of transparency.

In any case, this conversation has gone far afield from what I intended.

Posted by jpw at 2014-07-25 12:38 AM | Reply

Because executions in the pre closed era were macabre spectacles with much celebrating and feasting. Also with enlightenment came embarrassment and shame for the government taking life. They realized that how wrong the action was.

#42 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-25 12:45 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

would not indicate a loss of privacy rights for the condemned?
#40 | Posted by jpw

Loss?
What sort of privacy rights did you envision the condemned to retain?

#43 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-25 12:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

I've been trying to find the rationale for executions being closed but to a limited few people but have been unable to find anything.

A perceived threat of retribution against the executioner and other participants in the killing.

#44 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-25 12:50 AM | Reply | Flag:

What sort of privacy rights did you envision the condemned to retain?

Not dying as a form of public entertainment.

Their lives are not open to anyone who feels the need to look.

In any case, searches I've been doing indicate that legally, prisoners are considered to not have privacy rights.

I guess I drew a distinction between loss to COs for obvious reasons and the fact that their personal information beyond public records regarding their case and conviction is not suddenly available, executions not viewable ect.

Apparently the law doesn't parse things that finely.

#45 | Posted by jpw at 2014-07-25 12:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

A perceived threat of retribution against the executioner and other participants in the killing.

Hmm. Doesn't make sense within the context of modern laws since the family is allowed to view it anyway.

#46 | Posted by jpw at 2014-07-25 12:56 AM | Reply | Flag:

I don't think an inmate loses their right to privacy during their execution.

Because they lost it long before then, when they became an inmate. How do you not know these things?

#47 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-25 12:56 AM | Reply | Flag:

www.npr.org

In 1936, reporters blasted what they called the 'carnival in Owensboro.' Many scholars say Bethea's execution -- and the coverage it received -- led to a banning of public executions in America. However, that will change with the closed-circuit television coverage of Timothy McVeigh's execution. The convicted Oklahoma City bomber is scheduled to die by lethal injection May 16* at a federal prison in Terre Haute, Indiana.

#48 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-25 12:57 AM | Reply | Flag:

Their lives are not open to anyone who feels the need to look.

But we're not talking about their lives. We're discussing the ceremony when they stop being alive, pursuant to a penalty imposed by society.

How the deliberate killing of someone by the state can be anything but a public affair... maybe a right-winger can explain it to you, because I sure can't. (See also: Forbidding the press from taking pictures of flag-draped coffins coming home.)

#49 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-25 01:01 AM | Reply | Flag:

Because they lost it long before then, when they became an inmate. How do you not know these things?

#45

#50 | Posted by jpw at 2014-07-25 01:02 AM | Reply | Flag:

A perceived threat of retribution against the executioner and other participants in the killing.

#44 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-25 12:50 AM | Reply | Flag:

Tis why the ACTUAL ones doing the executing are in another room to push the syringes into the tubing through a little hole in the wall or flipping the switch on the electric chairs or dropping the cyanide pills into the gas chamber and having 5 people with rifles with only 1 I believe having a live round.

#51 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-25 01:02 AM | Reply | Flag:

maybe a right-winger can explain it to you, because I sure can't.

Whatever. I admit I was wrong. Don't really care beyond that.

Forbidding the press from taking pictures of flag-draped coffins coming home.

I'd be OK with that being allowed. I don't really get the ban on it other than hiding the true cost of the right wing's recent foreign policy debacles.

#52 | Posted by jpw at 2014-07-25 01:05 AM | Reply | Flag:

having 5 people with rifles with only 1 I believe having a live round.

I thought that was a firing squad thing, except in reverse.

One had a blank cartridge but no one knew who, so any could believe it was them and, therefore, they didn't partake in the execution.

#53 | Posted by jpw at 2014-07-25 01:06 AM | Reply | Flag:

Doesn't make sense within the context of modern laws since the family is allowed to view it anyway.
#46 | Posted by jpw

So? Plenty of laws don't make sense. Plenty of people outside family members might be motivated for revenge. Fellow gang members for example.

Tim McVeigh took revenge on the state for Ruby Ridge; none of his family members were at Ruby Ridge. Hope this helps.

