Supreme Court Set To Hear Oklahoma Death Penalty Challenge

WASHINGTON, April 29 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court was set on Wednesday to hear arguments in a case brought by three death row inmates challenging Oklahoma's method of execution by lethal injection as a violation of the U.S. Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

The three-drug process used by Oklahoma prison officials has been under scrutiny since the April 2014 botched execution of convicted murderer Clayton Lockett. He could be seen twisting on the gurney after death chamber staff failed to place the intravenous line properly.

Supreme Court Set To Hear Oklahoma Death Penalty Challenge

The Supreme Court is about to look into this drug cocktail being used for lethal injections under the cruel and unusual punishment rules. Apparently the drug doesn't effectively knock the person out before killing them and may imply that the person is going through immense pain before death.

Before I give my opinion, I'd like to point out that HuffPro listed the crimes the people bringing the lawsuit up did.

Glossip arranged for his employer to be beaten to death. Grant stabbed a correctional worker to death. Cole killed his 9-month-old daughter.

And I'm not entirely sure that was a good idea. Clearly these people deserve to be put to death, but it seems to me that this was written in the article to detract sentiment for their cause. Already, anyone reading that paragraph would get emotionally mad at those people and be unsympathetic to their grievances. I kind of think that is poor reporting. After reading that paragraph, -I- certainly don't want to sympathize with them.

Another point to be made. This decision ISN'T about the constitutionality of the death penalty. It is only about the effectiveness of this drug cocktail.

Now onto my opinion. I think the cocktail should be left as is. If you are on Death Row and about to die, the pain isn't going to last long anyways. Though if we MUST change the way the Death Penalty is administered, how about just overdosing the person on opiates? That is a pretty painless way to go. You just pass out and never wake up.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
And I'm not entirely sure that was a good idea. Clearly these people deserve to be put to death,

No one "deserves" to be put to death. I am not an advocate of capital punishment and find state-sponsored murder abhorrent.

I think there is a point here. If you really insist on executing someone, at least do it cleanly and quickly. Execution by lethal injection can be neither quick, or clean.

Otherwise you may as well introduce stoning, beheading with a knife, or flaying someone alive, as in some other socially under-developed nations where life is cheap. No doubt on reading some of this persons crimes, some may well even want to come and watch such a revolting spectacle.

a reply to: paraphi

At the end of the day, killing someone for a crime is violent. Whether they feel pain or not, they are losing their life. I'm not trying to advocate mob rule here and public stonings, but there has to be a line drawn somewhere. If we are going to kill someone, then there should be some threshold of acceptable pain that the person is allowed to suffer before dying.

Though again, I DID suggest an opiate overdose as an alternative.

.32 to the back of the ear would be "clean and quick" I think.

Certainly cleaner and quicker than they elected to carry out their crimes, anyway.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Though if we MUST change the way the Death Penalty is administered, how about just overdosing the person on opiates? That is a pretty painless way to go. You just pass out and never wake up.

It seems like they can't just use something simple and effective without complicating it.... SHEESH

The Firing Squad would be the quickest and least painful.. They could even mechanize it... Bullet to the brain.. Quick, final...

Semper

Can someone explain why it's so hard to use lethal injection to execute someone?

My vet doesn't seem to have any problem putting down dogs and cats -- and those animals don't appear to be in pain after they're administered their lethal injection...

a reply to: semperfortis

The beauty of firing squads are that there is only one bullet and the rest are blanks. This allows everyone in the firing squad to think that THEY didn't have the live ammunition that killed the person. Though, a problem with firing squads is that the firers have to be accurate with their rifles. If they miss, it'll be VERY painful for the person being executed.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: paraphi

At the end of the day, killing someone for a crime is violent. Whether they feel pain or not, they are losing their life. I'm not trying to advocate mob rule here and public stonings, but there has to be a line drawn somewhere. If we are going to kill someone, then there should be some threshold of acceptable pain that the person is allowed to suffer before dying.

Though again, I DID suggest an opiate overdose as an alternative.

I am not really an advocate for the death penalty, but given that violent offenders like that are given life in prison at the taxpayers expense, to never go hungry, to never go cold, to be entertained for life, doesn't seem quite fair.

This is a terrible thing, but I think it should be left up to the families of the victims. After all, you can't put a price on a human life, but spending a lot of money for a life to take care of that life after the person egregiously took another, that doesn't make sense to me.

