Death row inmates not guaranteed 'painless' execution, U.S. Supreme Court says

[martybegan]

He kills his ex-lover’s new boyfriend, kidnaps and rapes her, shoots at her 6-year-old son and a police officer. Too bad the cops didn’t kill him when they had the chance.


He plays the appeals game for years and gets a stay with the support of Justice Kennedy. His latest ploy is to complain that a lethal injection will cause him pain due to a congenital condition.

In a decision that exposed stark divisions among the justices on the death penalty, the court ruled 5-4 that Bucklew had failed to present enough evidence to pursue his request to be executed by lethal gas. The court’s five conservatives were in the majority and its four liberals dissented.

Referring to the history of capital punishment, conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court’s majority that “the Eighth Amendment does not guarantee a prisoner a painless death - something that, of course, isn’t guaranteed to many people, including most victims of capital crimes.”

Does that mean that states are now free to reinstate electric chairs, gas chambers, hanging, or even firing squads?


We can only hope.

More @ Death row inmates not guaranteed 'painless' execution, U.S. Supreme Court says | Reuters

Cruel and unusual punishment

Is excruciating pain cruel?

For this guy I don't really care, but the cruel and unusual ban was about torture before execution mostly , which was very common in the years leading up to the Constitution, things like drawing and quartering, stretching, pressing, racking. Things to make you confess before they killed you.

The Death Penalty is Constitutional, it is even considered as a punishment, where the 5th amendment requires due process to be deprived of "life, liberty, or property"

Is a slow and painful execution torture?

Cruel and unusual punishment is the threshold

No, because torture is designed to punish or extract information, not to execute.

The problem with going with another method, i.e. the Nitrogen hypoxia method, is that we all know the second the State agrees to it, The State will be sued for violating its legal execution method. If they amend their execution law, they will be sued for implementing it ex post facto.

It's the same issue with asking for a certain Chaplain to enter the chamber when the person is not authorized. They sue to get him allowed in, and if he is, they will sue because he isn't part of the rules on who is allowed in. and if they changed the rules, BOOM, back to the ex post facto argument.

This is not about the pain of this one inmate, this is about attempts to make the Death Penalty impossible via countless legal challenges.

Luckily this decision also commented on that, and hopefully lower courts will get the message.

Thé court violated the First Amendment in requiring a chaplain of the chosen faith of the state.

The purpose of the Chaplain is to allow the condemned to make peace with God before he is executed. Forcing a Muslim to use a Christian chaplain does not make sense

They were not denied the Chaplain before the execution, only not allowed to have him/her in the death chamber.

Entry to the death chamber is strictly limited by law.

 

[Sunni Man]

How can anyone who even claims to be a Christian, like most Trump voters, believe it is moral for the state to pay a stranger to inject a prisoner strapped to a gurney with poison? Can you imagine Jesus saying he was cool with that?

Always comical to see atheists trying to lecture Christians about what Jesus would or wouldn't do. ... ...

 

[Marion Morrison]

He kills his ex-lover’s new boyfriend, kidnaps and rapes her, shoots at her 6-year-old son and a police officer. Too bad the cops didn’t kill him when they had the chance.


He plays the appeals game for years and gets a stay with the support of Justice Kennedy. His latest ploy is to complain that a lethal injection will cause him pain due to a congenital condition.

In a decision that exposed stark divisions among the justices on the death penalty, the court ruled 5-4 that Bucklew had failed to present enough evidence to pursue his request to be executed by lethal gas. The court’s five conservatives were in the majority and its four liberals dissented.

Referring to the history of capital punishment, conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court’s majority that “the Eighth Amendment does not guarantee a prisoner a painless death - something that, of course, isn’t guaranteed to many people, including most victims of capital crimes.”

Does that mean that states are now free to reinstate electric chairs, gas chambers, hanging, or even firing squads?


We can only hope.

More @ Death row inmates not guaranteed 'painless' execution, U.S. Supreme Court says | Reuters

He should have been hanged 20 years ago. Stop the insanity!

Capital punishment is state sponsored murder. How can anyone who even claims to be a Christian, like most Trump voters, believe it is moral for the state to pay a stranger to inject a prisoner strapped to a gurney with poison? Can you imagine Jesus saying he was cool with that? And we know for a fact states who use capital punishment have higher homicide rates than states who do not...and countries that have capital punishment, with only Japan as the exception, have much much higher murder rates than those who do not. So it is not a deterrent, in fact, it may be just the opposite. Remember how Ted Bundy killed a bunch of people in Washington, a state with little or not capital punishment, to move to Florida to continue his killing, a state with the second highest rate of capital punishment? If the death penalty was that big a deterrent would he have done that?

