|
Post by deathcub2000 on Apr 17, 2017 12:32:53 GMT -6
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/15/judge-halts-multiple-arkansas-executions-after-com/Judge Griffen halts executions in Arkansas, then joins anti-death penalty protesters outside the Governor's mansion in protest. Evidently the Judge ruled on emotions and not the law. There is a picture of the judge laying on a gurney illustrating the lethal injection process. In a thread to follow this, I show a thumbnail list of the men to be executed. To you who believe that lethal injection is cruel and unusual, I would say that the murders committed by the killers take more time and was way more painful than the drugs to be used to execute them.
|
|
|
Post by starbux on May 10, 2017 20:11:36 GMT -6
He needs to be impeached. It is not his job to make the laws. It is his job to make sure the laws are carried out in accordance with the constitution. What a shtbag, piece of sht.
|
|
|
Post by dradiv on Oct 29, 2017 19:14:40 GMT -6
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/15/judge-halts-multiple-arkansas-executions-after-com/Judge Griffen halts executions in Arkansas, then joins anti-death penalty protesters outside the Governor's mansion in protest. Evidently the Judge ruled on emotions and not the law. There is a picture of the judge laying on a gurney illustrating the lethal injection process. In a thread to follow this, I show a thumbnail list of the men to be executed. To you who believe that lethal injection is cruel and unusual, I would say that the murders committed by the killers take more time and was way more painful than the drugs to be used to execute them.
|
|
|
Post by dradiv on Oct 29, 2017 19:16:29 GMT -6
A judge should be able to follow the law and not have any personal agenda dictate his decision. At that point the judge should have removed himself from being a judge
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Oct 29, 2017 21:28:53 GMT -6
To you who believe that lethal injection is cruel and unusual, I would say that the murders committed by the killers take more time and was way more painful than the drugs to be used to execute them. Even if that's true it's completely irrelevant and not a valid reason for allowing an execution to be carried out if it's cruel and unusual. After all, we use our Constitution as our guideline, not the criminal and sadistic acts of the condemned.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Oct 30, 2017 9:35:44 GMT -6
To you who believe that lethal injection is cruel and unusual, I would say that the murders committed by the killers take more time and was way more painful than the drugs to be used to execute them. Even if that's true it's completely irrelevant and not a valid reason for allowing an execution to be carried out if it's cruel and unusual. After all, we use our Constitution as our guideline, not the criminal and sadistic acts of the condemned. If it was intentional to cause pain & suffering I would agree. Only then would it be criminal & sadistic. To add. defense which make non sense ( knowing it is a non sense appeal) with last minute appeals are causing pain & suffering. Green, yellow, red light for hours before being executed. Sadistically cruel.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Oct 30, 2017 11:46:41 GMT -6
If it was intentional to cause pain & suffering I would agree. Only then would it be criminal & sadistic. Where in the Eighth Amendment does it allow for the infliction of unintentional pain and suffering? If we followed your guideline we could burn the condemned at the stake and simply claim that it was not our intention to inflict pain and suffering upon the condemned but merely to dispose of him as efficiently as possible.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Oct 30, 2017 12:34:16 GMT -6
Like euthanasia, or going *behind closed doors) to do a major surgery?
Checks & balances.
And Boy!! An execution is certainly not behind closed doors, nor without checks & balances for sure.
The 8th amendment call's for the punishment to fit the crime, if we really did it the same way murderers did to their victims, that would fit your scenario. But, it does not. Human nature a vase majority are much more rational than your view of us. They also know what is really cruel & unusual.