Leave it up to the families of victims. Right now, that's my offer and I can't think of anything else to say about it. I don't like the fact that when it comes to paying for that perpetrator, the families are still supporting them through their tax dollars, how fair is that to them?

a reply to: WarminIndy

Fair point, death row is VERY expensive to house those inmates and many sit on death row for YEARS or even DECADES. I don't know if I can agree with letting the family decide. I'd think they'd be too emotionally attached to the situation to make a sound decision.

a reply to: [post=19291491]Krazysh0t[/post
I think you have that wrong, isn't it that all but one have live rounds?

originally posted by: Shamrock6
.32 to the back of the ear would be "clean and quick" I think.

Like I said. If you have to execute someone, then that's certainly a quick option. Why not this approach. far better than this failed lethal injection approach.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: [post=19291491]Krazysh0t[/post
I think you have that wrong, isn't it that all but one have live rounds?

It's possible that I'm backwards (I totally didn't look it up before posting), but the intention is the same.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

In practice it can be one or multiple dummy rounds. Just depends on how many shooters there are in the squad.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Right. The point is that there is at least one blank being fired to give the firers a way to reconcile with their conscious about killing someone.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yep, just offering clarification.

Factoid: they used to use blanks, but with the evolution of ammunition they now frequently use a wax bullet for the "blank" because it doesn't have as noticeable of a difference in recoil. Way back when, dudes pretty much knew whether they had the blank or not.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Hmmm. I didn't know that. Makes sense too. Thinking about the times I fired blanks, it is rather obvious that you are doing it (your shoulder doesn't hurt after sustained firing for instance).

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: WarminIndy

Fair point, death row is VERY expensive to house those inmates and many sit on death row for YEARS or even DECADES. I don't know if I can agree with letting the family decide. I'd think they'd be too emotionally attached to the situation to make a sound decision.

And they will always be emotionally attached, even while paying their taxes.

Whatever is done should be done quickly. Letting them thrive that long is just too much. But as I said, I really have trouble with the death penalty, but it is not my job to make that decision.

I do not agree with hanging. I only agree that it should be only carried out in cases of proven murder, then again sometimes murderers are sometimes found innocent after many years. So it is tricky.

It's terrible all the way around. Some might have been killed when they might have been innocent. That is not acceptable either.

There's no solution from where I sit. All I can do is hope that they can absolutely prove the guilt of someone before they enact it.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
And they will always be emotionally attached, even while paying their taxes.

Whatever is done should be done quickly. Letting them thrive that long is just too much. But as I said, I really have trouble with the death penalty, but it is not my job to make that decision.

Most of the time they sit on death row for so long because of the appeals process.

I do not agree with hanging. I only agree that it should be only carried out in cases of proven murder, then again sometimes murderers are sometimes found innocent after many years. So it is tricky.

As well you shouldn't. To piggyback off of my movie inaccuracy thread, hangings in movies AREN'T like they are in real life. For one, they are rather violent. Most people's necks DON'T snap when first dropped and they end up strangling to death while flailing around like a fish on a line. Oh and you are pretty much guaranteed to crap yourself when you die. So it's also kind of messy and smelly.

It's terrible all the way around. Some might have been killed when they might have been innocent. That is not acceptable either.

That comes back to that appeals process and why people sit on death row for so long.

There's no solution from where I sit. All I can do is hope that they can absolutely prove the guilt of someone before they enact it.

We get better at it all the time. Unfortunately, humans are prone to hide evidence or distort facts to get convictions, so the technology can only go so far.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

How convenient they selected somebody called "Lynch" in the supreme court ... so there might not be any shortage of ideas on alternative execution methods ...

BTW, why cannot they just apply the same method as the culprit used to kill his/her victims? It would make all that much simpler. No discussion, everybody would know exactly how things are going to pan out.

originally posted by: deckdel
a reply to: Krazysh0t

How convenient they selected somebody called "Lynch" in the supreme court ... so there might not be any shortage of ideas on alternative execution methods ...

BTW, why cannot they just apply the same method as the culprit used to kill his/her victims? It would make all that much simpler. No discussion, everybody would know exactly how things are going to pan out.

Loretta Lynch is the new Attorney General.

She replaced Eric Holder.