And as far as torturing people, only a sadistic loser would suggest that. That is how they treat murderers and even thieves in Muslim countries, maybe you would be happier there knowing murderers are put to death in very painful ways. What a sick little puppy you must be to get off on the pain of others, even miserable human beings who have committed such awful heinous crime. Only God can punish such people the right way, and those who would torture him here are no better morally than he is.

Sorry, but for some crimes 3 hots and a cot for the rest of a person's life isn't a sufficient punishment.

Well, maybe not. But if you were given the choice of a quick painless death or rotting away bored to death with nothing to think about but how you screwed up your whole life by your awful, inhuman crimes, and any remorse you might have, for the next 30 years with no chance of parole which would you choose?

Let us not ignore the moral implications, either. If we pay someone to kill another person in cold blood, a person restrained and in no way a threat to anyone, is society any better than that killer? why would anybody believe murder is an appropriate punishment for murder?

More lies designed to bloat the government.

 

[SweetSue92]

He kills his ex-lover’s new boyfriend, kidnaps and rapes her, shoots at her 6-year-old son and a police officer. Too bad the cops didn’t kill him when they had the chance.


He plays the appeals game for years and gets a stay with the support of Justice Kennedy. His latest ploy is to complain that a lethal injection will cause him pain due to a congenital condition.

In a decision that exposed stark divisions among the justices on the death penalty, the court ruled 5-4 that Bucklew had failed to present enough evidence to pursue his request to be executed by lethal gas. The court’s five conservatives were in the majority and its four liberals dissented.

Referring to the history of capital punishment, conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court’s majority that “the Eighth Amendment does not guarantee a prisoner a painless death - something that, of course, isn’t guaranteed to many people, including most victims of capital crimes.”

Does that mean that states are now free to reinstate electric chairs, gas chambers, hanging, or even firing squads?


We can only hope.

More @ Death row inmates not guaranteed 'painless' execution, U.S. Supreme Court says | Reuters

Cruel and unusual punishment

Is excruciating pain cruel?

We put late-term babies to death if momma doesn't want them. No pain killers, no one cares. "A woman's right to choose". And you ghouls all cheer

Bring it to an abortion thread
Nice try at diversion though

It's not diversion. Here you are bemoaning that people who are accused and convicted of CRIMES, who are not innocent, suffer pain upon their death.

You don't care at all if late term babies suffer pain upon their death simply because their mothers don't want them--and you're a total coward about it too. "Take it to an abortion thread" means you have no answer for it; you can't debate it.

Right. We know.

<sob> But...but...what about abortion?

I'm not crying, I'm making a reasonable argument. Is that making you cry?

 

[rightwinger]

Cruel and unusual punishment

Is excruciating pain cruel?

For this guy I don't really care, but the cruel and unusual ban was about torture before execution mostly , which was very common in the years leading up to the Constitution, things like drawing and quartering, stretching, pressing, racking. Things to make you confess before they killed you.

The Death Penalty is Constitutional, it is even considered as a punishment, where the 5th amendment requires due process to be deprived of "life, liberty, or property"

Is a slow and painful execution torture?

Cruel and unusual punishment is the threshold

No, because torture is designed to punish or extract information, not to execute.

The problem with going with another method, i.e. the Nitrogen hypoxia method, is that we all know the second the State agrees to it, The State will be sued for violating its legal execution method. If they amend their execution law, they will be sued for implementing it ex post facto.

It's the same issue with asking for a certain Chaplain to enter the chamber when the person is not authorized. They sue to get him allowed in, and if he is, they will sue because he isn't part of the rules on who is allowed in. and if they changed the rules, BOOM, back to the ex post facto argument.

This is not about the pain of this one inmate, this is about attempts to make the Death Penalty impossible via countless legal challenges.

Luckily this decision also commented on that, and hopefully lower courts will get the message.

Thé court violated the First Amendment in requiring a chaplain of the chosen faith of the state.

The purpose of the Chaplain is to allow the condemned to make peace with God before he is executed. Forcing a Muslim to use a Christian chaplain does not make sense

They were not denied the Chaplain before the execution, only not allowed to have him/her in the death chamber.

Entry to the death chamber is strictly limited by law.

Why?
If a Christian is allowed to have a Christian Chaplain in the death chamber, why can’t someone of another faith?
What good does a Christian Chaplain do for a Muslim?

