Oklahoma Botched Execution - Clayton Lockett took 45 Minutes to Die

originally posted by: kimar
a reply to: NavyDoc

You were expressing your personal opinions, which is why I stated that I hope you're not a follower of Jesus.

The Constitution was indeed violated. The events that occurred could have been and in fact were predicted. Before his execution he asked for a stay (and it was initially granted by the state's Supreme Court) because the state would not say where the cocktail that was administered came from. There was concern that the manufacturer of the cocktail was not qualified to produce it. These concerns turned out to be justified. The cocktail failed, the state obviously knew that there was a risk that it would fail and it still administered the cocktail.

Doctors should not carry out the sentence because it would force them to violate the oath that they took when they become doctors. Again, this is about values, a concept that you seem to lack understanding in.

As for you last comment, I won't validate it with a response.

You live in lala land. So now convicted heinous criminals can dictate the details and protest every little detail of how they are lethally injected? Lol!!!! It's none of his business where the meds come from as long as they are legit and from a reputable supplier which they should be according to the FDA! His VEIN extravasated you understand that?? It happens and when it does IV meds don't work as well or at all. The state, the Supreme Court , doctors, nor the Constitution is perfect in all ways at all time. It was a mistake get over it. He still died in a peaceful manner.

a reply to: tadaman

OK, let's talk about the law. The Oklahoma Supreme Court initially stayed the execution, then the Governor overrode this stay, which is a clear violation of the law.

Again, you confuse the terms justice and revenge. Yes, there are many debates about what justice looks like, but most common sense folk agree the state has no role in revenge.

I have made no mention of "your heart." I base my opinions using both my mind and my heart. I am human and it is the ability to use both that makes me so.

I think you are confusing Plato with Socrates. Socrates followed the law and killed himself even though he knew he was not guilty of the crimes that he was found guilty of because he believed in the principles of the law. I am not arguing here the validity of the death penalty. This is not the topic at hand. I am arguing that the law and the Constitution was broken last night because a man suffered cruel and unusual punishment at the hands of the state.

I understand a lot actually, thanks.

a reply to: kimar

Ah good example...Socrates did kill himself when the law demanded it didn't he. Thanks for an excellent example. Both Plato and Socrates agreed that the law must be followed or society can not exist as we know it.

Their reasoning was founded in keeping the balance between people and their actions so peace was served instead of sought after like wild dogs by the people the law supposedly serves.

They understood the spirit of the law.

Punishment is part of the law. It is charged with atonement. You say I confuse terms. That is to me just a tactic to circumvent the purpose and spirit of the law by an exercise in semantics.

I wonder if all this effort is based in trying to reduce the penalty for all offences by those who understand that they are guilty of something and so worry about their own atonement should it ever come.

Balance. That is what common sense dictates since it is founded in natural law.

You can say what you will, have what success your argument brings you and those like you, but it will always be only temporary.

Human nature will not change by kind words or sensitive ideals.

We will always come back to this.

I will find balance if denied to me.

a reply to: GreenMtnBoys

The cocktail was not legit, that is the point here. If the supplier was reputable, the state should be able to say who the supplier is. There was no FDA oversight, again this is one of the main points of contention.

There was nothing wrong with his veins. He was a bulking human being with no physical health problems. His veins were just fine. It was the cocktail that was the problem. Why do you think the second execution was stayed?

You are woefully uninformed about the subject at hand.

a reply to: tadaman

This is not a debate about the death penalty. Stop changing the subject.

a reply to: kimar

Said who?

I am speaking directly to those who argued against it all together.

Stop using childish tactics to win an argument and instead use that grey mass between your ears to form part of the conversation. Its better than trying to veer it into your comfort zone.

Why are you even talking to me if that is what you are responding to? I said my peace and your counter argument is a distraction and is derailing this thread itself by making it about me instead of my position on the subject at hand.

a reply to: blupblup

You are replying with an extremist response. I never mentioned soldiers or anyone else. If you would have read my earlier response, it had nothing to do with torture or a long drawn out death. It had everything to do with a quick bullet to the head or heart. Have you ever had an innocent relative die at the hands of a murderer? Well I have, it was back when I was eight years old. All of the ideas of a perfect future fly right out of the window ...maybe I'll be killed. Maybe I'll be minding my own business, going to church every Sunday, and someone will just murder me in cold blood because he wants no witnesses.
Another poster cites countries without the death penalty. The occasional murder is an oddity there. Here in the US it is commonplace. There are people growing up without any regard to the value of human life. They'll languish on death row for another 30 years and still get their three squares and cable TV. Where are their victims - dead and gone and they'll only haunt them if they care but they don't.
We really need to look at the reason violent crime is such a problem these days. Why wasn't it so much of a problem in the 1950's or before? There were consequences for your actions. God, the state, the law, your relatives were all someone you wanted to please - now no one really gives a hoot.

You steal another person's life from them on purpose, you deserve to lose your life. Nothing makes me more sick than having to listen to bleeding hearted pacifists blabber their feel good, well then that makes you evil too, nonsense. Shut your pie holes.

Then you got this other puke bag who raped and murdered an 11 month old child, crying about injustice? ~$heopleNation

a reply to: tadaman

Your post was a reply to mine and seemed to just talk about the validity of the death penalty, which is not what I was talking about at all.

I'm not trying to use tactics or distractions man. I am talking about the topic at hand, last night's botched execution.