#54 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-25 01:07 AM | Reply | Flag:

I thought that was a firing squad thing, except in reverse.

One had a blank cartridge but no one knew who, so any could believe it was them and, therefore, they didn't partake in the execution.

Posted by jpw at 2014-07-25 01:06 AM | Reply

I think you're right. 4 real bullets one blank.

#55 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-25 01:09 AM | Reply | Flag:

I don't really get the ban on it other than hiding the true cost of the right wing's recent foreign policy debacles.
#52 | Posted by jpw

Well, if you can understand that, when it comes to the death penalty, perhaps you remember reading "To Kill A Mockingbird" in school.

And perhaps you can understand why people involved in a justice system like that would prefer their identities to remain anonymous.

Hope this helps.

#56 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-25 01:11 AM | Reply | Flag:

Plenty of people outside family members might be motivated for revenge. Fellow gang members for example.

And at least the federal statues allows friends or relatives.

Oops.

Tim McVeigh took revenge on the state for Ruby Ridge; none of his family members were at Ruby Ridge.

Tim McVeigh didn't act because he knew the identity of the killer(s), ie executioners, did he?

For someone quick to jump on a false comparison, you sure seem apt to making them yourself.

Mine at least had rhetorical value. Yours is just so you can throw in a lame condescending closing shot to smugly pat yourself on the back.

#57 | Posted by jpw at 2014-07-25 01:15 AM | Reply | Flag:

I think it was Grover Cleveland that while mayor decided he'd also be the cities official hangman in a time of public hanging.

Far from someone who delighted in this task he erected a curtain that was drawn around the scaffolding right before an execution and for a couple of minutes afterwards.

He deliberately did this not only to provide the condemned with some dignity but to drive away the ghoulish people who saw such an event as entertainment.

#58 | Posted by Tor at 2014-07-25 01:17 AM | Reply | Flag:

And perhaps you can understand why people involved in a justice system like that would prefer their identities to remain anonymous.

As Larry already mentioned, the guy actually hitting the kill switch (lol...don't soil your panties) is not visible.

So I guess Tim McVeigh guessed that the wizard was from Oklahoma City?

#59 | Posted by jpw at 2014-07-25 01:18 AM | Reply | Flag:

Hope this helps.

SMH.

*pats Snoofy's head*

There you go big guy. I'd give you a cookie if I could.

#60 | Posted by jpw at 2014-07-25 01:19 AM | Reply | Flag:

JPW

I can't fathom how anyone aware of facts like America has the most prisoners in the world and America carries out by far the most executions in the free world would seriously entertain the notion that the reason America doesn't have public executions is respect for the people we're executing.

I mean, we're executing them. If we respected them we wouldn't be doing that. I don't know how much more obvious it could be.

#61 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-25 01:22 AM | Reply | Flag:

As Larry already mentioned, the guy actually hitting the kill switch (lol...don't soil your panties) is not visible.

Not anymore, no.
Any thoughts on why that's no longer the case?
Or has this whole discussion just sailed right over your head?

#62 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-25 01:23 AM | Reply | Flag:

"One had a blank cartridge but no one knew who, so any could believe it was them and, therefore, they didn't partake in the execution."

That's an odd tradition. Any rifleman knows the difference between a blank and a live round.

They do the same thing with lethal injections... multiple syringes and one empty one. I might be wrong on this point, but I saw it somewhere.

#63 | Posted by REDIAL at 2014-07-25 01:23 AM | Reply | Flag:

I think it was Grover Cleveland that while mayor decided he'd also be the cities official hangman in a time of public hanging.

Far from someone who delighted in this task he erected a curtain that was drawn around the scaffolding right before an execution and for a couple of minutes afterwards.

He deliberately did this not only to provide the condemned with some dignity but to drive away the ghoulish people who saw such an event as entertainment.

Posted by Tor at 2014-07-25 01:17 AM | Reply

Yeppers while he was Sheriff.

#64 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-25 01:26 AM | Reply | Flag:

So I guess Tim McVeigh guessed that the wizard was from Oklahoma City?
#59 | Posted by jpw

Mr. McVeigh perceived that the hydra of a state which assassinated Ms. Weaver at Ruby Ridge left one of its necks exposed in Oklahoma City.

