jump to last post 1-12 of 12 discussions (83 posts)

The Botched Execution - What is the Big Deal

  1. 0
    Grey Templesposted 2 years ago

    Does it really matter that the recent execution was so called 'Botched"  Let's look at the situation:

    1. Murdered a young girl by shooting her and buried her alive in a shallow grave where she died a painful and horrible death.

    2. He resisted being put on the gurney, was tazed, doctor was nervous, overshot the vein, murderer died of a painful heart attack, oh well.

    3. Should a murderer really die in peace or should they died such as their victims did, slow and painful?

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      They should die in peace - vengeance is not healthy for those yet alive.

      But if an honest effort results in a painful death, oh well.

      1. 0
        Grey Templesposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Thank you wilderness for your response.  I don't want to sound like a gool, the murderer actually brought on his painful death himself from struggling and being tazed which caused his vein to collapse.  I was curious of people's opinions.

        1. Paul Wingert profile image80
          Paul Wingertposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I don't have a problem with the death penalty as long as they're executing the right person. Executions do get botched once in a great while. One thing to consider is that it costs much more to execute someone than it is to give them life with out.

          1. GA Anderson profile image86
            GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            And that is your rationalization? "...as long as they are executing the right person?" and "...it costs much more to execute someone...?

            Geesh...

            GA

          2. 59
            retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Yes all a life sentence costs is the constant reminder to the family(ies) of the slain that the brutal killer of their loved one(s) gets more sun rises, more dream filled nights, more days of love from his family and friends and draws more sweet breaths. That seems like a high cost for society to bear.

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I wonder why then the likes of West and Shipman chose to kill themselves before they could even reach trial and why Brady has been fighting for the right to die for years?

              Could it be that those who actually know see a life sentence as far worse than death?

              1. 59
                retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                I would prefer that criminals take their own lives.

                1. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  That wasn't the point I was making.

                  1. 59
                    retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    I am well aware of the point you wanted to make. Beware of ancillary points unintended, hoisted with his own petard. I would much prefer that the execution of a vile, brutal murderer be carried out by said murderer, thus sparing the people the expense of a trial and imprisonment and sparing the executioner the weight of his duties.

    2. calculus-geometry profile image84
      calculus-geometryposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I also don't understand the phony "outrage" over botched executions when the prison was making a good faith efford to have it go smoothly.  The prison didn't do it on purpose and it doesn't change the outcome.  Some people just need to have a cause to protest and any quasi-injustice will do.

      1. 0
        Grey Templesposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Exactly calculus-geometry the prison officials were upset as well at what happened.

    3. PrettyPanther profile image86
      PrettyPantherposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      To answer your question, yes it does really matter that the execution was "botched."  Execution by the state, if it exists at all, should be precise, quick, and pain-free.  I could argue the moral reasons but instead I will argue the practical.  Humans are fallible.  Humans decide who should be executed.  As such, humans have wrongfully executed people in the past and will do so again.  As such, humans have shown their bias by disproportionately placing people of color, people of little financial means, and people of lesser education on death row.  Wrongfully executing a person by mistake is horrific enough; adding pain and suffering via a botched execution makes it even more so.

      If you can live with that, then I question your values, just as some here have questioned the values of others who have argued that a botched execution is immoral.

      1. 59
        retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        If the brutal murderer of a young woman is dead as a consequence of the preferred execution method it would appear that the execution was anything but botched.  Drawn out, perhaps.  How long did it take for his victim to die?  I would bet he got much better treatment at the hands of the state.

        1. PrettyPanther profile image86
          PrettyPantherposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          So what?  Is the state in the business of inflicting pain on its citizens?  According to our Constitution, it should not be.

          1. 59
            retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            A monstrous, brutal murderer who slaughtered a young woman without remorse burying her alive subjecting her to pain and torment. Who cares, he is dead and it is well done.

            1. Zelkiiro profile image83
              Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              What you think doesn't matter. The f*cking Constitution has precedence over your animalistic need for revenge.

              1. 59
                retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Not about revenge, it is about protecting society from a creeping leftist passivity.

