Tennessee executes child killer Billy Ray Irick with drug that inflicts 'torturous pain'

[Billy_Bob]

Read the Constitution

Referring to the 8th?

"The Eighth Amendment (Amendment VIII) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights (ratified December 15, 1791) prohibiting the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishment."

Define cruel and unusual? lets equate his cruel and unusual with his victims pain and suffering... Its not cruel or unusual by the standard he used in committing the crime!

 

[OldLady]

Good news! ... Need to see more of this ... and at faster pace(s).

Tennessee executes child killer Billy Ray Irick with drug that inflicts 'torturous pain'
Tennessee has carried out its first execution in nearly a decade using a controversial cocktail of drugs including a lethal ingredient described by the Supreme ...

The Independent
yesterday


Reporter describes Bill Ray Irick's final words | Watch News Videos Online
Tennessee executed it's first inmate in a decade Thursday night. Bill Ray Irick was sentenced to death for the rape and murder of 7-year-old Paula Dyer in Knox ...

Globalnews.ca
yesterday

I am all in for the death penalty.

But this is bullshit if its true. I didn't read the article so I don't know.

By torturing the fuck as you kill him, you make yourself no better than he was.

He deserved to die, yes. But just kill him and move on. No one should derive pleasure from it.

I don't understand why we don't just hang them. Or give them a whopping injection of fentanyl. Seems to work on everyone else.

I have had pets put down by a vet including a horse

There is no thrashing around, no gasping for air, no convulsions
They just go to sleep

Exactly.
I don't know how I feel about the death penalty--I can see both sides--but if it is going to be done, quit fucking around about it and just do it fast and painless.

 

[Billy_Bob]

We need the death penalty to punish those that took an innocent life. I understand the human nature of revenge however if we execute with the intent to inflict pain, then we as a society are no better than the person we executed.

Lets give them the same level of care these animals gave their victims... Execution is a PUNISHMENT... You guys need to get over yourselves.

 

[Pogo]

Read the Constitution

Referring to the 8th?

"The Eighth Amendment (Amendment VIII) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights (ratified December 15, 1791) prohibiting the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishment."

Bingo

Those who advocate cruel and painful executions do not support the constitution

"prohibiting the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishment."

So now your excuse for outright sadism is the Fed can't do it but Tennessee can?

Pathetic, dood.

Why doesn't Connecticut just start burning people at the stake then? All bets are off right?

'Fraid not ---

>> The Eighth Amendment (Amendment VIII) of the United States Constitution prohibits the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishments. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that this amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause also applies to the states. The phrases in this amendment originated in the English Bill of Rights of 1689. This amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the United States Bill of Rights.[1]
<<​

----- WHY do you think this case was before the Supreme Court?

More from that link --- the plot sickens:

>> In Wilkerson v. Utah, 99 U.S. 130 (1878), the Supreme Court commented that drawing and quartering, public dissection, burning alive, or disembowelment constituted cruel and unusual punishment.[21] In Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815 (1988), the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty constituted cruel and unusual punishment if the defendant is under age 16 when the crime was committed. Furthermore, in Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), the Court barred the executing of people who were under age 18 when the crime was committed. In Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002), the Court declared that executing people who are mentally handicapped constituted cruel and unusual punishment. <<
​

Besides which, the Eighth makes no qualifications about "the federal government". Roll tape.

>> Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.[2] <<​

That's it. The whole thing. If you're part of the United States, THAT'S THE LAW.

Whelp--- Tennessee has been part of the United States continuously since 1866.

 

[Pogo]

Read the Constitution

Referring to the 8th?

"The Eighth Amendment (Amendment VIII) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights (ratified December 15, 1791) prohibiting the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishment."

Define cruel and unusual? lets equate his cruel and unusual with his victims pain and suffering... Its not cruel or unusual by the standard he used in committing the crime!

If strapping somebody down and injecting him with what's described as "internally burning at the stake" doesn't qualify as "cruel" ---- what in the wide world of fuck DOES?

And if you actually think you can rationalize this as you just tried to above ---- does that not make the State guilty of exactly the same heinous crime as the accused? Duh?

Or have we simply taken the Constitution, strapped it down and injected it with burning at the stake? Maybe I slept through that.

 

[Pogo]

We need the death penalty to punish those that took an innocent life. I understand the human nature of revenge however if we execute with the intent to inflict pain, then we as a society are no better than the person we executed.

Lets give them the same level of care these animals gave their victims... Execution is a PUNISHMENT... You guys need to get over yourselves.

How come every time we focus on the topic --- that being obviously the nature of the execution ---- you wags always try to change the subject to whether the death penalty itself is valid or not?

Wassamatta? Can't handle the topic? That should tell you something.

 

[Aba Incieni]

So, a guy that inflicted needless pain and suffering on others,will be subject to pain and suffering? Implying there's a negative side here? Explain that to me. What is the "bad' side here?

It degrades us as a civilization. Or a purported civilization anyway.

Kind of like why we don't engage in torture. Or burn women at the stake.

I have to say, damned good post. I don't agree, however. It doesn't work in the real world. Some people deserve to die for their crimes. Hitler, or Jeffery Dahmer. There is a time and place for everything. We all have
a line in the sand that when crossed....yes, I dare say, even ideological liberals even.