#65 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-25 01:35 AM | Reply | Flag:

would seriously entertain the notion that the reason America doesn't have public executions is respect for the people we're executing.

It doesn't have to be out of respect for the condemned.

But out of respect for the Constitution and the rule of law.

I'm a bit idealistic in that regard. (call it naivete if you'd like, I don't care)

I mean, we're executing them. If we respected them we wouldn't be doing that. I don't know how much more obvious it could be.

Again, it's not a concept regarding the individual.

It's the same concept behind providing adequate and competent legal council for a person accused of ____(insert most deplorable crime here).

It's not respect for a person committing X crime that drives that ideal, but respect for what the process should be and the hope that by preserving that respect the process is preserved. Do you honestly think a lawyer defending a client they know is guilty is doing so because they respect the person?

Is it idealistic? Absolutely. Naive? Probably.

But it's better than succumbing to base instinct and having public hangings and torture again, no?

#66 | Posted by jpw at 2014-07-25 01:42 AM | Reply | Flag:

Not anymore, no.
Any thoughts on why that's no longer the case?
Or has this whole discussion just sailed right over your head?

So the person pushing the drugs, the "executioner", is now visible to the limited audience?

I'll ignore the last line and let you keep that notch in the perceived W column.

#67 | Posted by jpw at 2014-07-25 01:44 AM | Reply | Flag:

Mr. McVeigh perceived that the hydra of a state which assassinated Ms. Weaver at Ruby Ridge left one of its necks exposed in Oklahoma City.

So knowing this you decided to make this irrelevant argument anyway?

Do you have any actual cases of a member of the public extracting revenge on an executioner?

#68 | Posted by jpw at 2014-07-25 01:45 AM | Reply | Flag:

Do you honestly think a lawyer defending a client they know is guilty is doing so because they respect the person?
#66 | Posted by jpw

Respect for the defendant is irrelevant. Whether the client is innocent or guilty is irrelevant. Their job is to defend their client.

Really, what they need to respect is our adversarial justice system.

So the person pushing the drugs, the "executioner", is now visible to the limited audience?

I suspect it varies from state to state. But this is the current regime, where executions are not public. I doubt that your questions about today's private executions will help you understand why executions are no longer public. That's like looking at a puddle of water and hoping to understand the ice that melted.

#69 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-25 01:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

I suspect it varies from state to state.

You suspect? You made it sound like you knew. Do you at least know the answer for A state?

I doubt that your questions about today's private executions will help you understand why executions are no longer public.

I doubt you will either.

You seem more worried about asserting the validity of your precious opinion than actually discussing something or, God forbid, learning something.

That's like looking at a puddle of water and hoping to understand the ice that melted.

Or like looking at your posts and wondering how [...] ever became brains?

#70 | Posted by jpw at 2014-07-25 02:02 AM | Reply | Flag:

Do you at least know the answer for A state?

And no, oh master of semantics, wandering thoughts and false confidence, by A state I don't mean Arkansas, Alabama, Alaska or Arizona.

#71 | Posted by jpw at 2014-07-25 02:04 AM | Reply | Flag:

Do you have any actual cases of a member of the public extracting revenge on an executioner?

If I did, would it change anything?
I'm relating to you a rationalization for private executions.
Hopefully you possess sufficient mental bandwidth to understand that it's not my rationalization.

#72 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-25 02:05 AM | Reply | Flag:

You suspect? You made it sound like you knew. Do you at least know the answer for A state?

"The intravenous tubing leads to a room next to the execution chamber, usually separated from the offender by a curtain or wall." en.wikipedia.org

#73 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-25 02:15 AM | Reply | Flag:

I'm relating to you a rationalization for private executions.

An antiquated one.

One that you've provided false arguments against.

Any thoughts of your own?

Hopefully you possess sufficient mental bandwidth to understand that it's not my rationalization.

No, I get it just fine.

I also understand that you lack the ability to think outside what you can comfortably cut and past or at least claim to be commonly held thoughts by others.

I admitted I couldn't find the rationalization behind closing executions that led to the linked statutes.

You've continued to act like you know but have yet to produce the actual information.

