|
Post by Potassium_Pixie on Mar 22, 2017 19:18:36 GMT -6
Not sure if anybody has ever seen this video, but I decided I would post it here since this board seems to be dead as most people on death row are going to be. It is basically a reconstruction of a lethal injection scene that was botched. The video is from an anti-DP YouTube channel but I am still posting it because I find it interesting and want to see your takes on it. This is apparently how an execution would work, though this is just a reconstruction scene.
Based on the evidence of how the scene was set up, I'm gonna venture a guess that the execution scene was based on the massive cluster that happened when Ohio tried to execute Clayton Lockett and couldn't get it right because they hired someone off the street who pushed the needle through the vein rather than a trained EMT (which ISN'T against the Hippocratic Oath since they aren't technically doctors) to insert the IVs correct. They have most of the same information that was gotten from Lockett's execution, such as the needle going through the vein, the drugs not taking effect because of that, him suffocating while half-conscious as well as the drugs used (Midazolam, Vecuronium and Potassium). Me posting this is in no way me saying that I'm against capital punishment. I'm only posting it because I wanted to get your take on it.
So watch and please comment on what you think.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Mar 23, 2017 10:27:18 GMT -6
I don't have to watch the video, whose content is irrelevant to the underlying issue.
It amazes me how those responsible for executions trip over themselves trying to make it "humane." It's ridiculous. There will never be any such thing.
Make the condemned dig his own grave, and shoot him twice in the head. Be done with it.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Mar 23, 2017 15:52:19 GMT -6
I saw this a long time ago, or like it. Really pissed them off when you post the bloody crime scene's, to remind them of the whys for a DP. Crime scene's are horrific reality.
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Mar 23, 2017 22:22:23 GMT -6
Lockett's execution was in Oklahoma, not Ohio. Additionally, the attempts to start the IV were not made by someone the OKDC pulled off the street. The first attempts were made by a trained paramedic and then a doctor who was present. The problems starting the IV and the collapse of the femoral vein was due to Lockett's history of drug use.
While Lockett may have suffered, his execution wasn't botched. He died,, which was the purpose of the execution.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Mar 24, 2017 19:57:49 GMT -6
Make the condemned dig his own grave, How?
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Mar 26, 2017 16:46:43 GMT -6
Is that a trick question, Bernard?
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Mar 30, 2017 1:16:00 GMT -6
Is that a trick question, Bernard? No, it's a tricky question. How do you coerce a man to dig his own grave when you have nothing left to threaten him with?
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Mar 30, 2017 7:27:07 GMT -6
No, it's a tricky question. How do you coerce a man to dig his own grave when you have nothing left to threaten him with? A man wants to stay alive as long as possible. Criminals are no exception. Plus there's always torture.
|
|
|
Post by Woody on Mar 30, 2017 9:32:32 GMT -6
No, it's a tricky question. How do you coerce a man to dig his own grave when you have nothing left to threaten him with? A man wants to stay alive as long as possible. Criminals are no exception. Plus there's always torture. People who torture are criminals.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Mar 31, 2017 13:00:21 GMT -6
People who torture are criminals. Not if the torture is legal.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Apr 1, 2017 5:27:35 GMT -6
People who torture are criminals. Not if the torture is legal. But it isn't.
|
|
|
Post by Woody on Apr 1, 2017 8:16:04 GMT -6
People who torture are criminals. Not if the torture is legal. That is what most Nazis said in their trials.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Apr 2, 2017 17:09:41 GMT -6
That is what most Nazis said in their trials. And they were right. They did not violate any of the laws of Germany.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Apr 3, 2017 1:23:37 GMT -6
That is what most Nazis said in their trials. And they were right. They did not violate any of the laws of Germany. So what? They broke the laws of Poland. In Poland.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Apr 3, 2017 7:59:39 GMT -6
They broke the laws of Poland. In Poland. They were therefore eligible to be prosecuted by the Poles, in a Polish court. Again, where torture is legal, it is not criminal. And what constitutes torture is wildly subjective.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Apr 3, 2017 17:06:01 GMT -6
what constitutes torture is wildly subjective. Sure, but it's immaterial. Once you're administering pain, not as part of the prescribed punishment determined by a court of law, but as a means of coercion (to make the prisoner dig his own grave) you are way over the constitutional foul line.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Apr 3, 2017 18:33:44 GMT -6
Once you're administering pain, not as part of the prescribed punishment determined by a court of law, but as a means of coercion (to make the prisoner dig his own grave) you are way over the constitutional foul line. I have long argued for a repeal of the Eighth Amendment. It doesn't belong in the federal constitution.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Apr 3, 2017 19:07:46 GMT -6
Once you're administering pain, not as part of the prescribed punishment determined by a court of law, but as a means of coercion (to make the prisoner dig his own grave) you are way over the constitutional foul line. I have long argued for a repeal of the Eighth Amendment. It doesn't belong in the federal constitution. Then imagine it is in the state constitution. It would still prevent you from torturing a person into digging his own grave. Why, by the way, are you so possessed with the idea of making the guy dig his own grave? An excavator could do it in a fraction of the time.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Apr 3, 2017 19:53:31 GMT -6
Why, by the way, are you so possessed with the idea of making the guy dig his own grave? An excavator could do it in a fraction of the time. It may appear that way, but I'm not. I'd just shoot the condemned in their cells and be done with it.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Jun 1, 2017 21:57:44 GMT -6