What is so complex about being in the death chamber that a one hour indoctrination could not handle

Seems to be a first amendment violation

 

[martybegan]

For this guy I don't really care, but the cruel and unusual ban was about torture before execution mostly , which was very common in the years leading up to the Constitution, things like drawing and quartering, stretching, pressing, racking. Things to make you confess before they killed you.

The Death Penalty is Constitutional, it is even considered as a punishment, where the 5th amendment requires due process to be deprived of "life, liberty, or property"

Is a slow and painful execution torture?

Cruel and unusual punishment is the threshold

No, because torture is designed to punish or extract information, not to execute.

The problem with going with another method, i.e. the Nitrogen hypoxia method, is that we all know the second the State agrees to it, The State will be sued for violating its legal execution method. If they amend their execution law, they will be sued for implementing it ex post facto.

It's the same issue with asking for a certain Chaplain to enter the chamber when the person is not authorized. They sue to get him allowed in, and if he is, they will sue because he isn't part of the rules on who is allowed in. and if they changed the rules, BOOM, back to the ex post facto argument.

This is not about the pain of this one inmate, this is about attempts to make the Death Penalty impossible via countless legal challenges.

Luckily this decision also commented on that, and hopefully lower courts will get the message.

Thé court violated the First Amendment in requiring a chaplain of the chosen faith of the state.

The purpose of the Chaplain is to allow the condemned to make peace with God before he is executed. Forcing a Muslim to use a Christian chaplain does not make sense

They were not denied the Chaplain before the execution, only not allowed to have him/her in the death chamber.

Entry to the death chamber is strictly limited by law.

Why?
If a Christian is allowed to have a Christian Chaplain in the death chamber, why can’t someone of another faith?
What good does a Christian Chaplain do for a Muslim?

What is so complex about being in the death chamber that a one hour indoctrination could not handle

Seems to be a first amendment violation

This just illustrates that the whole fight is about delaying the execution, not trying to find the person innocent.

Again, they could hire a muslim chaplain but then the Defense attorneys would find something wrong with that as well.

Or they can declare no chaplains in the death chamber, and they will still get sued.

This isn't about the topics, its about the process.

 

[22lcidw]

He kills his ex-lover’s new boyfriend, kidnaps and rapes her, shoots at her 6-year-old son and a police officer. Too bad the cops didn’t kill him when they had the chance.


He plays the appeals game for years and gets a stay with the support of Justice Kennedy. His latest ploy is to complain that a lethal injection will cause him pain due to a congenital condition.

In a decision that exposed stark divisions among the justices on the death penalty, the court ruled 5-4 that Bucklew had failed to present enough evidence to pursue his request to be executed by lethal gas. The court’s five conservatives were in the majority and its four liberals dissented.

Referring to the history of capital punishment, conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court’s majority that “the Eighth Amendment does not guarantee a prisoner a painless death - something that, of course, isn’t guaranteed to many people, including most victims of capital crimes.”

Does that mean that states are now free to reinstate electric chairs, gas chambers, hanging, or even firing squads?


We can only hope.

More @ Death row inmates not guaranteed 'painless' execution, U.S. Supreme Court says | Reuters

Cruel and unusual punishment

Is excruciating pain cruel?

There are different types of murder. Some may need to be executed.

 

[rightwinger]

Is a slow and painful execution torture?

Cruel and unusual punishment is the threshold

No, because torture is designed to punish or extract information, not to execute.

The problem with going with another method, i.e. the Nitrogen hypoxia method, is that we all know the second the State agrees to it, The State will be sued for violating its legal execution method. If they amend their execution law, they will be sued for implementing it ex post facto.

It's the same issue with asking for a certain Chaplain to enter the chamber when the person is not authorized. They sue to get him allowed in, and if he is, they will sue because he isn't part of the rules on who is allowed in. and if they changed the rules, BOOM, back to the ex post facto argument.

This is not about the pain of this one inmate, this is about attempts to make the Death Penalty impossible via countless legal challenges.

Luckily this decision also commented on that, and hopefully lower courts will get the message.

Thé court violated the First Amendment in requiring a chaplain of the chosen faith of the state.

The purpose of the Chaplain is to allow the condemned to make peace with God before he is executed. Forcing a Muslim to use a Christian chaplain does not make sense

They were not denied the Chaplain before the execution, only not allowed to have him/her in the death chamber.

Entry to the death chamber is strictly limited by law.

Why?
If a Christian is allowed to have a Christian Chaplain in the death chamber, why can’t someone of another faith?
What good does a Christian Chaplain do for a Muslim?

