|
Post by spinaltap on Jul 12, 2018 6:53:18 GMT -6
This was in the NY Post the other day:
MONTGOMERY, Ala. — A lawsuit challenging Alabama’s lethal injection process took an unexpected turn Tuesday after eight inmate plaintiffs asked to be put to death by the state’s new execution method: inhaling nitrogen gas.
The Alabama attorney general’s office and lawyers for inmates submitted a joint motion Tuesday to dismiss the litigation. Lawyers said the inmates’ claims challenging the state’s lethal injection process as inhumane are now moot, “because their executions will be carried out at the appropriate time by nitrogen hypoxia.”
Breathing the inert gas causes oxygen depletion in the blood stream.
Alabama had previously carried out executions by lethal injection and electrocution. Alabama in March added nitrogen to the list, becoming the third state to authorize executions by nitrogen. No state has yet used the method.
According to the motion, the eight inmate plaintiffs in the lawsuit had a June 30 deadline to request execution by nitrogen and all did so.
“The plaintiffs in this case, and anyone else who elected the new method, cannot now be executed by lethal injection,” said John Palombi, an attorney with the Federal Defenders Program, who is representing inmates in the lawsuit.
It’s not clear how many inmates had the choice or how many altogether have requested nitrogen.
A spokesman for Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall said his office did not have additional comment. A spokesman for the Department of Corrections could not immediately be reached for comment late Tuesday.
Robert Dunham, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, said it could be some time before the inmates see a death chamber with nitrogen.
“At least for the prisoners who elected nitrogen gas over lethal injection, there will be no executions until Alabama has an approved nitrogen-gas protocol in place. It will take time for that to happen and, because the gas protocol will also be untried, it will face its own set of legal challenges,” Dunham wrote in an email.
Dunham said the eight inmates also may “prefer the unknown risks of nitrogen hypoxia to the known risks” of lethal injection drugs while Alabama avoids having to litigate the lethal-injection issue by voluntarily dismissing the case.
Palombi said the eight inmates did not waive their rights to eventually challenge the humaneness of execution by nitrogen and urged the state to make the protocol public when it is developed.
“While the best way to reduce the risks of botched executions would be to abolish the death penalty, if the death penalty does exist, it must be carried out in a constitutional manner with the respect and dignity that is required of such a solemn event,” Palombi said.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jul 12, 2018 7:55:24 GMT -6
if the death penalty does exist, it must be carried out in a constitutional manner with the respect and dignity that is required of such a solemn event,” Palombi said. This is laughable. It's not a solemn event, and the whole point is to deprive the condemned of respect and dignity. This article isn't factual. The inmates haven't requested anything. Their lawyers did. Since Gary Mark Gilmore's execution, capital appeals do not require the consent, or even the foreknowledge, of the appellants.
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Jul 12, 2018 10:54:31 GMT -6
Yeah whatever, as long as they're dead by nightfall.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Jul 15, 2018 6:19:47 GMT -6
if the death penalty does exist, it must be carried out in a constitutional manner with the respect and dignity that is required of such a solemn event,” Palombi said. This is laughable. It's not a solemn event, and the whole point is to deprive the condemned of respect and dignity. This article isn't factual. The inmates haven't requested anything. Their lawyers did. Since Gary Mark Gilmore's execution, capital appeals do not require the consent, or even the foreknowledge, of the appellants. Executions should be solemn events, and inmates should be treated with the same respect, care and dignity you'd give any other dying person. It's the least you could do, after all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2018 8:09:49 GMT -6
This is laughable. It's not a solemn event, and the whole point is to deprive the condemned of respect and dignity. This article isn't factual. The inmates haven't requested anything. Their lawyers did. Since Gary Mark Gilmore's execution, capital appeals do not require the consent, or even the foreknowledge, of the appellants. Executions should be solemn events, and inmates should be treated with the same respect, care and dignity you'd give any other dying person. It's the least you could do, after all. I think we should kill them in the same way they killed their victims. That's the least we could do.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jul 15, 2018 8:22:21 GMT -6
This is laughable. It's not a solemn event, and the whole point is to deprive the condemned of respect and dignity. This article isn't factual. The inmates haven't requested anything. Their lawyers did. Since Gary Mark Gilmore's execution, capital appeals do not require the consent, or even the foreknowledge, of the appellants. Executions should be solemn events, and inmates should be treated with the same respect, care and dignity you'd give any other dying person. It's the least you could do, after all. It is a solemn event, never saw anyone cheering, drinking or calling them names thru the execution. Personally I feel we should vacuum them out of existence & rip them to shreds. That's what we do to the unwanted. We should not use prison as an incubator.
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Jul 15, 2018 10:50:45 GMT -6
This is laughable. It's not a solemn event, and the whole point is to deprive the condemned of respect and dignity. This article isn't factual. The inmates haven't requested anything. Their lawyers did. Since Gary Mark Gilmore's execution, capital appeals do not require the consent, or even the foreknowledge, of the appellants. Executions should be solemn events, and inmates should be treated with the same respect, care and dignity you'd give any other dying person. It's the least you could do, after all. no they don't need to be solemn, they need to be professional. and they are VERY professionally carried out. I've witnessed one, you?
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Jul 15, 2018 13:18:54 GMT -6
Executions should be solemn events, and inmates should be treated with the same respect, care and dignity you'd give any other dying person. It's the least you could do, after all. no they don't need to be solemn, they need to be professional. and they are VERY professionally carried out. I've witnessed one, you? No, but I've witnessed way too many last breaths - and I remember every single one of them. Professionalism is not what matters - what matters is to preserve the dignity and humanity of the inmate in the last moments. If being involved in an execution doesn't affect you, you shouldn't be involved in executions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2018 13:34:28 GMT -6
No, but I've witnessed way too many last breaths - and I remember every single one of them. Professionalism is not what matters - what matters is to preserve the dignity and humanity of the inmate in the last moments. If being involved in an execution doesn't affect you, you shouldn't be involved in executions. From those I've spoken to about it who've witnessed an execution, it seems to me that any 'dignity' or 'humanity' that is afforded is in deference to spectators and not for the benefit of the person they're offing. I've witnessed a lot of last breaths, too. And, there is NOTHING dignified about departing this world in agonizing pain or with body functions finished before actual death. A peaceful, long sleep is actually a death many hope for but don't get to get.
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Jul 15, 2018 15:07:21 GMT -6
no they don't need to be solemn, they need to be professional. and they are VERY professionally carried out. I've witnessed one, you? No, but I've witnessed way too many last breaths - and I remember every single one of them. Professionalism is not what matters - what matters is to preserve the dignity and humanity of the inmate in the last moments. If being involved in an execution doesn't affect you, you shouldn't be involved in executions. Maybe you should think more about and remember the last breaths of murder victims. Convicts deserve a quick dispatch, if even that. Nothing more.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jul 15, 2018 16:47:28 GMT -6
This is laughable. It's not a solemn event, and the whole point is to deprive the condemned of respect and dignity. This article isn't factual. The inmates haven't requested anything. Their lawyers did. Since Gary Mark Gilmore's execution, capital appeals do not require the consent, or even the foreknowledge, of the appellants. Executions should be solemn events, If a serial killer killed his victims by lethal injection (as, if I remember right, Harold Shipman did) should he be praised for making the victim's death into a solemn event? The solemnity of execution is not for the benefit of the condemned man. It's for our benefit. We want a quiet procedure with no gasping and convulsing, no blood and no horror, so that we maintain the illusion of civility. It's the same hypocritical instinct with which we drop bombs by the thousand yet refuse to show the dismembered civilians, blackened bodies, sobbing women and dusty, dead children on the news. The most certain way to avoid causing suffering during execution would be to destroy the person's head faster than the speed of a neural signal. A chain gun would do the trick. But we haven't the stomach to be so humane. Are we obliged to write glowing obituaries?
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jul 15, 2018 17:52:42 GMT -6
We celebrate your passing finally" from this earth.In lieu of flowers send some Dr Pepper along with the remains to the one up next. Keep the chain going.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2018 20:50:03 GMT -6
Executions should be solemn events, If a serial killer killed his victims by lethal injection (as, if I remember right, Harold Shipman did) should he be praised for making the victim's death into a solemn event? The solemnity of execution is not for the benefit of the condemned man. It's for our benefit. We want a quiet procedure with no gasping and convulsing, no blood and no horror, so that we maintain the illusion of civility. It's the same hypocritical instinct with which we drop bombs by the thousand yet refuse to show the dismembered civilians, blackened bodies, sobbing women and dusty, dead children on the news. The most certain way to avoid causing suffering during execution would be to destroy the person's head faster than the speed of a neural signal. A chain gun would do the trick. But we haven't the stomach to be so humane. Are we obliged to write glowing obituaries? This is very well stated. I agree.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Jul 16, 2018 12:38:16 GMT -6
This is laughable. It's not a solemn event, and the whole point is to deprive the condemned of respect and dignity. Sheer rubbish! You don't need to execute someone in order to do that. The whole point of an execution is to deprive the condemned of their lives and thus render the threat they present to society as nonexistent.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Jul 16, 2018 12:46:11 GMT -6
no they don't need to be solemn, they need to be professional. and they are VERY professionally carried out. I've witnessed one, you? No, never! Back in 1965 I had the opportunity to witness an execution by firing squad of three or four men but I wanted nothing to do with it. However, my roommates at the time made it a point to attend.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Jul 16, 2018 12:54:01 GMT -6
I think we should kill them in the same way they killed their victims. That's the least we could do. Leaving aside the constitutionality of such practice; we cannot allow murderers to drag society down to their level.
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Jul 16, 2018 16:38:39 GMT -6
no they don't need to be solemn, they need to be professional. and they are VERY professionally carried out. I've witnessed one, you? No, never! Back in 1965 I had the opportunity to witness an execution by firing squad of three or four men but I wanted nothing to do with it. However, my roommates at the time made it a point to attend. 1965??
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Jul 16, 2018 18:34:20 GMT -6
Yes, pay no attention to the birth year I have given on my profile.
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Jul 16, 2018 18:53:04 GMT -6
Yes, pay no attention to the birth year I have given on my profile. Ok, will do.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2018 19:38:24 GMT -6
Yes, pay no attention to the birth year I have given on my profile. Ok, will do. 1865 is accurate.
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Jul 16, 2018 20:10:31 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jul 17, 2018 16:00:25 GMT -6
The whole point of an execution is to deprive the condemned of their lives and thus render the threat they present to society as nonexistent. Oh please. So you're saying the other 99.995 percent of the murderers we spare can be trusted never to kill again? Even if that were true, it's the pros responsible for the dilatory appeals of condemned inmates. If you're really worried about a murderer's recidivism, why are you waiting 30 years to execute him? And where is your moral outrage over a murderer's first victim? Is it the second victim that really counts? And since when do we punish anyone for something s/he might do in the future?
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jul 17, 2018 16:35:35 GMT -6
we cannot allow murderers to drag society down to their level. And yet there we are, always. There is no such thing as a dignified, solemn homicide.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jul 17, 2018 16:46:44 GMT -6
what matters is to preserve the dignity and humanity of the inmate in the last moments. If we were worried about his dignity or humanity, we wouldn't be killing him in the first place. If a condemned man is executed without passion, without anger, as they currently are, what's the point? It's just an irrelevant, desultory act absent any moral purpose. Which is why so few are condemned to death in the first place. The "pros" just don't care any more, if they ever did.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Jul 17, 2018 18:05:16 GMT -6
what matters is to preserve the dignity and humanity of the inmate in the last moments. If we were worried about his dignity or humanity, we wouldn't be killing him in the first place. If a condemned man is executed without passion, without anger, as they currently are, what's the point? It's just an irrelevant, desultory act absent any moral purpose. Which is why so few are condemned to death in the first place. The "pros" just don't care any more, if they ever did. If executions are irrelevant, desultory and without a moral purpose - how about just scrapping them altogether?
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jul 17, 2018 18:16:25 GMT -6
I may be wrong fug, I believe the point Joe makes is execute all who murder or none of them.
Correct me if wrong Joe.
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Jul 17, 2018 19:25:32 GMT -6
If we were worried about his dignity or humanity, we wouldn't be killing him in the first place. If a condemned man is executed without passion, without anger, as they currently are, what's the point? It's just an irrelevant, desultory act absent any moral purpose. Which is why so few are condemned to death in the first place. The "pros" just don't care any more, if they ever did. If executions are irrelevant, desultory and without a moral purpose - how about just scrapping them altogether? When your battery goes dead do you scrap your whole car or replace the battery? No, we need to make them relevant, purposeful, and moral. For starters, make them quick and make them public.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Jul 18, 2018 0:44:58 GMT -6
The whole point of an execution is to deprive the condemned of their lives and thus render the threat they present to society as nonexistent. Oh please. So you're saying the other 99.995 percent of the murderers we spare can be trusted never to kill again? Even if that were true, it's the pros responsible for the dilatory appeals of condemned inmates. If you're really worried about a murderer's recidivism, why are you waiting 30 years to execute him? And where is your moral outrage over a murderer's first victim? Is it the second victim that really counts? And since when do we punish anyone for something s/he might do in the future? Phillips, your commentary is not relevant to anything I've written.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Jul 18, 2018 0:49:20 GMT -6
There is no such thing as a dignified, solemn homicide. Who said there was?
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Jul 18, 2018 3:42:41 GMT -6
If executions are irrelevant, desultory and without a moral purpose - how about just scrapping them altogether? When your battery goes dead do you scrap your whole car or replace the battery? No, we need to make them relevant, purposeful, and moral. For starters, make them quick and make them public. Cars actually serve a decent purpose. The death penalty doesn't, and never has - and should have died years ago.
|
|