People who torture are criminals. Not if the torture is legal. That's what is known as the "Nuremberg Defense". Unfortunately for those Nazi war criminals there was something known as the Nuremberg Principles which fundamentally dictate that you're responsible for your own actions. Bottom-line; those murdering sadistic war criminals still ended up being hanged.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jun 2, 2017 8:52:55 GMT -6
The Nuremberg "principles" have no weight in U.S. law, and the Nuremberg trials were a sham.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Jun 4, 2017 15:35:47 GMT -6
The Nuremberg "principles" have no weight in U.S. law, and the Nuremberg trials were a sham. Totally irrelevant! The Nuremberg Principles had no weight in the Third Reich either but those Nazi concentration camp guards who were convicted of torturing inmates were still classified as criminals. And even if those individuals committing acts of legalized torture in the U.S. are not subject to criminal prosecution in this country they may very well be classified as criminals by those in other countries. Unfortunately you assume that they are not criminals just because they have immunity from prosecution.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jun 5, 2017 9:18:59 GMT -6
Totally irrelevant! The Nuremberg Principles had no weight in the Third Reich either but those Nazi concentration camp guards who were convicted of torturing inmates were still classified as criminals. You can classify them as anything you want, but they were not guilty of crimes against "humanity," as there are none. even if those individuals committing acts of legalized torture in the U.S. are not subject to criminal prosecution in this country they may very well be classified as criminals by those in other countries. We don't recognize foreign jurisdiction of crimes committed inside the United States. Unfortunately you assume that they are not criminals just because they have immunity from prosecution. Under the definition of "criminal," someone who hasn't committed a crime under the law can't be described as a criminal.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Jun 6, 2017 1:09:53 GMT -6
Under the definition of "criminal," someone who hasn't committed a crime under the law can't be described as a criminal. Sure they can if their actions are characteristic of criminal behavior. This is from the American heritage dictionary; see three B "Characteristic of a criminal." crim·i·nal (krĭmə-nəl) Share: adj. 1. Of, involving, or having the nature of crime: criminal abuse. 2. Relating to the administration of penal law. 3. a. Guilty of crime. b. Characteristic of a criminal. 4. Shameful; disgraceful: a criminal waste of talent. n. One that has committed or been legally convicted of a crime.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jun 7, 2017 15:46:24 GMT -6
Sure they can if their actions are characteristic of criminal behavior. But that is dependent on a legal definition of crime. This is from the American heritage dictionary; see three B "Characteristic of a criminal."....One that has committed or been legally convicted of a crime. As I stated. If behavior is not regarded as criminal, under the law, then the behavior is not per se criminal. You can regard torture as "shameful," but it isn't criminal until the state defines it as criminal.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Jun 10, 2017 14:12:25 GMT -6
If behavior is not regarded as criminal, under the law, then the behavior is not per se criminal. You can regard torture as "shameful," but it isn't criminal until the state defines it as criminal. Your argument does not hold any water because the behavior of Nazi war criminals was most likely not regarded as criminal under the laws of the Third Reich but such criminals were still hanged nonetheless. Also, after the war in the former Yugoslavia was over there was an international tribunal set up to prosecute those who had committed war crimes during that conflict. So essentially what you're doing is telling me the way things should be in theory, whereas, I am telling you the way things actually are in reality.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jun 12, 2017 8:05:56 GMT -6
So essentially what you're doing is telling me the way things should be in theory, whereas, I am telling you the way things actually are in reality. In reality, the United States has never been prosecuted for war crimes, nor has any of its employees, and this country, if the laughable "crimes against humanity" were actually considered legally valid, would certainly be guilty of them.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Jun 12, 2017 12:06:37 GMT -6
In reality, the United States has never been prosecuted for war crimes, nor has any of its employees. Even if that was true, and it's NOT, it would not negate my argument because the United States is only one country. And do be advised that a large number of American Airmen were prosecuted and executed by the Japanese during World War II for what the Japanese considered to be war crimes. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_Airmen%27s_Act
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jun 13, 2017 8:29:37 GMT -6
Even if that was true, and it's NOT No, it's true. The United States has never been prosecuted for either war "crimes," (as if), or "crimes" against "humanity." it would not negate my argument because the United States is only one country. It's the exception that vitiates the rule. If the United States has immunity from prosecution for these alleged crimes, so should any other country. a large number of American Airmen were prosecuted and executed by the Japanese during World War II for what the Japanese considered to be war crimes. Precisely my point. There are no universally-regarded standards, and no binding legal agreements, regarding wartime conduct. I have no problem killing war captives just because, but to invoke international law? Any child can see that as bullsh#t.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Jun 13, 2017 17:13:55 GMT -6
No, you stated that, "the United States has never been prosecuted for war crimes, nor has any of its employees." I therefore proved such allegation wrong by making reference to the case of American airmen who were tried and executed by the Japanese for alleged war crimes. However, getting back to your initial claim that one who tortures cannot be considered a criminal, if there are no laws against torture, is sheer bunk. There were no laws against torture in German concentration camps but the individuals engaging in it were still considered criminals at their trial in Nuremberg.
|
|