• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

was this actually "Botched"?

Does it actually matter?

  • No....he deserved to die a harrible death.

    Votes: 7 21.2%
  • Yes....Everyone should die with dignity.

    Votes: 12 36.4%
  • I simply do not care what happened to this bastard.

    Votes: 6 18.2%
  • He died a better death than his victim.

    Votes: 8 24.2%

  • Total voters
    33
Why not just use general anesthesia? Its good enough for surgery and used all the friggin time? and then any number of death sentences will be painless.

However, this is a good read. Its actually cheaper just to someone in prison for life (which is what I personally support)

To execute or not: A question of cost? - US news - Crime & courts | NBC News

No, it's not. Putting someone to death is cheap. It's the absurd legal wrangling that we allow people to go through, paid for by the taxpayer, that's expensive. Once someone is convicted by a jury of their peers, once they go through their single mandatory appeal, we should restrict all other appeals to new evidence that the convicted is factually innocent of the crime. They shouldn't be able to appeal because they don't like the sentence and don't want to die. That makes the system much, much less expensive.
 
I think prisoners who receive the death penalty do not necessarily have to die completely painlessly, but we should not make their deaths needlessly barbaric either. Whatever Oklahoma is using isn't working obviously, and there are likely better ways to do it.

General anesthesia would be a good start, and then you can use any number or ways without causing them pain. Or just strap them down and hook them up to a ventilator feeding them an inert gas like nitrogen or helium. There won't be any CO2 buildup in the blood, so they won't get the suffocating feeling, they'll just pass out and die shortly afterward from lack of oxygen.

I'm entirely fine with knocking them out, then putting a bullet in their head. It's fast, it's cheap and it allows us to harvest their organs. Why do people purposely make this more difficult than it needs to be?
 
"McALESTER, Okla. – A botched execution that used a new drug combination left an Oklahoma inmate writhing and clenching his teeth on the gurney Tuesday, leading prison officials to halt the proceedings before the inmate's eventual death from a heart attack.
Clayton Lockett, 38, was declared unconscious 10 minutes after the first of the state's new three-drug lethal injection combination was administered. Three minutes later, though, he began breathing heavily, writhing, clenching his teeth and straining to lift his head off the pillow.



The blinds were eventually lowered to prevent those in the viewing gallery from watching what was happening in the death chamber, and the state's top prison official eventually called a halt to the proceedings. Lockett died of a heart attack a short time later, the Department of Corrections said.
"It was a horrible thing to witness. This was totally botched," said Lockett's attorney, David Autry."
Okla. inmate dies of heart attack after botched execution | Fox News


Does it rally matter "HOW" we kill the people we decide need to die?

No it was not botched. He was executed.A botched execution would be one that did not succeed in execution. This whining over him feeling some pain is idiotic and nothing more than piece of **** scumbag sympathizer propaganda. Considering what he did to his victim his death was easy.
 
Last edited:
[/I]Does it rally matter "HOW" we kill the people we decide need to die?

Imo, as long as it's fast, efficient, and relatively painless, I don't care how we kill them. A bullet to the head would be fine with me.
 
He should not have been executed to begin with...
 
Thus.....a bullet to the brain.

Immediate (No suffering)
Inexpensive (less than $100 including paying the squad)
Humane (comparatively)
Guaranteed to accomplish the goal



Plus, if retribution is required...we can put the Victims family on the squad.

I've seen pics of a guy who survived a shotgun blast in the maw. It ain't pretty. Botches will happen with every method.
 
I've seen pics of a guy who survived a shotgun blast in the maw. It ain't pretty. Botches will happen with every method.

No firing squad fails. Seven good marksmen, four bullets, three blanks, no one knows if their gun is live, all firing at the head.

Game over.
 
"McALESTER, Okla. – A botched execution that used a new drug combination left an Oklahoma inmate writhing and clenching his teeth on the gurney Tuesday, leading prison officials to halt the proceedings before the inmate's eventual death from a heart attack.
Clayton Lockett, 38, was declared unconscious 10 minutes after the first of the state's new three-drug lethal injection combination was administered. Three minutes later, though, he began breathing heavily, writhing, clenching his teeth and straining to lift his head off the pillow.



The blinds were eventually lowered to prevent those in the viewing gallery from watching what was happening in the death chamber, and the state's top prison official eventually called a halt to the proceedings. Lockett died of a heart attack a short time later, the Department of Corrections said.
"It was a horrible thing to witness. This was totally botched," said Lockett's attorney, David Autry."
Okla. inmate dies of heart attack after botched execution | Fox News


Does it rally matter "HOW" we kill the people we decide need to die?




I always wondered why they did away with crucifixion myself.
 
I always wondered why they did away with crucifixion myself.

Too expensive
$220 in materials
Food and Beverage service for the 3 days of people watching.
Cleaning service in bio suits.


It adds up.
 
Too expensive
$220 in materials
Food and Beverage service for the 3 days of people watching.
Cleaning service in bio suits.


It adds up.



Good point.

But then what about the English method of making it a festival? It is so much easier when you simply let them swing and they have to hire people to pull on their legs so they die fairly quickly.

That should save the state a ****load and you could charge the spectators a user fee.
 
No firing squad fails. Seven good marksmen, four bullets, three blanks, no one knows if their gun is live, all firing at the head.

Game over.

I never got this absurdity of not knowing who made the kill. We hire soldiers, put them on the battlefield and they don't get blanks. They are paid to kill. Hell, pay me, I'll pull the trigger on any death row case in the nation, no blanks required.
 