What is so complex about being in the death chamber that a one hour indoctrination could not handle

Seems to be a first amendment violation

This just illustrates that the whole fight is about delaying the execution, not trying to find the person innocent.

Again, they could hire a muslim chaplain but then the Defense attorneys would find something wrong with that as well.

Or they can declare no chaplains in the death chamber, and they will still get sued.

This isn't about the topics, its about the process.

You are just making up hypotheticals

The court blew it on allowing chaplains if other faiths

 

[martybegan]

No, because torture is designed to punish or extract information, not to execute.

The problem with going with another method, i.e. the Nitrogen hypoxia method, is that we all know the second the State agrees to it, The State will be sued for violating its legal execution method. If they amend their execution law, they will be sued for implementing it ex post facto.

It's the same issue with asking for a certain Chaplain to enter the chamber when the person is not authorized. They sue to get him allowed in, and if he is, they will sue because he isn't part of the rules on who is allowed in. and if they changed the rules, BOOM, back to the ex post facto argument.

This is not about the pain of this one inmate, this is about attempts to make the Death Penalty impossible via countless legal challenges.

Luckily this decision also commented on that, and hopefully lower courts will get the message.

Thé court violated the First Amendment in requiring a chaplain of the chosen faith of the state.

The purpose of the Chaplain is to allow the condemned to make peace with God before he is executed. Forcing a Muslim to use a Christian chaplain does not make sense

They were not denied the Chaplain before the execution, only not allowed to have him/her in the death chamber.

Entry to the death chamber is strictly limited by law.

Why?
If a Christian is allowed to have a Christian Chaplain in the death chamber, why can’t someone of another faith?
What good does a Christian Chaplain do for a Muslim?

What is so complex about being in the death chamber that a one hour indoctrination could not handle

Seems to be a first amendment violation

This just illustrates that the whole fight is about delaying the execution, not trying to find the person innocent.

Again, they could hire a muslim chaplain but then the Defense attorneys would find something wrong with that as well.

Or they can declare no chaplains in the death chamber, and they will still get sued.

This isn't about the topics, its about the process.

You are just making up hypotheticals

The court blew it on allowing chaplains if other faiths

I am rightly assuming the real reasons behind all this.

Delay, Delay Delay, Cost, Cost, Cost.

 

[Vastator]

He kills his ex-lover’s new boyfriend, kidnaps and rapes her, shoots at her 6-year-old son and a police officer. Too bad the cops didn’t kill him when they had the chance.


He plays the appeals game for years and gets a stay with the support of Justice Kennedy. His latest ploy is to complain that a lethal injection will cause him pain due to a congenital condition.

In a decision that exposed stark divisions among the justices on the death penalty, the court ruled 5-4 that Bucklew had failed to present enough evidence to pursue his request to be executed by lethal gas. The court’s five conservatives were in the majority and its four liberals dissented.

Referring to the history of capital punishment, conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court’s majority that “the Eighth Amendment does not guarantee a prisoner a painless death - something that, of course, isn’t guaranteed to many people, including most victims of capital crimes.”

Does that mean that states are now free to reinstate electric chairs, gas chambers, hanging, or even firing squads?


We can only hope.

More @ Death row inmates not guaranteed 'painless' execution, U.S. Supreme Court says | Reuters

Firing squad would be preferable to all the others in my opinion. Both in terms of cost to the taxpayer, and as a way to go out...

 

[Vastator]

He kills his ex-lover’s new boyfriend, kidnaps and rapes her, shoots at her 6-year-old son and a police officer. Too bad the cops didn’t kill him when they had the chance.


He plays the appeals game for years and gets a stay with the support of Justice Kennedy. His latest ploy is to complain that a lethal injection will cause him pain due to a congenital condition.

In a decision that exposed stark divisions among the justices on the death penalty, the court ruled 5-4 that Bucklew had failed to present enough evidence to pursue his request to be executed by lethal gas. The court’s five conservatives were in the majority and its four liberals dissented.

Referring to the history of capital punishment, conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court’s majority that “the Eighth Amendment does not guarantee a prisoner a painless death - something that, of course, isn’t guaranteed to many people, including most victims of capital crimes.”

Does that mean that states are now free to reinstate electric chairs, gas chambers, hanging, or even firing squads?


We can only hope.

More @ Death row inmates not guaranteed 'painless' execution, U.S. Supreme Court says | Reuters

Cruel and unusual punishment

Is excruciating pain cruel?

We put late-term babies to death if momma doesn't want them. No pain killers, no one cares. "A woman's right to choose". And you ghouls all cheer

Bring it to an abortion thread
Nice try at diversion though

It's not diversion. Here you are bemoaning that people who are accused and convicted of CRIMES, who are not innocent, suffer pain upon their death.

You don't care at all if late term babies suffer pain upon their death simply because their mothers don't want them--and you're a total coward about it too. "Take it to an abortion thread" means you have no answer for it; you can't debate it.

Right. We know.

The cruel, and unusual descriptor should be viewed relative to how the condemneds victims died. Through that more appropriate lens; fewer methods of execution would be deemed unusual...

 

[Marion Morrison]

Thé court violated the First Amendment in requiring a chaplain of the chosen faith of the state.

The purpose of the Chaplain is to allow the condemned to make peace with God before he is executed. Forcing a Muslim to use a Christian chaplain does not make sense

They were not denied the Chaplain before the execution, only not allowed to have him/her in the death chamber.

Entry to the death chamber is strictly limited by law.

Why?
If a Christian is allowed to have a Christian Chaplain in the death chamber, why can’t someone of another faith?
What good does a Christian Chaplain do for a Muslim?

What is so complex about being in the death chamber that a one hour indoctrination could not handle

Seems to be a first amendment violation

This just illustrates that the whole fight is about delaying the execution, not trying to find the person innocent.

Again, they could hire a muslim chaplain but then the Defense attorneys would find something wrong with that as well.

Or they can declare no chaplains in the death chamber, and they will still get sued.

This isn't about the topics, its about the process.

You are just making up hypotheticals

The court blew it on allowing chaplains if other faiths

I am rightly assuming the real reasons behind all this.

Delay, Delay Delay, Cost, Cost, Cost.

That's what it's all about.

 

[Crixus]

He kills his ex-lover’s new boyfriend, kidnaps and rapes her, shoots at her 6-year-old son and a police officer. Too bad the cops didn’t kill him when they had the chance.


He plays the appeals game for years and gets a stay with the support of Justice Kennedy. His latest ploy is to complain that a lethal injection will cause him pain due to a congenital condition.

In a decision that exposed stark divisions among the justices on the death penalty, the court ruled 5-4 that Bucklew had failed to present enough evidence to pursue his request to be executed by lethal gas. The court’s five conservatives were in the majority and its four liberals dissented.

Referring to the history of capital punishment, conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court’s majority that “the Eighth Amendment does not guarantee a prisoner a painless death - something that, of course, isn’t guaranteed to many people, including most victims of capital crimes.”

Does that mean that states are now free to reinstate electric chairs, gas chambers, hanging, or even firing squads?


We can only hope.

More @ Death row inmates not guaranteed 'painless' execution, U.S. Supreme Court says | Reuters

Meh, kill them the same way they killed their victims. That’s fair enough.

 

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

Any person with a picture mocking Jesus should be ignored outright. Heathen. Your day will come when you stand in front of the father. Mocker.
Take that and debate it you little shit.

 

[Cecilie1200]

He kills his ex-lover’s new boyfriend, kidnaps and rapes her, shoots at her 6-year-old son and a police officer. Too bad the cops didn’t kill him when they had the chance.


He plays the appeals game for years and gets a stay with the support of Justice Kennedy. His latest ploy is to complain that a lethal injection will cause him pain due to a congenital condition.

In a decision that exposed stark divisions among the justices on the death penalty, the court ruled 5-4 that Bucklew had failed to present enough evidence to pursue his request to be executed by lethal gas. The court’s five conservatives were in the majority and its four liberals dissented.

Referring to the history of capital punishment, conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court’s majority that “the Eighth Amendment does not guarantee a prisoner a painless death - something that, of course, isn’t guaranteed to many people, including most victims of capital crimes.”

Does that mean that states are now free to reinstate electric chairs, gas chambers, hanging, or even firing squads?


We can only hope.

More @ Death row inmates not guaranteed 'painless' execution, U.S. Supreme Court says | Reuters

Cruel and unusual punishment

Is excruciating pain cruel?

For this guy I don't really care, but the cruel and unusual ban was about torture before execution mostly , which was very common in the years leading up to the Constitution, things like drawing and quartering, stretching, pressing, racking. Things to make you confess before they killed you.

The Death Penalty is Constitutional, it is even considered as a punishment, where the 5th amendment requires due process to be deprived of "life, liberty, or property"

Is a slow and painful execution torture?

Cruel and unusual punishment is the threshold

No, because torture is designed to punish or extract information, not to execute.

The problem with going with another method, i.e. the Nitrogen hypoxia method, is that we all know the second the State agrees to it, The State will be sued for violating its legal execution method. If they amend their execution law, they will be sued for implementing it ex post facto.

It's the same issue with asking for a certain Chaplain to enter the chamber when the person is not authorized. They sue to get him allowed in, and if he is, they will sue because he isn't part of the rules on who is allowed in. and if they changed the rules, BOOM, back to the ex post facto argument.

This is not about the pain of this one inmate, this is about attempts to make the Death Penalty impossible via countless legal challenges.

Luckily this decision also commented on that, and hopefully lower courts will get the message.

As I recall, many forms of execution in the past were also viewed as a source of entertainment for the masses, as well as an object lesson to cow people into compliance. The executions of traitors in 18th century Great Britain, for example.

Lethal injection is as quick, painless, and humane as we have the ability to make an execution. And I'm afraid "I have a medical condition that makes it painful for you to kill me" really doesn't impress me. He'll be in less pain than his victims were by a wide margin, and it won't last as long. Besides, the ultimate point here is for him to wind up dead, anyway. Pretty sure that's not supposed to be fun.

 

[Meathead]

He kills his ex-lover’s new boyfriend, kidnaps and rapes her, shoots at her 6-year-old son and a police officer. Too bad the cops didn’t kill him when they had the chance.


He plays the appeals game for years and gets a stay with the support of Justice Kennedy. His latest ploy is to complain that a lethal injection will cause him pain due to a congenital condition.

In a decision that exposed stark divisions among the justices on the death penalty, the court ruled 5-4 that Bucklew had failed to present enough evidence to pursue his request to be executed by lethal gas. The court’s five conservatives were in the majority and its four liberals dissented.

Referring to the history of capital punishment, conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court’s majority that “the Eighth Amendment does not guarantee a prisoner a painless death - something that, of course, isn’t guaranteed to many people, including most victims of capital crimes.”

Does that mean that states are now free to reinstate electric chairs, gas chambers, hanging, or even firing squads?


We can only hope.

More @ Death row inmates not guaranteed 'painless' execution, U.S. Supreme Court says | Reuters

He should have been hanged 20 years ago. Stop the insanity!

Capital punishment is state sponsored murder. How can anyone who even claims to be a Christian, like most Trump voters, believe it is moral for the state to pay a stranger to inject a prisoner strapped to a gurney with poison? Can you imagine Jesus saying he was cool with that? And we know for a fact states who use capital punishment have higher homicide rates than states who do not...and countries that have capital punishment, with only Japan as the exception, have much much higher murder rates than those who do not. So it is not a deterrent, in fact, it may be just the opposite. Remember how Ted Bundy killed a bunch of people in Washington, a state with little or not capital punishment, to move to Florida to continue his killing, a state with the second highest rate of capital punishment? If the death penalty was that big a deterrent would he have done that?

And as far as torturing people, only a sadistic loser would suggest that. That is how they treat murderers and even thieves in Muslim countries, maybe you would be happier there knowing murderers are put to death in very painful ways. What a sick little puppy you must be to get off on the pain of others, even miserable human beings who have committed such awful heinous crime. Only God can punish such people the right way, and those who would torture him here are no better morally than he is.

Virtue signalling is decidedly unimpressive.

I think a bullet to the back of the head is much better, cheaper and painless.

 

[Cecilie1200]

He kills his ex-lover’s new boyfriend, kidnaps and rapes her, shoots at her 6-year-old son and a police officer. Too bad the cops didn’t kill him when they had the chance.


He plays the appeals game for years and gets a stay with the support of Justice Kennedy. His latest ploy is to complain that a lethal injection will cause him pain due to a congenital condition.

In a decision that exposed stark divisions among the justices on the death penalty, the court ruled 5-4 that Bucklew had failed to present enough evidence to pursue his request to be executed by lethal gas. The court’s five conservatives were in the majority and its four liberals dissented.

Referring to the history of capital punishment, conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court’s majority that “the Eighth Amendment does not guarantee a prisoner a painless death - something that, of course, isn’t guaranteed to many people, including most victims of capital crimes.”

Does that mean that states are now free to reinstate electric chairs, gas chambers, hanging, or even firing squads?


We can only hope.

More @ Death row inmates not guaranteed 'painless' execution, U.S. Supreme Court says | Reuters

He should have been hanged 20 years ago. Stop the insanity!

