It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ohio Executes Inmate Using Single Drug Method

page: 6
2
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
The one drug method did and should work assuming a good IV AND a massive overdose that gets the job done. With this you get respiatory standstill AND massive hypo tension (decreased BP) and that will do the job nicely.

That would ensure we can kill these animals in a timely fashion


The problem with this is that valuable resources are wasted. People with professions such as yours have better places to be and more important people to tend to. Granted that could be the Hippocratic Oath in you speaking.

There's a place online offering 100 bullets for $30. That works out very cheaply AND there are perks:

1. There should be an even further discount for buying in bulk.

2. Save even more by lining up a few of them and use less bullets.


brill

[edit on 12-12-2009 by brill]




posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 08:03 PM
link   
As far as capital punishment goes, I am not really sure why the state cares whether or not a person condemned to die feels discomfort prior to death.

I also don't understand why there are years and years of appeals. I can understand 1 year. But 18?

I suppose if you want a guaranteed painless method of death you could use explosives. There might be some ringing in the condemned's ears, fortunately he will be no where near them at the time.

I figure, if you have committed an act so grievous that the state has determined that your punishment should be death then the method of your execution should not matter as long as the end result is the same.

Another method of execution could be carbon monoxide poisoning. Apparently a person who dies by this method will feel no pain at all. They fall asleep to never awaken again. Death comes from asphyxiation.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by brill

I don't think anyone can argue that point. For the most part high profile criminals also wear a target within the prison system itself. So what happens when joe innocent is picked off by the other inmates ? No matter what system of justice is imposed there will be innocent casualties.

What do you then propose we do? Do we continue to stuff more prisoners into a system that is already bulging at the seams and underfunded? I honestly believe that the majority of death penalty cases are scrutinized more than non death penalty cases. I cannot prove this but the appeals process seems to offer some perspective here. No its not infallible but the options list is short. I am certainly not in favor of rehabilitating repeat offenders, by their repeated actions alone they deserve death in cases of murder.

brill


You make a good point. Some innocent people are killed in prison even without the death penalty. The difference is that killing in someone in prison is treated as a murder and investigated as one. It is a good point though. And it is true that locking someone up for life is essentially the same as the death penalty, but I believe that if a person is truly innocent, they should have the rest of their life to prove it. I guess I just think that the death penalty is foolish in an imperfect justice system.

I think the best recent example of why it doesn't work is when Governor Ryan of Illinois commuted all death sentences because he found out some confessions were beaten out of them by the police.

As far as overcrowding goes, that is true, but it's not because of murderers. The overcrowding is mostly because of drug related crimes. The simple solution to that(and many other problems) is to de-criminalize drugs. As for the cost of imprisoning the murderers, it's actually cheaper to keep them in prison then to kill them. The appeals process is much more costly to the state then keeping the person behind bars.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bosko
I think the best recent example of why it doesn't work is when Governor Ryan of Illinois commuted all death sentences because he found out some confessions were beaten out of them by the police.


I support the execution for murderers (circumstances depending) but I would want a bit more evidence than just a confession





As far as overcrowding goes, that is true, but it's not because of murderers. The overcrowding is mostly because of drug related crimes. The simple solution to that(and many other problems) is to de-criminalize drugs. As for the cost of imprisoning the murderers, it's actually cheaper to keep them in prison then to kill them. The appeals process is much more costly to the state then keeping the person behind bars.


That is too simplistic though, drug related crimes will continue with legalising drugs, people will continue to commit crimes while whapped out on drugs or to feed the drug habit- additionally, anyway we square it, legalising it will encourage more people to use/try drugs.

In the UK we have a big alcohol problem, I am a drinker, but I recognise the damage that it can do to society- people often use the alcohol issue as an excuse to legalise all drugs, but I think this is a regressive step- alcohol is embedded in our culture and has been for millenium, why do we wish to add to the problem by legalising other societal ills



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 10:18 AM
link   
Firing squad!!!!!!!!!!!!! so I'm NOT the only one who thinks it should be brought back...........
You blindfold him - line up the sharpshooters, and, bada bing!! it's over!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But of course it will never happen; too low-cost and sensible!!!
Oh well, we can at least hope!!
And I'm sure not a gun person, but if I had to, and they needed volunteers? I'd learn how to handle a rife right quick!!!!!!!!!



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 11:20 AM
link   
I find some of the posts in this thread quite disturbing with people describing how they think people should be executed. I can understand it as being an immediate reaction of they should suffer like their victims did, but I really dont think anyone's life should be ended in a cruel, painful way no matter what they've done. That sort of behaviour is wrong, even if you think someone 'deserves' it.