I never got this absurdity of not knowing who made the kill. We hire soldiers, put them on the battlefield and they don't get blanks. They are paid to kill. Hell, pay me, I'll pull the trigger on any death row case in the nation, no blanks required.

These are not soldiers....they are employees and not trained to kill.

In this way, they do not know to feel guilt.
 
No firing squad fails. Seven good marksmen, four bullets, three blanks, no one knows if their gun is live, all firing at the head.

Game over.

You can't seriously be claiming that an execution by firing squad hasn't been horribly botched?
 
You can't seriously be claiming that an execution by firing squad hasn't been horribly botched?

I don't see how a firing squad as described could fail to cause immediate and complete death with virtually no suffering besides the anticipation.
 
These are not soldiers....they are employees and not trained to kill.

In this way, they do not know to feel guilt.

Then hire some soldiers. Problem solved.
 
You can't seriously be claiming that an execution by firing squad hasn't been horribly botched?

Besides, marksmen aren't trained to fire at the head, they are trained to fire at the center of mass.
 
That also...gets expensive.

The idea is to eliminate the problem as cheaply as possible.

How does that get expensive? Soldiers are already on the payroll, we have A MILLION AND A HALF OF THEM!
 
How does that get expensive? Soldiers are already on the payroll, we have A MILLION AND A HALF OF THEM!

Though I prefer not to reply to people like yourself....I will do so in an attempt to educate.

The united States military are not a free service to the states, even the state national guard are expensive (though subsidized). The cost of using our military for a firing squad might very well exceed the cost of current choices....though I admit I do not know the detailed cost analysis.
 
"McALESTER, Okla. – A botched execution that used a new drug combination left an Oklahoma inmate writhing and clenching his teeth on the gurney Tuesday, leading prison officials to halt the proceedings before the inmate's eventual death from a heart attack.
Clayton Lockett, 38, was declared unconscious 10 minutes after the first of the state's new three-drug lethal injection combination was administered. Three minutes later, though, he began breathing heavily, writhing, clenching his teeth and straining to lift his head off the pillow.



The blinds were eventually lowered to prevent those in the viewing gallery from watching what was happening in the death chamber, and the state's top prison official eventually called a halt to the proceedings. Lockett died of a heart attack a short time later, the Department of Corrections said.
"It was a horrible thing to witness. This was totally botched," said Lockett's attorney, David Autry."
Okla. inmate dies of heart attack after botched execution | Fox News


Does it rally matter "HOW" we kill the people we decide need to die?

It's funny, I just came from another thread where I was arguing for an absolute reading of one Amendment in the Bill of Rights, that I think is clear and unambiguous, and not open to any interpretation. A different Amendment is relevant to this discussion, which I see as being somewhat otherwise. The Eighth Amendment prohibits “cruel and unusual punishment”. We've come to treat this as meaning that when we put a criminal to death, this must be done as cleanly and humanely as possible. I think this is well beyond anything that the Eighth Amendment was intended to mean. It seems much more reasonable to me to suppose that what it meant to prohibit (and should have been written more clearly to say so) was punishment that was out of scale for the crime. For example, torturing someone to a slow, agonizing death, for the crime of stealing a candy bar.

I have no problem with the idea of a murderer who caused his victim to suffer greatly before dying, being punished in a manner that causes him to suffer to a similar degree, before dying, and I doubt if those who wrote the Eighth Amendment would have a problem with that, either.



Even from the absurd “humane” viewpoint,I doubt if this execution was nearly as “botched” as it is thought to be. As a matter of normal medical procedure, patients are put under general anesthesia all the time, for surgery. They are literally cut open, so that surgeons may mess with their insides, possibly cut out damaged parts, and then sew them shut before they awake. I have to think that the experience of any significant surgery would be very painful and terrifying, without anesthesia.

I have to think that if the first step of Mr. Lockett's execution was carried out properly, he was solidly unconscious and unaware of anything that was happening to him after that—suffering no more than a patient would who is undergoing surgery. If he regained any consciousness before finally dying of a heart attack, then surely he suffered far more greatly than he would have if they had proceeded with the execution as planned, in spite of the alarming way in which Mr. Lockett's body was reacting to the drugs; or better yet, just had someone put a bullet in his brain (which is much closer, I think, to what they ought to have done in the first place).

Really, the only thing that I think truly went wrong with this execution was that the audience was treated to a more gruesome and alarming event than they expected. They expected and were meant to see a man peacefully fall asleep, never to wake again; and instead they saw him thrashing and writhing as if in great distress.
 
Of course it does. As digusting as this creature was, how do we show we are any better than him if we allow him to suffer unnecessarily?

The actions of the state should not be measured against the actions of the criminal. That's the road to barbarity.

I tend to believe in eye for an eye, though excessive brutality does take one to the same level as the scum.

The execution wasn't planned to turn out that way, but I can't say I carry any sympathy for him that it did.

I think there is something that we need to admit about criminal justice, especially where capital punishment is concerned.

There is a line that we are undeniably crossing, when we take someone's life. There is a line that we are crossing, even when we deprive a man of his freedom, and lock him in prison.

It would be better for us to never have to cross this line, but that's not how the world works. I think there is no point in denying that the line is crossed, or pretending that we can avoid crossing the line if we go about doing so in a manner that we imagine is somehow “humane” or “civilized”.

When we have to cross this line, I see no reason to hold back short of crossing it to the degree that is appropriate to the crime we are punishing.
 
Back
Top Bottom