The English" 8th amendment also knows excessive fines are based on a reasonable fine for the times.
|
|
|
Post by deathcub2000 on Oct 31, 2017 15:51:27 GMT -6
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, “Simply because an execution method may result in pain, either by accident or as an inescapable consequence of death, does not establish the sort of ‘objectively intolerable risk of harm’ that qualifies as cruel and unusual.” newsok.com/article/4744679So waving the 8th amendment around like some kind of magic wand saying that if executions are painful, then stop them is not constitutional. The reason that the states have gone to lethal injection is to try to alleviate concerns that other methods of executions were too painful. Hanging done properly kills instantly as does electrocutions. If some deaths take longer than others, well, so be it. We can't sing lullabies or hit them with pillows until they die. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. Simplistic but true.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Nov 1, 2017 17:12:45 GMT -6
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, “Simply because an execution method may result in pain, either by accident or as an inescapable consequence of death, does not establish the sort of ‘objectively intolerable risk of harm’ that qualifies as cruel and unusual.” newsok.com/article/4744679 Chief Justice John Roberts is absolutely correct! And therefore you're back at square one because taking 35 fricken minutes to kill someone is NOT an "inescapable consequence of death" when a bullet in the back of the head would do the job in an instant and be completely painless. If some deaths take longer than others, well, so be it. On the contrary, we have an Eighth Amendment in this great nation of ours and if you can't respect it then go live in some other country. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. Simplistic but true. Yes, it's simplistic but true. It's also a straw man argument and not relevant to what we are discussing here
|
|
|
Post by deathcub2000 on Nov 4, 2017 21:45:02 GMT -6
>>> On the contrary, we have an Eighth Amendment in this great nation of ours and if you can't respect it then go live in some other country. Really, are you giving me the "Love it or leave it" line? The death penalty is constitutionally permitted. And according to the Chief Justice of the supreme court, just because some pain is experienced by the person being executed doesn't make it unconstitutional. So I do believe in the constitution. Always have and always will. Furthermore, in my opinion, I believe that you are confused about what the 8th amendment really says. Please refer to the following web page. www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/amendments/8/essays/161/cruel-and-unusual-punishment In essence the 8th amendment grants relief from excessive bail and fines. Also the cruel and unusual punishment clause does not preclude pain and suffering during executions. It basically states that punishments, including executions, be within the limits prescribed by law. Decapitations, torture, drawing and quartering are a few ways that are not permitted for executions as well as two recent changes abolishing executions for the mentally ill and people under 18 years of age. In this article, there is nothing about pain and suffering. Oh, and one more thing about the constitution. I am allowed the freedom of speech: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech of which the first sentence in this article is "Freedom of speech is the right to articulate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship, or societal sanction" So for you to tell me to leave the country because I don't respect the constitution by writing my opinion contrary to yours is a lack of respect of the constitution on your part.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Nov 11, 2017 0:27:40 GMT -6
So for you to tell me to leave the country because I don't respect the constitution by writing my opinion contrary to yours is a lack of respect of the constitution on your part. As if I demanded your immediate exile from the United States for expressing an opinion contrary to my own. Seriously, stop being such a drama queen.
|
|
|
Post by deathcub2000 on Nov 13, 2017 6:30:41 GMT -6
>>> On the contrary, we have an Eighth Amendment in this great nation of ours and if you can't respect it then go live in some other country.
Your quote, not mine!
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Nov 18, 2017 16:07:49 GMT -6
>>> On the contrary, we have an Eighth Amendment in this great nation of ours and if you can't respect it then go live in some other country. Your quote, not mine! Yes, those are indeed my words! And I seriously doubt that any levelheaded individual would interpret them as a demand for your exile from the United States. In fact, most people would simply interpret such words, for what the are, as a simple suggestion that you might be happier elsewhere if you're frustrated by the Eighth Amendment. Seriously, stop grasping at straws; it makes you look ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Nov 19, 2017 4:05:19 GMT -6
If the judge considered the evidence and arguments impartially, as he is expected to do, and found that they went firmly against the death penalty, what's wrong with him expressing that viewpoint as a private citizen? It would be weird if he *didn't* adjust his personal opinion to match the arguments he had heard.
|
|
|
Post by deathcub2000 on Nov 21, 2017 9:06:16 GMT -6
Actually Bernard, I would agree with you on this one if in fact the judge could be impartial. I myself would find it very hard to have strong opinions, then rule a completely different way. I would not have posted this subject had the Judge protested the death penalty then not granted a temporary stay allowing the prisoners to avoid (for a time) their executions.
|
|