However, I do completely agree with the death penalty.
The main issue with the lethal injection seems to be that the 3rd injection is known to be extremely painful. So with the sodium thiopental wearing off rather quickly, and the paralysis the prisoner would be experiencing, it can add up to being an incredibly distressing experience.
The single drug method does seem to be more humane as the prisoner will definately be unconcious, but apparantly it can take up to 45 minutes to actually kill the person. But I suppose as long as the prisoner doesnt regain conciousness in that time then overall its a better method to use than the previous one.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 01:00 PM
link   
here's a bbc horizon program considering the diffirent methods . Goes through hanging, electrocution, lethal injection, cyanide gas, argon/nitrogen gas.

5 parts total.



[edit on 15-12-2009 by yeti101]



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by yeti101
 


Saw that when it was on tv a couple of years ago, very interesting & informative.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 05:21 PM
link   
I've seen a independent documentary in which a man shows exactly how he plans to kill himself, he intended to use gas, and explained how to do it without the risk of harming anyone else. He expressed that it was the best option as it was painless and comparable to drifting off to sleep. If people insisted on removing these criminals from this world, that would seem to be the most peaceful way to go.

-B.M



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 05:40 PM
link   
Lethal injection like an animal gets is plenty of consideration. They get put to sleep. I have had to put some animals down, and they didn't seem to mind at all. I read that in UT they use the firing squad because of an old Mormon belief that you pay for your sins with the shedding of your own blood. (This comes from their belief that the crucifixion of Christ is not effective enough, which may be why they do not use crosses on any of the outside or inside of their church buildings). I don't think it is wise to get the prison guards eager to kill.

I knew a Chief Psychologist at a major penitentiary who privately told me that he, if he could, would execute 97% of the prisoners because he felt they were a lost cause, and that the other 3% might be able to be recovered. He had decades of experience.

I remember years ago when an inmate in CA cost $45,000 per year. Today, it is likely over $100,000. Guards are paid six figure incomes. Check the CA website for pay. Admittedly, there is some risk involved for them. However, six figures? GMAB

So, back then, $45,000 would put some kids through high school. Today, you can see how the Univ of CA cannot afford to run their institutions unless there is a major increase in fees/tuitions on students.

I remember when you could go to Jr College for free.

We just have our priorities in the wrong place. With very high returns to incarceration, most programs are a waste of time for anything other than motivation to be good while they are doing time.

I say put the money into the next generation, instead of the old one that is in prison.

You know, under the theocracy under Moses, the criminals could be sent to cities of refuge, where they had to live together and put up with each other, while earning a living.

Idle hands are the devil's tool, etc.


[edit on 12/15/2009 by Jim Scott]



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by blueorder

I support the execution for murderers (circumstances depending) but I would want a bit more evidence than just a confession



I have no sympathy for murderers, but my point all along is that any justice system is not perfect. That is why I cannot support the death penalty, and that is why a life sentence is the best thing to do. It gives them a chance to prove they are innocent if they truly are.



That is too simplistic though, drug related crimes will continue with legalising drugs, people will continue to commit crimes while whapped out on drugs or to feed the drug habit- additionally, anyway we square it, legalising it will encourage more people to use/try drugs.


It's off topic, but I have to challenge you on this one
All evidence points to the opposite of that. If you look at Portugal, drug use and drug related crime has dropped significantly since all drugs were legalized. Amsterdam is still a normal, modern city today. There will always be problems with drugs, but treating drug use as a criminal problem will never help.

It is simplistic, but it would get many people out of prison and leave plenty of room for murderers. In the US, I believe the majority of people in prison are in for drug related crimes.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bosko
I have no sympathy for murderers, but my point all along is that any justice system is not perfect. That is why I cannot support the death penalty, and that is why a life sentence is the best thing to do. It gives them a chance to prove they are innocent if they truly are.


For sure I agree, no justice system is perfect- I do think cases would be looked at more closely when the death penalty is involved. I cannot say that an innocent person will never be executed, and it is a tragedy if it occurs, I just think that society will be safe with the death penalty and we will have less deaths overall (whether prisoners murdering other prisoners in jail or being released and killing again). I also feel the death penalty will have a deterrent effect (I can produce studies, papers etc which support this, no doubt as you could do likewise in reverse)





It's off topic, but I have to challenge you on this one
All evidence points to the opposite of that. If you look at Portugal, drug use and drug related crime has dropped significantly since all drugs were legalized. Amsterdam is still a normal, modern city today. There will always be problems with drugs, but treating drug use as a criminal problem will never help.