In fact, you've been shown to be full of [...] and still have gall to act like you know WTF you're talking about.

#74 | Posted by jpw at 2014-07-25 02:33 AM | Reply | Flag:

It's the same concept behind providing adequate and competent legal council for a person accused of ____(insert most deplorable crime here).

I don't think so. If it were, executions wouldn't have once been public and then gone private. It would be one or the other. Just as our trial system has always allowed a Fifth Amendment defense and so forth. It's not like executions are a new thing for the law to wrestle with.

It's not respect for a person committing X crime that drives that ideal, but respect for what the process should be and the hope that by preserving that respect the process is preserved.

What is it about the process of capital punishment which is disrespected when it's carried out in public instead of private? Sounds like you're just spewing words that can't possibly mean anything. If what you're saying is right then capital punishment was disrespected since long before America existed when it was routinely carried out in public. Or it's being disrespected just lately now, when it's carried out in private, and the way they do it in Saudi Arabia is better. Which is it, I wonder...

#75 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-25 02:43 AM | Reply | Flag:

I'm relating to you a rationalization for private executions.
An antiquated one.

Yes, antiquated. Seeing as the last public execution in America was in 1936, what alternative did you perceive?

#76 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-25 02:56 AM | Reply | Flag:

JPW did you read this?
gjs.appstate.edu

#77 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-25 03:10 AM | Reply | Flag:

If it were, executions wouldn't have once been public and then gone private. It would be one or the other...

That's an assumption on your part, one that doesn't allow for evolution of thought.

For instance, see post #40 of

www.drudge.com

Clearly, our ideas of execution are different from the days of yore.

If we're to return to public executions as some sort of PSA, should we return to gruesome methods of execution to drive the lesson home?

After all, what fun is it to watch someone fall asleep and how much fear can one induce by the cessation of a chest rising and falling?

What is it about the process of capital punishment which is disrespected when it's carried out in public instead of private?

Public execution smacks of revenge. You not only get the humiliation of dying (which means [...]ting and [...]ing yourself as muscles relax) but also the public shame and derision associated with the process. Think the final scene of Braveheart when he's pelted with veggies and spit.

The death penalty shouldn't be about revenge. It should be about permanently removing truly dangerous people from society. (remember, I'm not pro-death penalty as stated above)

None of this even touches on the dehumanizing nature of turning a person's death into a public spectacle.

I thought the fact that people were celebrating outside the WH over the death of Osama Bin Laden was macabre. What does that tell you about my views of the death penalty?

If what you're saying is right then capital punishment was disrespected since long before America existed when it was routinely carried out in public.

You're assuming schools of thought existent now were existent then but ignored or mocked.

Sort of dumb, don't you think?

Which is it, I wonder...

Considering you apparently want it to be like Saudi Arabia's method, I'll leave this question for you to answer.

#78 | Posted by jpw at 2014-07-25 03:38 AM | Reply | Flag:

Yes, antiquated. Seeing as the last public execution in America was in 1936, what alternative did you perceive?

The point was that executions behind walls have not resulted in the easy identification of the executioner.

In other words, I'm doubting the rationale in general is true. Why execute behind closed doors but still hid identities?

#79 | Posted by jpw at 2014-07-25 03:41 AM | Reply | Flag:

JPW did you read this?

Nope. Thanks for the link.

#80 | Posted by jpw at 2014-07-25 03:42 AM | Reply | Flag:

The point was that executions behind walls have not resulted in the easy identification of the executioner.

Well then we're agreeing. I was suggesting that this was a reason (rationale) for making them private.
Not that making them private was interned to make more information about the executions and the personnel involved becoming public. Obviously making something private doesn't make it more public. Edward Snowden notwithstanding.

Considering you apparently want it to be like Saudi Arabia's method, I'll leave this question for you to answer.
#78 | Posted by jpw

If we are to have executions, they should be public.
Just like if we are to have flag draped coffins coming home, they should be public.
When the state can hide the skeletons of its own making in the closet, that's a problem.

#81 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-25 03:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

I am of the belief that the murderers should be killed just like they killed their victims. If they tortured them to death, killer should get the same. Fast death, same for killer.