Capital punishment is state sponsored murder. How can anyone who even claims to be a Christian, like most Trump voters, believe it is moral for the state to pay a stranger to inject a prisoner strapped to a gurney with poison? Can you imagine Jesus saying he was cool with that? And we know for a fact states who use capital punishment have higher homicide rates than states who do not...and countries that have capital punishment, with only Japan as the exception, have much much higher murder rates than those who do not. So it is not a deterrent, in fact, it may be just the opposite. Remember how Ted Bundy killed a bunch of people in Washington, a state with little or not capital punishment, to move to Florida to continue his killing, a state with the second highest rate of capital punishment? If the death penalty was that big a deterrent would he have done that?

And as far as torturing people, only a sadistic loser would suggest that. That is how they treat murderers and even thieves in Muslim countries, maybe you would be happier there knowing murderers are put to death in very painful ways. What a sick little puppy you must be to get off on the pain of others, even miserable human beings who have committed such awful heinous crime. Only God can punish such people the right way, and those who would torture him here are no better morally than he is.

Sorry, but for some crimes 3 hots and a cot for the rest of a person's life isn't a sufficient punishment.

Well, maybe not. But if you were given the choice of a quick painless death or rotting away bored to death with nothing to think about but how you screwed up your whole life by your awful, inhuman crimes, and any remorse you might have, for the next 30 years with no chance of parole which would you choose?

Let us not ignore the moral implications, either. If we pay someone to kill another person in cold blood, a person restrained and in no way a threat to anyone, is society any better than that killer? why would anybody believe murder is an appropriate punishment for murder?

They don't get to choose. They get to die!

Oh yeah, and people like that are usually a serious threat to everyone around, they have nothing to lose and are violent, they're a danger to non-violent offenders and have to be segregated. "No way a threat to anyone", Pwahahaha! You go sit in a cell with all of them for 1/2 hr a pop and lemme know how you make out, faggot.

One wonders if the state in question even HAS a gas chamber, the method he's requesting.

 

[Marion Morrison]

He kills his ex-lover’s new boyfriend, kidnaps and rapes her, shoots at her 6-year-old son and a police officer. Too bad the cops didn’t kill him when they had the chance.


He plays the appeals game for years and gets a stay with the support of Justice Kennedy. His latest ploy is to complain that a lethal injection will cause him pain due to a congenital condition.

In a decision that exposed stark divisions among the justices on the death penalty, the court ruled 5-4 that Bucklew had failed to present enough evidence to pursue his request to be executed by lethal gas. The court’s five conservatives were in the majority and its four liberals dissented.

Referring to the history of capital punishment, conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court’s majority that “the Eighth Amendment does not guarantee a prisoner a painless death - something that, of course, isn’t guaranteed to many people, including most victims of capital crimes.”

Does that mean that states are now free to reinstate electric chairs, gas chambers, hanging, or even firing squads?


We can only hope.

More @ Death row inmates not guaranteed 'painless' execution, U.S. Supreme Court says | Reuters

Cruel and unusual punishment

Is excruciating pain cruel?

For this guy I don't really care, but the cruel and unusual ban was about torture before execution mostly , which was very common in the years leading up to the Constitution, things like drawing and quartering, stretching, pressing, racking. Things to make you confess before they killed you.

The Death Penalty is Constitutional, it is even considered as a punishment, where the 5th amendment requires due process to be deprived of "life, liberty, or property"

Is a slow and painful execution torture?

Cruel and unusual punishment is the threshold

No, because torture is designed to punish or extract information, not to execute.

The problem with going with another method, i.e. the Nitrogen hypoxia method, is that we all know the second the State agrees to it, The State will be sued for violating its legal execution method. If they amend their execution law, they will be sued for implementing it ex post facto.

It's the same issue with asking for a certain Chaplain to enter the chamber when the person is not authorized. They sue to get him allowed in, and if he is, they will sue because he isn't part of the rules on who is allowed in. and if they changed the rules, BOOM, back to the ex post facto argument.

This is not about the pain of this one inmate, this is about attempts to make the Death Penalty impossible via countless legal challenges.

Luckily this decision also commented on that, and hopefully lower courts will get the message.

As I recall, many forms of execution in the past were also viewed as a source of entertainment for the masses, as well as an object lesson to cow people into compliance. The executions of traitors in 18th century Great Britain, for example.

Lethal injection is as quick, painless, and humane as we have the ability to make an execution. And I'm afraid "I have a medical condition that makes it painful for you to kill me" really doesn't impress me. He'll be in less pain than his victims were by a wide margin, and it won't last as long. Besides, the ultimate point here is for him to wind up dead, anyway. Pretty sure that's not supposed to be fun.

Nope, nope, and nope. I have to disagree. Firing Squad or Hanging is the way to go.

Apathethic killers don't deserve mercy once convicted. They deserve to die. Yes, it will probably be in a less painful manner than what they put their victims through.

Doesn't matter. Kill them without putting them through cruel and unusual punishment.

Firing Squad or Hanging. Within 2 weeks after conviction. Solves so many problems!

 

[Cecilie1200]

Cruel and unusual punishment

Is excruciating pain cruel?

For this guy I don't really care, but the cruel and unusual ban was about torture before execution mostly , which was very common in the years leading up to the Constitution, things like drawing and quartering, stretching, pressing, racking. Things to make you confess before they killed you.

The Death Penalty is Constitutional, it is even considered as a punishment, where the 5th amendment requires due process to be deprived of "life, liberty, or property"

Is a slow and painful execution torture?

Cruel and unusual punishment is the threshold

No, because torture is designed to punish or extract information, not to execute.

The problem with going with another method, i.e. the Nitrogen hypoxia method, is that we all know the second the State agrees to it, The State will be sued for violating its legal execution method. If they amend their execution law, they will be sued for implementing it ex post facto.

It's the same issue with asking for a certain Chaplain to enter the chamber when the person is not authorized. They sue to get him allowed in, and if he is, they will sue because he isn't part of the rules on who is allowed in. and if they changed the rules, BOOM, back to the ex post facto argument.

This is not about the pain of this one inmate, this is about attempts to make the Death Penalty impossible via countless legal challenges.

Luckily this decision also commented on that, and hopefully lower courts will get the message.

As I recall, many forms of execution in the past were also viewed as a source of entertainment for the masses, as well as an object lesson to cow people into compliance. The executions of traitors in 18th century Great Britain, for example.

Lethal injection is as quick, painless, and humane as we have the ability to make an execution. And I'm afraid "I have a medical condition that makes it painful for you to kill me" really doesn't impress me. He'll be in less pain than his victims were by a wide margin, and it won't last as long. Besides, the ultimate point here is for him to wind up dead, anyway. Pretty sure that's not supposed to be fun.

Nope, nope, and nope. I have to disagree. Firing Squad or Hanging is the way to go.

Apathethic killers don't deserve mercy once convicted. They deserve to die. Yes, it will probably be in a less painful manner than what they put their victims through.

Doesn't matter. Kill them without putting them through cruel and unusual punishment.

Firing Squad or Hanging. Within 2 weeks after conviction. Solves so many problems!

Not sure what it is you think you're disagreeing with.

 

[Marion Morrison]

For this guy I don't really care, but the cruel and unusual ban was about torture before execution mostly , which was very common in the years leading up to the Constitution, things like drawing and quartering, stretching, pressing, racking. Things to make you confess before they killed you.

The Death Penalty is Constitutional, it is even considered as a punishment, where the 5th amendment requires due process to be deprived of "life, liberty, or property"

Is a slow and painful execution torture?

Cruel and unusual punishment is the threshold

No, because torture is designed to punish or extract information, not to execute.

The problem with going with another method, i.e. the Nitrogen hypoxia method, is that we all know the second the State agrees to it, The State will be sued for violating its legal execution method. If they amend their execution law, they will be sued for implementing it ex post facto.

It's the same issue with asking for a certain Chaplain to enter the chamber when the person is not authorized. They sue to get him allowed in, and if he is, they will sue because he isn't part of the rules on who is allowed in. and if they changed the rules, BOOM, back to the ex post facto argument.

This is not about the pain of this one inmate, this is about attempts to make the Death Penalty impossible via countless legal challenges.

Luckily this decision also commented on that, and hopefully lower courts will get the message.

As I recall, many forms of execution in the past were also viewed as a source of entertainment for the masses, as well as an object lesson to cow people into compliance. The executions of traitors in 18th century Great Britain, for example.

Lethal injection is as quick, painless, and humane as we have the ability to make an execution. And I'm afraid "I have a medical condition that makes it painful for you to kill me" really doesn't impress me. He'll be in less pain than his victims were by a wide margin, and it won't last as long. Besides, the ultimate point here is for him to wind up dead, anyway. Pretty sure that's not supposed to be fun.

Nope, nope, and nope. I have to disagree. Firing Squad or Hanging is the way to go.

Apathethic killers don't deserve mercy once convicted. They deserve to die. Yes, it will probably be in a less painful manner than what they put their victims through.

Doesn't matter. Kill them without putting them through cruel and unusual punishment.

Firing Squad or Hanging. Within 2 weeks after conviction. Solves so many problems!

Not sure what it is you think you're disagreeing with.

Using lethal injection or gas chamber. All bullshit.