It is simplistic, but it would get many people out of prison and leave plenty of room for murderers. In the US, I believe the majority of people in prison are in for drug related crimes.



In every country where the laws have been relaxed, drug use has increased, Sweden, Holland, America (especially Alaska), South Australia. In countries like Japan and Singapore drug use has been virtually eliminated by tough drug laws and aggressive enforcement.

In Britain, for example, the laws against drugs haven’t failed. Regular drug use is around 10% of the population. "Prohibition" has helped to deter the other 90%. A huge amount of violence is connected with drug taking especially stimulants like coc aine and crack. About 17% of violent crimes are committed by people under the influence of drugs.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 11:12 AM
link   
as i said before the us constitution says NO CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT.
however i don't think this applies to the death penaltly pertaining the criminal is quickly dispatched.
i don't condone the torture of any animal,but if you do a horrific act maybe the punishment should suit the crime?
or maybe we should buy an island somewhere andexile them and let them play survivor amongst themselves- would prrobably be cheaper in the long run



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 03:55 AM
link   
As stated before I support the death penalty- I do not feel it should be used in EVERY murder, but available depending on circumstances etc.

Many of those in the opposing camp talk about the possibility of innocents being killed, understandable concern I agree, horrific if it occurs- how would they feel about these people being executed, where there is no doubt whatsoever about their guilt?

www.dailyrecord.co.uk...

www.independent.co.uk...

en.wikipedia.org...


Any of your "fears" would be removed in these cases- and, presuming there was a "flexible" use of the death penalty, specifically in instances such as these, there would be no problem.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 04:10 AM
link   
reply to post by blueorder
 


This from the person who said THIS:


Id be happy to torture the murderer to death myself


You are full of it. "It" being the word that describes the fecal matter that exudes itself from bovine backsides. You are no better than the man who committed these horrible deeds. You are nothing more than a hypocrite.

[edit on 17/12/2009 by Kryties]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kryties
This from the person who said THIS:

Id be happy to torture the murderer to death myself

You are full of it. "It" being the word that describes the fecal matter that exudes itself from bovine backsides. You are no better than the man who committed these horrible deeds. You are nothing more than a hypocrite.

[edit on 17/12/2009 by Kryties]




This from the man who said he never said capital punishment was the same as the original murder..................only for me to quote him saying "murdering the murderer".........................thereby proving him to be a morally devoid deviant.


You are such a cretin- once again here goes


* I personally would want to torture a murderer to death who killed one of my loved ones


* I do not support the state being run according to my personal experience


Those are two separate issues- personal feelings and state methods


You are such a putz


"MURDERING THE MURDER"


do one fieldmouse

[edit on 17-12-2009 by blueorder]

[edit on 17-12-2009 by blueorder]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 04:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by blueorder

This from the man who said he never said capital punishment was the same as the original murder..................only for me to quote him saying "murdering the murderer".........................thereby proving him to be a morally devoid deviant.


Is that so? So, in your definition, execution of someone is different from murdering someone? How so? Neither side wishes to die, both sides wish to live, both sides recieve death by another party involuntarily.....

The dictionary defines murder as thus:


Murder, as defined in common law countries, is the unlawful killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought)


So, lets examine that shall we? The only part about that definition that makes the difference is the word "unlawful". Lets just delete that word for a second and what do we have....."Murder, as defined in common law countries, is the killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought)". Having taken away the word "unlawful" (don't forget that's the very issue we are arguing for here) we get EXACTLY THE SAME SCENARIO AS A MURDER.

The person to be executed does not want to die. The only reason for killing him is to satisfy the emotional needs of the victims (remembering that a dead person cannot learn a lesson - unless you want to try and argue that with me - good luck with that). So, we are left with a person who is being killed against his/her will for the satisfaction of the victims family. THAT IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF MURDER.



You are such a cretin- once again here goes


And you resort to insults to get your point across - a sign of someone who has no idea what they are talking about so therefore resorts to insults in order to gain sympathy.



* I personally would want to torture a murderer to death who killed one of my loved ones


And that makes you a bonafide hypocrite.


You are such a putz


Again with the insults? I thought you claimed to be an intelligent person? Intelligent people do not resort to insults



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 04:42 AM
link   
I thought it best, given the limited intelligence of some members who are posting here, to clarify my position on the death penalty.....

If the person is guilty - they deserve punishment absolutely - not by way of execution though. My thoughts are twofold on thus: 1. That the person to be executed actually learns nothing from the experience BECAUSE HE/SHE IS DEAD; and 2. That murdering the murderer is nothing more than hypocrisy.