                1. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes, all hail right wing blood lust.

                2. Silverspeeder profile image61
                  Silverspeederposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  I thought it was all about a punishment fitting the crime!

                  1. 59
                    retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Well, if it was about the punishment fitting the crime then he should have been shot, not killed, and buried alive and left to die - when he was 19 years old - because that was the crime for which he was executed. A pain free swift death is hardly the "punishment fitting the crime."

    4. 59
      retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Good argument for the Guillotine, it is a sure, precise and quick method.  A drain in the floor and a hose are a small expense compared to a trained technician and all that equipment.

      I am concerned about the misuse of the word "botched."  The brutal, cold blooded murderer of an innocent girl is dead, that doesn't sound like it was botched.

      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I'm not in favour of the death penalty, it lets them off too lightly, having spent sometime looking at different forms of execution I have to say that I favour hanging.It is said that the last hangman in the UK could get a man from the condemned cell to dead in less time than it took the clock to strike the hour!

        1. 59
          retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Fine British Workmanship!  The cost of a fine, stout rope is also much less than all that equipment.

      2. Zelkiiro profile image83
        Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        You don't know much about the guillotine, do you?

        Here's a fun and exciting fact: After being beheaded, you remain alive for about 100 seconds!

        1. Superkev profile image85
          Superkevposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          So what you're saying is it's a lot better than the 43 minutes all the bleeding hearts are bitching about with this one then, right?

          1. Zelkiiro profile image83
            Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            The 8th Amendment makes it clear that neither are preferable. Remember, it's a prohibition on both cruel and unusual punishment. Not only is torture not a-okay, but neither is any method of execution that differs from the norm, which has always been the pursuit of an execution method that is both humane and painless (in those states that inexplicably decide the Death Penalty is a harsher punishment than lifelong incarceration).

            And you crying out for blood and suffering makes you just as loathsome and inhumane as the person who committed the crime. You can't even fall back on the Bible, if you're so inclined, because that delightful little pamphlet states that vengeance is the Lord's and only he shall pass judgement.

        2. 0
          Grey Templesposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          those are only your nerves that are moving you are not physically breathing nor can you feel a thing.

        3. 59
          retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          100 seconds, that sounds like a model of efficiency.  By "alive" do you mean without a head, because I suspect resuscitation is unlikely.  By "alive" do you mean with a beating heart? If so, then it may be necessary to reevaluate abortion laws. 

          Perhaps we should adopt the abortion methodology so treasured by the American left and jam forceps into the back of the condemned prisoner's skull and vacuum his brains out, then crush his head and dismember his body so it can be removed from his cell bit by bit, chunk by chunk.

          A man who slaughters a poor teenage girl is some how more deserving of our compassion than a viable baby in the womb? Remember, American lefties oppose capital punishment but are all for late term abortions.

          If he had killed his dog in the same fashion he would have been imprisoned for animal cruelty. Yet we blanch at his execution in a fashion far more humane than he reserved for his victim.   Does one require any more proof that American lefties are suffering from some traumatic mental disorder?

          I am starting to lean toward the tried and true Elephant-Head-Crushing-Method since, miraculously, the brain still interprets impulses from the severed neck for 100 seconds after decapitation.

  2. Superkev profile image85
    Superkevposted 2 years ago

    My sympathy is for the victim and her family, not this worthless POS. So he felt a little pain, how much pain you reckon his victim felt? Karma's a bitch as they say.

    1. 0
      Grey Templesposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Superkev thank you for saying that.  I say bring back Old Sparkey.

  3. psycheskinner profile image81
    psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago

    The big deal is that if it is okay for the State to torture people, they won't stop there. They never do.

    1. Superkev profile image85
      Superkevposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      He wasn't tortured and there was no intent to do so. The execution went a bit south and he 'may' have felt a bit of a pinch, so what? Where he likely is residing now that must seem like a day at the beach.

      Liberals are always concerned with the rights of the offender but never the victim.