#82 | Posted by rehabber at 2014-07-25 07:00 AM | Reply | Flag:

#12 | POSTED BY BRUCEAZ AT 2014-07-24 10:17 PM | FLAG:

"rare". Right.

Republicans are trying to make abortion rare, by wiping it out.

Democrats are trying to make it readily available, with full federal funding of the clinics that do it. That's the exact opposite of making something rare. Saying you're trying to make it rare while greatly expanding availability is extreme cognitive dissonance. Stop lying to yourself. You are making the rest of us pro-abortion advocates look like liars.

#83 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-07-25 10:06 AM | Reply | Flag:

It's not a lie, Sitzkrieg. Pro-choice advocates seek to make abortion rare by supporting broad access to contraceptives and real, non-abstinence based sex education for teens.

Calling yourself "pro-abortion" is dumb. You're buying the other side's spin with that term.

#84 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-25 10:19 AM | Reply | Flag:

Calling yourself "pro-abortion" is dumb. You're buying the other side's spin with that term.

#84 | POSTED BY RCADE AT 2014-07-25 10:19 AM | FLAG:

No, I think people on the pro side is spinning the term "rare" as hard as they can. "Pro-choice" is just pro-abortion spin. I'm pro-abortion. If you want or need one, go get one.

#85 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-07-25 10:33 AM | Reply | Flag:

Classy, danni. Pure class.

I don't see a lack of class in Danni's idea. People are being executed on our behalf. If a person is not willing to face that reality as a witness called to observe it, that person should oppose the death penalty.

#86 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-25 10:35 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

I think we should dress death row criminals up as superheros and throw them off tall buildings.

#87 | Posted by Sully at 2014-07-25 10:46 AM | Reply | Flag:

No, I think people on the pro side is spinning the term "rare" as hard as they can.

It's the truth. Conservatives are stupid about birth control, so they contribute to unwanted pregnancies. If you're for birth control, you're seeking to reduce unwanted pregnancies and thus reduce abortion.

Wanting abortion to be available to the women who make that choice is not the same thing as being in favor of abortion over carrying children to term.

I'm pro-choice and pro-people making the choice to have babies. A lot of women who have abortions go on later to have families when their circumstances better enable them to support and raise children.

#88 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-25 10:56 AM | Reply | Flag:

It's the truth.

#88 | POSTED BY RCADE AT 2014-07-25 10:56 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

Market it to yourself however you want. All I see is spin.

#89 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-07-25 11:08 AM | Reply | Flag:

I see someone undercutting his own position. But there are certainly times I tire of language that's excessively fake, like never calling a baby in the womb a baby if you're pro-choice.

I've never seen Democrats propose "full federal funding" of abortion clinics, by the way. "Safe, legal and rare" has never been "safe, legal, rare and free."

#90 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-25 11:21 AM | Reply | Flag:

Oh, and to the OP, we should probably use firing squads.

Assuming the nation is actually okay with capital punishment (doubt it), and lets just pretend they haven't executed the wrong people before... If they're going to execute people, just use a rifle. It works.

#91 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-07-25 11:22 AM | Reply | Flag:

"A lot of women who have abortions go on later to have families when their circumstances better enable them to support and raise children."

All I want to say on this subject is that the "abortion for convenience" is the part most object to. I don't know anyone personally who thinks a woman should be forced to continue a pregnancy threatening her life, serious health, or as a result of rape or incest. That is as radical to me as is unlimited, "free" abortions.

#92 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-07-25 11:24 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Assuming the nation is actually okay with capital punishment (doubt it), and lets just pretend they haven't executed the wrong people before... If they're going to execute people, just use a rifle. It works."

I'm a convert to opposing the death penalty because I don't trust those in the justice system. I'd hate to be accused of a capital crime and have Mike Nifong be my prosecutor for instance. There are many like him who have the support of police and others in the system as well. Since the advent of DNA and the release of a hundred or so from death row, I'm quite sure that there have been innocent people executed.

#93 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-07-25 11:31 AM | Reply | Flag:

I've never seen Democrats propose "full federal funding" of abortion clinics, by the way. "Safe, legal and rare" has never been "safe, legal, rare and free."