I said this to pre-empt any BS arguments that come from the opposing camp attempting to claim that I support the murderer or that I have no sympathy for the families. THIS IS NOTHING MORE THAN A LIE told to you by supporters in order to shift attention or fallaciously claim that I support the murderers actions in any form or fashion.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 04:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kryties
Is that so? So, in your definition, execution of someone is different from murdering someone? How so? Neither side wishes to die, both sides wish to live, both sides recieve death by another party involuntarily.....



So you finally admit you equate the two as the same, then why pray tell did you deny it for so long before I forced a virtual mirror to your words?


The murderer also, presumably does not wish to be locked up, but I think at the very least you wish to "lock him up", so why are you beholden to the wants of a murderer.

Take this example- a man murders a girl, the state then tries him lawfully with due legal process and decides the punishment is execution- now those who equate the lawful execution of a murder as the same as a man raping and murdering a girl are mental and moral midgets





The dictionary defines murder as thus:


Murder, as defined in common law countries, is the unlawful killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought)

So, lets examine that shall we? The only part about that definition that makes the difference is the word "unlawful". Lets just delete that word for a second and what do we have.




What, just bloody what, if you delet "unlawful" then it is not capital punishment thereby rendering the whole debate meaningless- the whole issue surrounding capital punishment is that it is LAWFUL state response to UNLAWFUL murder- such as in this case, a man unlawfully raping and murdering a child and the state saying, ok, here is our law, for those that rape and murder a child we will execute you.
MORAL DEVIANT



...."Murder, as defined in common law countries, is the killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought)". Having taken away the word "unlawful" (don't forget that's the very issue we are arguing for here) we get EXACTLY THE SAME SCENARIO AS A MURDER.



Bizzarre that you pick out one of the most important words in the definition- problem is you can't, it is inherent to the definition, so your whole thought process is more "wrong" than a porno with Nancy Pelosi in it
MORAL DEVIANT



The person to be executed does not want to die.


The person to be executed does not want to die or, presumably, does not wish to be incarcerated- what a bizzarre little justice system you believe in where we do what the murderer wants- perhaps the murderer wishes to rape and murder more girls, do you propose your funny state feeds him little girls? MORAL DEVIANT

The only reason for killing him is to satisfy the emotional needs of the victims (remembering that a dead person cannot learn a lesson - unless you want to try and argue that with me - good luck with that). So, we are left with a person who is being killed against his/her will for the satisfaction of the victims family. THAT IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF MURDER.





And you resort to insults to get your point across - a sign of someone who has no idea what they are talking about so therefore resorts to insults in order to gain sympathy.


Ironic, given your post to me today, which kicked off with abuse, don't like it, don't do it



And that makes you a bonafide hypocrite.


No it doesn't, my personal circumstances are not the same as state punishment- hence I said that whilst I would do that personally, I would happily accept whatever the state punishment is.

In your mental and moral void you simply cannot comprehend such a basic point






Again with the insults? I thought you claimed to be an intelligent person? Intelligent people do not resort to insults



Like I say, I can respond when I have to


[edit on 17-12-2009 by blueorder]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 04:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by KrytiesIf the person is guilty - they deserve punishment absolutely - not by way of execution though. My thoughts are twofold on thus: 1. That the person to be executed actually learns nothing from the experience BECAUSE HE/SHE IS DEAD;



what do you propose these chaps are "learning", from their incarceration, and why would I care what someone who rapes and murders kids, learns, what sort of deviant would I have to be to aide their "Learning"


www.dailyrecord.co.uk...

en.wikipedia.org...(serial_killer)

en.wikipedia.org...




and 2. That murdering the murderer is nothing more than hypocrisy.



no it isn't, one is the unlawful murder of some innocent, the other is the lawful execution of a deviant who does not deserve to exist amongst us because he has committed an unspeakably beastial act, such as raping and murdering a child.

Is incarcerating a kidnapper hypocrisy?

Is fining a thief hypocrisy?

What a deviant little belief system





I said this to pre-empt any BS arguments that come from the opposing camp attempting to claim that I support the murderer or that I have no sympathy for the families. THIS IS NOTHING MORE THAN A LIE told to you by supporters in order to shift attention or fallaciously claim that I support the murderers actions in any form or fashion.


your words speak different- I dare you to go to one of these families and tell them that the act of executing their daughter's murderer is the same act as the murder of their daughter

Let me see the "sympathy" eminating there

So pathetic



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join