It seems like you are trying to personalize my points, claiming that my argument is based on wanting an easier punishment should I ever have to face the law. Or something. It's rather ridiculous to be frank.

a reply to: kimar

Well agree to disagree then. No harm no foul.

Have a good one either way.

originally posted by: kimar
a reply to: GreenMtnBoys

The cocktail was not legit, that is the point here. If the supplier was reputable, the state should be able to say who the supplier is. There was no FDA oversight, again this is one of the main points of contention.

There was nothing wrong with his veins. He was a bulking human being with no physical health problems. His veins were just fine. It was the cocktail that was the problem. Why do you think the second execution was stayed?

You are woefully uninformed about the subject at hand.

There was nothing wrong with the cocktail. It is, absent the potassium, the same sort of cocktail that is used in general anesthesia thousands of times a day. The issue is that the veins infiltrated, "blown" in the layman's vernacular and the drugs did not immediately enter the blood stream. It happens thousands of times a day in hospitals over the world because veins are thin, non-muscular vessels. Everywhere else in the world, a blown vein is simply dealt with. It is only the PC subject matter that creates this humanitarian "crisis."

originally posted by: kimar
a reply to: NavyDoc

You were expressing your personal opinions, which is why I stated that I hope you're not a follower of Jesus.

The Constitution was indeed violated. The events that occurred could have been and in fact were predicted. Before his execution he asked for a stay (and it was initially granted by the state's Supreme Court) because the state would not say where the cocktail that was administered came from. There was concern that the manufacturer of the cocktail was not qualified to produce it. These concerns turned out to be justified. The cocktail failed, the state obviously knew that there was a risk that it would fail and it still administered the cocktail.

Doctors should not carry out the sentence because it would force them to violate the oath that they took when they become doctors. Again, this is about values, a concept that you seem to lack understanding in.

As for you last comment, I won't validate it with a response.

The Constitution was not violated at all. TO say so is disingenuous. He was not sentenced to a protracted and drawn out death. There were no laws created making it so. It was an error of administration that is being dealt with.

The cocktail did not fail. It is obvious that you do not know what you are talking about. It was the IV that failed. I gather that you've never placed or managed an IV. That is obvious from your posts.


YEs, it is about values. Your values happen to be wrong in that you support the comfort of the rapist and murderer. That is a set of messed up values.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Explain why the second execution was stayed then.

The problem was the cocktail. Period.

a reply to: NavyDoc

I'll ask you as well: explain why the second execution was stayed. If it was the individual's vein's that was the problem then there would be no issues with the second execution.

My main concern is not the comfort of the man who died. It is to make sure something like this does not happen again.

The lust for blood on this thread is grotesque. I'm understanding more and more why the USA is falling apart.

originally posted by: kimar
a reply to: NavyDoc

Explain why the second execution was stayed then.

The problem was the cocktail. Period.

It was stayed because there was an issue and they wanted to figure out what that issue was--something that responsible people do. They want to find out what the systemic problems are and how to correct them.

The fact is that the exact same drugs are administered in the exact same way to induce general anesthesia. In your vast knowledge of pharmacology and pharmokinetics, how did the "cocktail" fail and how is that failure a Constitutional violation?

originally posted by: kimar
a reply to: NavyDoc

I'll ask you as well: explain why the second execution was stayed. If it was the individual's vein's that was the problem then there would be no issues with the second execution.

My main concern is not the comfort of the man who died. It is to make sure something like this does not happen again.

The lust for blood on this thread is grotesque. I'm understanding more and more why the USA is falling apart.

I find the sympathy for a murderer and a rapist grotesque and that is the reason why this country is falling apart. Nowhere else in our history do we find such a support of the criminals and evil people who prey upon the innocent and destroy life. This embracement of the dregs of our society and the love of the rapist are reasons why our crime rate is so high. When leftists like yourself keep rapists from just punishment, more rapes happen.

a reply to: NavyDoc

You're right. There was a problem and they didn't want it to happen again, meaning that they knew that it was not unique to one individual.

The cocktail came from an unknown source, which even a judge and the state Supreme Court ruled as unconstitutional. The execution only happened because of the Governor's and legislature's blood lust.

a reply to: NavyDoc

You're now talking off the rails. It is clear that you're not in the right frame of mind to have a mature debate.

a reply to: NavyDoc

The crime rate isn't as high as it once was. To say it is, is fear mongering.

Would it be wise to look worldwide for a solution for a effective prison system or not? What system works what doesn't?

originally posted by: kimar
a reply to: NavyDoc

You're right. There was a problem and they didn't want it to happen again, meaning that they knew that it was not unique to one individual.

The cocktail came from an unknown source, which even a judge and the state Supreme Court ruled as unconstitutional. The execution only happened because of the Governor's and legislature's blood lust.

"Blood lust?" That's laughable hyperbole. The man was sentenced to death due to a brutal rape and murder that involved burying a young girl alive. In accordance with the laws of the state and the U.S. Constitution, the man was sentenced to death. In accordance with concerns of making sure that the poor rapist and murderer not suffer one iota, he was sentenced to death via lethal injection, also in accordance with state law and the US Constitution. He was given drugs commonly used by anesthetists to cause general anesthesia, a world wide humanely accepted practice (unless you think that general anesthesia is inhumane). It did not go as planned so the authorities pulled back and are trying to find the problem so they can correct it. Please cite the SCOTUS case where the SCOTUS determined that the source of the drugs had constitutional relevancy. That would be like saying that where the rope was manufactured had relevancy in a hanging and is just as idiotic.