#90 | POSTED BY RCADE AT 2014-07-25 11:21 AM | FLAG:

The President's science adviser has previously advocated for federally forced abortions and sterilizations. Doesn't get much more hardcore pro-abortion than that. Generally though the center of the Dem party tends to only want federal funding for it in special circumstances, which is probably the long term winning political position for them to take.

Anyways we're derailing, back to capital punishment.

#94 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-07-25 11:33 AM | Reply | Flag:

I'm a convert to opposing the death penalty because I don't trust those in the justice system.

I'm off the pro-death penalty train too. This last botched execution was the final straw. The whole system is full of error -- innocent people executed, appeals that go on forever and now botched executions.

#95 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-25 11:56 AM | Reply | Flag:

The President's science adviser has previously advocated for federally forced abortions and sterilizations.

You're talking about crazy ideas in a textbook written in 1977 by someone who completely disavows those ideas today.

I'm talking about mainstream Democratic policies, which do not advocate free federal funded abortion.

#96 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-25 11:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

abortion is an execution of a innocent person without the benefit of a trial some times brutal and painful-but most here support it-firing squad would probably be more humane

#97 | Posted by lastomykind at 2014-07-25 12:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm talking about mainstream Democratic policies, which do not advocate free federal funded abortion.

#96 | POSTED BY RCADE AT 2014-07-25 11:58 AM | FLAG:

I don't think that's been advocated for since the mid 90s when a bunch of Democrat women did it, straight up free abortions. Currently Planned Parenthood, ACLU, etc, advocate against the Hyde Amendment, to federally fund abortions where economic subsidies are seen as needed, without a restriction on reasons for the abortion. I guess the degree of their mainstream influence is debatable, but that seems to be the end game, getting rid of Hyde as soon as politically convenient as it disenfranchises women.

#98 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-07-25 01:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

I don't know anyone personally who thinks a woman should be forced to continue a pregnancy threatening her life, serious health, or as a result of rape or ------.
#92 | Posted by jestgettinalong

You could easily remedy that situation by getting to know Jesus. They'll be happy to to tell you all about it at your local Baptist church.

#99 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-25 01:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

best idea yet

#100 | Posted by danv at 2014-07-25 02:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

"best idea yet"

Idiotic. The State has no business executing citizens. You call yourself a libertarian?

#101 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-07-25 02:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

abortion is an execution of a innocent person without the benefit of a trial some times brutal and painful-but most here support it-firing squad would probably be more humane
#97 | Posted by lastomykind

That's only because it's nearly impossible to get the fetus to put their hand on a Bible for the swearing-in process.

But seriously, if you can't tell the difference between an individual acting and the state acting... what are you like a Borg or something?

#102 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-25 02:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

Executions should be public and available for purchase on pay-per-view.
And they should be shown in right-wing churches.

#5 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2014-07-24 09:01 PM | REPLY | FLAG

And we could host live abortions in leftist church's. Which would be prime time TV and the public schools.

#103 | Posted by RobThomas at 2014-07-25 02:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

If you want a clean house you have to take out the garbage sometime... just make it cheap. IDK how progressives dont want to progress and eliminate the psychotic elements that hold us back. Some people deserve to die. Might as well be quick and cheap, we have a bunch of new kids to look after with that money...

#104 | Posted by monkeylogic42 at 2014-07-25 02:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

Do executions like they do in the PRC, and the old USSR; one pistol, one bullet to the head- harvest the usable organs- (they are property of the state), grind up the leftovers feed to dogs or pigs. Send the executed's family members a bill for the bullet. Isn't left wing government a paradise? Isn't such a paradise the true objective of progressives? We won't be free until we have total control.

#105 | Posted by docnjo at 2014-07-25 02:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

#101 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-07-25 02:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yup, I am for liberty, you take someones liberty, i.e. murder, you lose you liberty i.e. death penalty

#106 | Posted by danv at 2014-07-25 02:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

"If you were to watch the execution, you should also be subject to the reason they are being executed. Seems reasonable.... no?"

Of course, the crime the committed and were convicted of along with details about it should be announced before the execution takes place.

#107 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-25 03:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Yeppers while he was Sheriff."

Have to love the way he ruined creeps day.

#108 | Posted by Tor at 2014-07-25 03:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort