Oklahoma Botched Execution - Clayton Lockett took 45 Minutes to Die

originally posted by: NavyDoc


I have to agree with your points.

However, I'd humbly point out that lack of sympathy for this man does not imply an endorsement of state sponsored torture. I'd say the comments in the thread are more hyperbole because of just how evil this man was and what he did.

Also, I'd like to suggest that a systemic error is not a violation of the Constitution. It does need to be evaluated and corrected though.

No sympathy for him from me either. its just there are a few on this thread who have expressed a desire to meet out certain barbaric things which would be in violation of the law

But I also agree no violation of Cruel and unusual has been done here as it was a accident. Due process has been carried out in a investigation. It would only have been cruel if done deliberately which it was not.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: NavyDoc
What would have been the point of that exercise?

At the very least it would be a symbolic gesture to the world that the US doesn't sanction torture. Instead they allowed the torture to continue well past the point where they should have requested urgent medical attention to prevent the torture continuing.

One could argue that intubation and a day on the ICU on a vent would have prolonged his misery even more.

Exactly. Death was the quickest fix to be honest. Putting him on life support would not have fixed the problem just prolonged the torment.

There was no magic antidote

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: NavyDoc


I have to agree with your points.

However, I'd humbly point out that lack of sympathy for this man does not imply an endorsement of state sponsored torture. I'd say the comments in the thread are more hyperbole because of just how evil this man was and what he did.

Also, I'd like to suggest that a systemic error is not a violation of the Constitution. It does need to be evaluated and corrected though.

No sympathy for him from me either. its just there are a few on this thread who have expressed a desire to meet out certain barbaric things which would be in violation of the law

But I also agree no violation of Cruel and unusual has been done here as it was a accident. Due process has been carried out in a investigation. It would only have been cruel if done deliberately which it was not.

I agree. It can't be a Constitutional violation as it was not intended and not deliberate. You present well thought out points.



Yes, it was an awful accident, which is why I get back to my earlier point of permitting a trained and qualified anesthetist to perform the procedure. He (or she) would have immediately identified the infiltrated IV, placed another one, and then continued on with the case. They do this sort of thing every day with the only real difference is that induction of anesthesia is followed with intubation and respiratory support.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Not sure how it works in the USA but I thought anesthetist were qualified doctors. Is execution not a violation of the oath?

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: NavyDoc

Not sure how it works in the USA but I thought anesthetist were qualified doctors. Is execution not a violation of the oath?

The medical profession in the US generally refuses to be a part of executions as it violates the Hippocratic Oath being "Do No Harm".

Executions are left up to poorly trained 'technicians' or guards from within the prison with rudimentary First Aid training only.

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: NavyDoc

Not sure how it works in the USA but I thought anesthetist were qualified doctors. Is execution not a violation of the oath?

In the US, nurse anesthetists are called "anesthetists" and medical doctors are called "anesthesiologists". In the UK, doctors are called "anesthetists," IRRC. As Robert Browning said the US and UK are two countries divided by a common language.

As for the Hippocratic oath, it also originally had a part about never doing an abortion, but the medical community got around that pretty easily--they just cut it out. I do find it hypocritical of medical boards who make participation in a legal execution after guilt was determined by a jury trial and failure of multiple appeals a license revoking event but have no problem with physicians being paid shills for industry or abortionists or sundry other practices of debatable ethics.

From a philosophical standpoint, under the concept of "do no harm" one could suggest that not punishing very evil people is the greater harm than executing them.

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: NavyDoc

Not sure how it works in the USA but I thought anesthetist were qualified doctors. Is execution not a violation of the oath?

The medical profession in the US generally refuses to be a part of executions as it violates the Hippocratic Oath being "Do No Harm".

Executions are left up to poorly trained 'technicians' or guards from within the prison with rudimentary First Aid training only.

Not quite. State boards forbid any physician from being part of an execution. There are physicians who have neither moral nor ethical problems with executing a condemned murderer.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

Not quite. State boards forbid any physician from being part of an execution. There are physicians who have neither moral nor ethical problems with executing a condemned murderer.

I am sure there are, but they are accountable to the medical profession which has clearly decided it is against their ethical standards to participate in executing people - regardless of whether you, or anyone else, likes that or not.

originally posted by: NavyDoc


In the US, nurse anesthetists are called "anesthetists" and medical doctors are called "anesthesiologists". In the UK, doctors are called "anesthetists," IRRC. As Robert Browning said the US and UK are two countries divided by a common language.

As for the Hippocratic oath, it also originally had a part about never doing an abortion, but the medical community got around that pretty easily--they just cut it out. I do find it hypocritical of medical boards who make participation in a legal execution after guilt was determined by a jury trial and failure of multiple appeals a license revoking event but have no problem with physicians being paid shills for industry or abortionists or sundry other practices of debatable ethics.

From a philosophical standpoint, under the concept of "do no harm" one could suggest that not punishing very evil people is the greater harm than executing them.

Thanks for clearing that up.

To add I will say its up to the individaul doctor or nurse if there are comfortable with it.

Not for me to judge.

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: NavyDoc

Not quite. State boards forbid any physician from being part of an execution. There are physicians who have neither moral nor ethical problems with executing a condemned murderer.

I am sure there are, but they are accountable to the medical profession which has clearly decided it is against their ethical standards to participate in executing people - regardless of whether you, or anyone else, likes that or not.

Ah, so thinking for one's self is not acceptable?

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: NavyDoc


In the US, nurse anesthetists are called "anesthetists" and medical doctors are called "anesthesiologists". In the UK, doctors are called "anesthetists," IRRC. As Robert Browning said the US and UK are two countries divided by a common language.

As for the Hippocratic oath, it also originally had a part about never doing an abortion, but the medical community got around that pretty easily--they just cut it out. I do find it hypocritical of medical boards who make participation in a legal execution after guilt was determined by a jury trial and failure of multiple appeals a license revoking event but have no problem with physicians being paid shills for industry or abortionists or sundry other practices of debatable ethics.

From a philosophical standpoint, under the concept of "do no harm" one could suggest that not punishing very evil people is the greater harm than executing them.

Thanks for clearing that up.

To add I will say its up to the individaul doctor or nurse if there are comfortable with it.

Not for me to judge.

I agree. These ethical issues are complex and convoluted. State medical boards should only be about technical qualifications and legal practices, not dictating individual morality.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

Ah, so thinking for one's self is not acceptable?

At no point in time did I say that.

a reply to: FlyersFan
My feelings exactly. Just when I think Karma is a bunch of bunk, here comes a case that is truly is an "eye for an eye."

originally posted by: knowledgedesired
Bring back the guillotine...Simple to operate...Quick...Easy...Painless.

I would rather my head chopped off in an instant than to squirm for even 1 min with poisons flowing through my veins.

Firing squad is another cheap and effective method but I would still prefer the guillotine.

We could even bring back a method from a country Jesus railed against since that is the direction we are headed.
Roman Crucifixion.

What would Jesus have to say about all this?

It seems like everything is upside down these days in regards to values where Greed is Good, Wrath is good, Vengeance is good but only murder is bad.


Jesus was a Pot Smoking Liberal Hippie!

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: NavyDoc

Ah, so thinking for one's self is not acceptable?

At no point in time did I say that.

I'm sorry, that seemed the implication. The board is flawed on many of it's policies because it often steps out of the realm of professional qualification and into the realm of individual morality which, often, is subjective. That they exempt abortion but condemn execution on ethical grounds is a bit of a dichotomy in my humble opinion.

originally posted by: Kram09
a reply to: Vasa Croe

it is simply that they have no respect for innocent life while most do.

How about just simply having respect for life itself?

Pay for a murderer to live out their days with no care in the world and everything provided for them?

That generally seems to be the modus operandi with most other criminals in the United States these days, so I don't realistically see what kind of difference it would make.

Yep, destroy one life and everyone is all in an uproar. Destroy the lives of millions in our own country and abroad backed by big government with a big stick and everything is fine.

Personally I could care less about this "botched execution"! That pos is dead. SO WHAT if he suffered. Did he take a second and ask if his gf's 11 month old daughter was suffering as he raped her??? IMO he should have been put to death in the most brutal way possible. This lethal injection is nothing but a get out of jail free card. They don't feel it and they damn well should feel their life leaving their bodies.

a reply to: NavyDoc

No, it's a demand for justice. I feel sympathy for people who cannot stand up for what is right and who seem to care more about the criminal than the victim.

That's a really lame argument and one I knew you'd use. It's akin to the "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" line of reasoning.


The victim is already dead. It's vengeance, not justice.

Murdering somebody in retaliation is not justice. In one sense you're doing the perpetrator a favour by ridding them of any remorse or guilt they may feel. They no longer have to live with what they've done, while the families don't have their loved one back and still have to think about it every day. Obviously, I'm sure some will gain satisfaction from the death of the murderer, but some perhaps can learn to forgive.

Forgiveness is difficult and is much easier said than done. An attribute of the strong.

I think something to ponder is whether people are born evil or are they shaped by circumstances or their upbringing or environment?

Were these people just intrinsically evil and rotten to the core? Even as a child?

Burning would get the job done and provide the deterrent that the injections and electric chair don't. If they were broadcast the deterrent factor would be magnified tenfold and capital crime would soon be manageable. Citizens would not not need guns for protection and we could reduce the number of active duty police we have. The number of prisons could be reduced because the petty criminals would be worried about "what if I'm robbing some old guy and he dies from a heart attack" they'll burn me. Many, on the fence, criminals would change their mind if they knew they WOULD face justice.