      Personally, I think he should have been executed in in exactly the way he killed his victim. Shot, then buried alive. And televise it to every jailhouse and penitentiary in the country. You want the death penalty to really be a deterrent? Televise two or three.

      1. psycheskinner profile image81
        psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        In my book doing a euthanasia with untrained people and drug compounded by ab unidentified company is torture.

        It would be illegal to use on a dog in a shelter, even if it had chewed a child to death.

        1. Superkev profile image85
          Superkevposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          And how do you know what training the person injecting the lethal drug does or does not have? Have you seen their employment file? I am pretty certain the person who stuck the needle in the arm was fully qualified to do so.

          This was not a 'euthanasia', it was a punishment for killing and torturing another human being. At least make some attempt to get the terminology correct will you?

          Now, could you please explain how using a compound made by what I am sure is a legitimate company, that simply wants to remain unidentified for the safety of its staff equals torture? I would love to hear this one.

          By the way, the compound nor the needle placement had anything to do with what happened. The prisoner had a collapsed vein, probably from years of IV drug use (I am guessing here but sounds like a reasonable assumption) nothing the executioners or the state did caused this.

          And personally I would have more sympathy for the dog. This person knew right from wrong and killed a young girl anyhow, and in a most torturous and despicable way. Imagine being kidnapped, ripped from your family and friends not knowing what was happening or why, and then being shot and buried alive. Just think about how terrified that poor girl must have been.

          And you want me and others to be bothered that this waste of flesh felt a little pain? Really? What color is the sky in your world?

          1. psycheskinner profile image81
            psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            A doctor would have selected a sound vein,probably not in the arm.  IMHO, it is most likely the vein was blown by bad catheter placement, or bad vein selection--and would not have occurred with a competent medical technician.

            And compounding is a grey area. It might have been a good source,it might not. There have been hundreds of deaths traced to compounding errors in the last year. I personally would only take a drug compounded by an MD--not by any of these bulk delivery companies

            1. Superkev profile image85
              Superkevposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Not even an MD, which is present at any execution, can tell when a vein is bad just by looking at it through the skin.

              But, by all means, keep making crap up, it's obvious you have zero knowledge as to how any of this works. You just want to be breathlessly outraged at another injustice by 'the man'.

              And, again, you have no idea where they got the drugs from, and, again, just keep making stuff up out of whole cloth to attempt to sound as if you know what you are talking about.

              Pro Tip: You Don't.

              1. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                You seem to have rather bad anger issues Superkev. I should try and control it, a stroke isn't much fun.

                MDs attend executions to ensure that the victim is dead, not to actually take part in the execution.

                1. Superkev profile image85
                  Superkevposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  And how long did you work in Law Enforcement here in the US?? Oh, not at all because you don't live here?

                  I did 16 years.

                  Now who do you think knows more about how an execution is handled, me or you?

                  No anger issues at all, unless you count me despising stupidity and liberal bleeding hearts as an 'anger issue'.

            2. 0
              Grey Templesposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              MD's don't compound drugs.  This murderers veins blew out because he had to be tazered as he freaked out his veins were compromised and a groin vein was used.  Why are you for the murderer and his feelings?  Don't you care about the little girl this idiot shot and buried alive?  What about the way she died?  Psychskinner I can see that your views will never change and you think as always you know everything.  ha ha ha you are now claiming you worked in law enforcement?  How many executions did you perform?  Kinda like you have to read all of the white house papers at one time as well.  you make me laugh.

            3. 0
              Grey Templesposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              it was placed in his groin

    2. 0
      Grey Templesposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      A murderer should be 'tortured'.  Besides, the murderer did it to himself, he was tasered which caused his veins to collapse and the doctor after putting in the IV may have over stuck the vein.  Oh well, how do you think the little girl felt when she was shot and buried alive in a shallow grave?  Do you think she deserved to die that way?

      1. Zelkiiro profile image83
        Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Again?

        Have none of you people actually read the Bill of Rights? Because torture is unconstitutional as hell.

  4. FatFreddysCat profile image93
    FatFreddysCatposted 2 years ago

    Maybe one out of every ten executions should be "botched" in this manner. It might keep everybody on their best behavior!

    1. psycheskinner profile image81
      psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      If being killed isn't going to deter them, why would being killed in a bad way?  These are generally not people who think very far ahead.  That type of criminal doesn't get caught.

      Having categories of people we are allowed to treated cruelly should be a thing of the past.

      1. GA Anderson profile image86
        GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Do you think a botched execution is "treating people cruelly? I don't.

        Do you think we think there is a class of people it is OK to treat cruelly? I don't.

        But I do think the first part of your comment was spot on.

        GA

        1. psycheskinner profile image81
          psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Having a non-medially trained person try to insert a catheter, failing and causing horrible pain. That is foreseeable, and cruel.

          That is why it is illegal to do to a dog.

          1. Superkev profile image85
            Superkevposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Non sequitur much?

            There is no, I repeat NO, state run or federally run prison that does not use a medically trained person to insert the needle during an execution. Period.

            And that is not what happened here so what in Gods name are you keeping on about it for?

            And I am still waiting for your explanation as to how not simply naming the company supplying the drugs is equal to torture.

            Do you really think a governmental agency went to Billy Bob's pharmacy and bought the drugs they are going to use to carry out an execution?

            Not disclosing the name of the place for safety reasons does not mean the company is not well established and has been vetted by the state. It means the company wishes to avoid all the hysterical BS from the bleeding hearts and can do without they or their employees facing threats and harassment, and that is all that it means.

          2. 0
            Grey Templesposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            it was cruel to shoot a child and bury her alive in a shallow grave too have you thought about her?

          3. 0
            Grey Templesposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            psychskinner these murderers are worse than dogs why are you more concerned about a murderer than an innocent girl who was shot and buried alive to suffer until she suffocated and bled to death?  This doesn't make any sense to me.  Have you not read the Bible?  A 25 year old pregnant woman was just stoned by her own family to death because she married a Christian.  I would think that is more of a crime than the murderer of the little girl having a heart attach because he got scared was tased which messed with his veins and in reality he did not feel a thing.  Which one was more wrong?

            1. Zelkiiro profile image83
              Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Ame … nstitution

              The Constitution says otherwise, sonny boy.

              1. 59
                retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Well if cruel and unusual are the standard then he should have been shot by firing squad. Swift and common.

    2. calculus-geometry profile image84
      calculus-geometryposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      A lot of them are already targets of violence and abuse by their fellow inmates while the guards look the other way, so adding a painful death on top of it all seems like overkill, pardon the pun.  And I don't think the person who administers the injection wants the emotional burden of being a torturer.

      1. Superkev profile image85
        Superkevposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        So, again, the offender now becomes the victim huh?

        Let me tell you something (Having worked 16 years in law enforcement and corrections) The most UNLIKELY person to be a victim of the typical violence seen in prisons is one on death row.

        They are all on their best behavior because of their appeals and/ or legal moves taking place and are kept segregated from general population. The easiest assignment you can have as a correctional officer is to work on death row.

        So, next time I have blood drawn, should I sue the doctor or hospital for committing an act of torture on me??

        The ignorance of most people as to all things Criminal Justice never ceases to astound me. CSI and Law and Order ARE NOT REAL FOLKS!!!!

        1. calculus-geometry profile image84
          calculus-geometryposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I did not know all deathrow inmates were segregated for the entirety of their prison term in the US.  Just out of curiosity, why are they not in general population with other inmates, some of whom may also have committed equally heinous crimes but are not on death row?

          1. Superkev profile image85
            Superkevposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            There are many reasons, chief of which is that these inmates have nothing to lose, so in general population they would be more likely to attempt escape or to commit further violence either because they simply are inclined to or in order to advance the aims of whatever gang they belong to.

            What better person to carry out a contract murder inside than one who is already condemned to death for murder anyhow? What are we going to do, kill him twice?

            1. calculus-geometry profile image84
              calculus-geometryposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Are life without parole inmates in general population?  They're more or less in the same boat.

              1. Superkev profile image85
                Superkevposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Unless they are considered 'special needs' yes they are.

                1. calculus-geometry profile image84
                  calculus-geometryposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  That's incredibly inconsitent seeing as how they have equally little to lose as death row inmates, and are subject to the same temptations and have similar records. Segregating death row inmates must be way more expensive as well.  It would save taxpayers a lot of money if death row inmates were converted to life without parole since they're going to die in prison regardless.

                  1. Superkev profile image85
                    Superkevposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    It's not about if they are going to die in prison, but the timing.

                    A lifer knows he's going to die there, but not when. A death row inmate, at some point, has a date certain for his demise.

          2. 0
            Grey Templesposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            death row inmates are not main streamed because they would be killed by the prisoners such as they did with Dhalmer. Ah, too bad. Not.

        2. 0
          Grey Templesposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I agree, let the inmates take care of these death row inmates they will eventually.Personally, I'm glad he felt some pain as his victim did.

          1. Superkev profile image85
            Superkevposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Not necessarily true.

            A sex offender maybe, child killer perhaps. But if they say, killed a cop (as was attempted on me) They would be heroes not pariahs.

            In a prison society you can do some pretty awful things and still be greatly respected within that sick social structure.

    3. 0
      Grey Templesposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Right on

  5. psycheskinner profile image81
    psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago

    My bottom line is, if someone was caused pain I consider that a bad thing we must work to prevent from ever happening again.

    I guess that is just my good atheist moral upbringing. I don't believe anyone's suffering should be considered 'no big deal'.

    I stand by that, without exception. The descriptions of what he went through made me feel pity for him and a desire to correct the procedure that did that.

    1. Superkev profile image85
      Superkevposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Some people just need killin' he was one of them.

      I feel pity for the 19 year old young girl he shot and buried alive, not the person who did it. He brought whatever he got upon himself by his actions, that little girl did nothing to deserve being buried alive.

      How you can feel even one ounce of pity for such a monster says a lot about you, and none of it good.

      1. Zelkiiro profile image83
        Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        That may be the initial gut reaction, but this is the United States, and our forefathers didn't much care for this line of thinking...

        1. Superkev profile image85
          Superkevposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Not even close. Nice try though. FAIL

    2. 0
      Grey Templesposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      You felt pity for a murderer?  Oh my, and you are a self professed psychologist and atheist? Well, that explains your answers on this question.  Very interesting now I know who you are inside.  I am so sorry.  I bet you don't feel bad for the little girl then.  Wow.

    3. IslandBites profile image84
      IslandBitesposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I agree.

  6. Alphadogg16 profile image87
    Alphadogg16posted 2 years ago

    I've all ways been for an eye for an eye, so Oh well. Im sure the girl he murdered didn't die in piece. We should adopt some laws from 3 world countries, in my personal opinion, in stead of spending $40K annually to house/feed/educate people who have had their opportunity to be a productive part of society and chose not to be.

  7. John Holden profile image61
    John Holdenposted 2 years ago

    If your leaders sanction violence and cruelty you end up with a violent and cruel society.

    Oh! You already have that. OK, I'll clear off.

    1. Superkev profile image85
      Superkevposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      It's not anything like sanctioned violence (more breathless liberal hyperbole) it is the sentence of a duly empaneled jury of their peers in accordance with the laws of their state.

      I swear. you lefties are such drama queens.

  8. psycheskinner profile image81
    psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago

    I don't think the state should torture anyone, prisoner, terrorist, protestor, by action or by negligence because... I mean, wow. 

    It's bad. That's why.

    Even if you can sleep at night knowing torture is being done in your name, it leads to the corruption of the people involved.  It leads to their dehumanization and their lose of empathy, and thus more bad things done to more vulnerable people.

    1. Superkev profile image85
      Superkevposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I found this caption under a picture of the victim (You know, the one you SHOULD have sympathy for)

      "Stephanie Neiman. She was raped multiple times for 6 hours. Beaten. Shot in the head with a shotgun. Watched killer dig her grave. Then buried while still alive. She was just, 19 murdered one month after her HS graduation an only child. Her murderer was Clayton Lockett. You know Clayton Lockett, his execution was extended and extra 43 minutes in Oklahoma. The poor man suffered, ahhhh. Wish it would have lasted 6 hours. How many of you have seen Stephanie's picture? Or knew the story? But we all know about poor Clayton Lockett thanks to the media whom I don't think mentioned her all day. RIP Stephanie justice has been done for you...There are people thinking of you today. " (Emphasis mine)

      You may want to rethink your values there my friend. How do you think Stephanie felt as the dirt was piled around her face, her last gasps as she breathed in the dirt this animal was shoveling over her?

      That you would for one minute defend this monster or shed a bitter tear that he felt a little pain at his well earned execution, that you would blame everyone but him for his fate, shows me what I have always known in stark relief- liberalism is truly a mental disease. I mean, Wow.

  9. PrettyPanther profile image86
    PrettyPantherposted 2 years ago

    News flash:

    Arguing against torture of a murderer on moral or ethical grounds does not mean the arguer has more empathy for the murderer than the victim.  Nor does it mean the arguer is defending the murderer.  Nor does it mean the arguer blames everyone but the murderer for his fate.

    Weak minds make weak arguments.  Come on, you can do better than that.

    1. Superkev profile image85
      Superkevposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Ahhhh, but it wasn't torture (see what I did there? It's called 'facts')

      The execution did not go as planned, granted, but most of that was his own doing anyhow, as was the fact he was being executed. There was no intent to torture.

      Was he in pain? Did it hurt some? Yep, most likely.

      Do I give a rats ass? Not even a little.

      1. PrettyPanther profile image86
        PrettyPantherposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Torture:   the act of causing severe physical pain as a form of punishment

        The death penalty is punishment.  He was in severe physical pain during his punishment.  He was tortured, even if it was not intentional.

  10. Levellandmike profile image83
    Levellandmikeposted 2 years ago

    My opinion?
    "Oh, effin' well."
    He shoulda thought of that when he killed that girl, huh?
    In light of how his victim died, I really don't give a damn how he died...as long as he died.
    By the way, he DID die...nuthin' botched here.
    We move on....

    1. 59
      retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      He was kept warm, safe, dry and fed for over a decade while the government did everything it could to guarantee his guilt so that an innocent man was not executed.  That sounds very compassionate and not in the least cruel.  Then the government did everything it could to kill him in a way that wasn't messy, disfiguring, dirty or smoky.  That sounds like a good effort was made on behalf of those who might morn his passing.  Then the government killed him in a way that would be the least painful and they did - considering all the available alternatives long practiced by governments.  After all, he was not drawn and quartered.

      Sounds like the government took great pains to make sure it didn't SLAUGHTER him like he did his victim.  Why all the whining?  Because American lefties are silly people.

  11. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

    Meandering thoughts:
    The Big Deal is that whoever botched the execution probably feels pretty bad about it. Most people do not like to hurt others. Most people have a conscience. The one who received the botched execution probably learned a thing or two about hurting others… perhaps he had no empathy for the child. Now, maybe he does... no one intended this result. Maybe it was his Karma.

    I still feel sorry for those responsible for the botched execution.

  12. Frienderal profile image81
    Frienderalposted 2 years ago

    I suppose it is regarding the execution of Clayton Lockett, which was halted after a doctor acknowledged the problems in administering the drugs. The doctor soon realized that there was not enough drugs left to carry out the death sentence. Hence, Lockett was left writhing in pain after a vein collapsed. He died of a heart attack only after 47 minutes.

    I believe the death penalty is an appropriate response and punishment to criminals who committed heinous crimes. However, when the capital punishment is justified, the State needs to be certain of its protocols, procedures and that the execution is carried out humanely. This is simply because we must uphold the morality of capital punishment and the moral responsibility to prevent its misuse is in our hands.

    1. Zelkiiro profile image83
      Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Unless your name is retief2000, and you would rather indulge yourself in animalistic bloodlust and stoop to the same level as the criminal you claim to be morally superior to (assuming the very act of capital punishment doesn't already do that).

 
working