Once AGAIN the topic here is not whether the death penalty should be engaged or not. That's an entirely separate quesiton.

The issue here is "cruel and unusual punishment" as proscribed in the Constitution.
Three posts in a row tried to skirt around that question and make it about the death penalty.

I already answered it. If it's common, it's not at all unusual.

And it isn't "common" either. If it were --- it wouldn't be a story. And it wouldn't have been mulled over by SCOTUS.

Actually, cruelty is not prohibited. To be unconstitutional the punishment must be both cruel AND unusual. Either one is Constitutional.

 

[Pogo]

It degrades us as a civilization. Or a purported civilization anyway.

Kind of like why we don't engage in torture. Or burn women at the stake.

I have to say, damned good post. I don't agree, however. It doesn't work in the real world. Some people deserve to die for their crimes. Hitler, or Jeffery Dahmer. There is a time and place for everything. We all have
a line in the sand that when crossed....yes, I dare say, even ideological liberals even.

Once AGAIN the topic here is not whether the death penalty should be engaged or not. That's an entirely separate quesiton.

The issue here is "cruel and unusual punishment" as proscribed in the Constitution.
Three posts in a row tried to skirt around that question and make it about the death penalty.

I already answered it. If it's common, it's not at all unusual.

And it isn't "common" either. If it were --- it wouldn't be a story. And it wouldn't have been mulled over by SCOTUS.

Actually, cruelty is not prohibited. To be unconstitutional the punishment must be both cruel AND unusual. Either one is Constitutional.

This one fits both.

Actually it's redundant. If something were not "unusual" ---- then it couldn't be assessed as "cruel".

 

[Aba Incieni]

I have to say, damned good post. I don't agree, however. It doesn't work in the real world. Some people deserve to die for their crimes. Hitler, or Jeffery Dahmer. There is a time and place for everything. We all have
a line in the sand that when crossed....yes, I dare say, even ideological liberals even.

Once AGAIN the topic here is not whether the death penalty should be engaged or not. That's an entirely separate quesiton.

The issue here is "cruel and unusual punishment" as proscribed in the Constitution.
Three posts in a row tried to skirt around that question and make it about the death penalty.

I already answered it. If it's common, it's not at all unusual.

And it isn't "common" either. If it were --- it wouldn't be a story. And it wouldn't have been mulled over by SCOTUS.

Actually, cruelty is not prohibited. To be unconstitutional the punishment must be both cruel AND unusual. Either one is Constitutional.

This one fits both.

Actually it's redundant. If something were not "unusual" ---- then it couldn't be assessed as "cruel".

The death penalty is not unusual.

 

[Auld Phart]

Read the Constitution

Referring to the 8th?

"The Eighth Amendment (Amendment VIII) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights (ratified December 15, 1791) prohibiting the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishment."

Bingo

Those who advocate cruel and painful executions do not support the constitution

"prohibiting the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishment."

So now your excuse for outright sadism is the Fed can't do it but Tennessee can?

Pathetic, dood.

Why doesn't Connecticut just start burning people at the stake then? All bets are off right?

'Fraid not ---

>> The Eighth Amendment (Amendment VIII) of the United States Constitution prohibits the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishments. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that this amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause also applies to the states. The phrases in this amendment originated in the English Bill of Rights of 1689. This amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the United States Bill of Rights.[1]
<<​

----- WHY do you think this case was before the Supreme Court?

More from that link --- the plot sickens:

>> In Wilkerson v. Utah, 99 U.S. 130 (1878), the Supreme Court commented that drawing and quartering, public dissection, burning alive, or disembowelment constituted cruel and unusual punishment.[21] In Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815 (1988), the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty constituted cruel and unusual punishment if the defendant is under age 16 when the crime was committed. Furthermore, in Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), the Court barred the executing of people who were under age 18 when the crime was committed. In Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002), the Court declared that executing people who are mentally handicapped constituted cruel and unusual punishment. <<
​

Besides which, the Eighth makes no qualifications about "the federal government". Roll tape.

>> Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.[2] <<​

That's it. The whole thing. If you're part of the United States, THAT'S THE LAW.

Whelp--- Tennessee has been part of the United States continuously since 1866.

His post concerned the Constitution, not rulings.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Read the Constitution

Referring to the 8th?

"The Eighth Amendment (Amendment VIII) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights (ratified December 15, 1791) prohibiting the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishment."

Bingo

Those who advocate cruel and painful executions do not support the constitution

Your overwhelming concern for a child murdering rapist is a testament to Liberal morals.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Look, these people are heinous pieces of filth, but how can anyone support this treatment of them?

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Look, these people are heinous pieces of filth, but how can anyone support this treatment of them?

Hello child murdering rapist.

 

[Pogo]

Once AGAIN the topic here is not whether the death penalty should be engaged or not. That's an entirely separate quesiton.

The issue here is "cruel and unusual punishment" as proscribed in the Constitution.
Three posts in a row tried to skirt around that question and make it about the death penalty.

I already answered it. If it's common, it's not at all unusual.

And it isn't "common" either. If it were --- it wouldn't be a story. And it wouldn't have been mulled over by SCOTUS.

Actually, cruelty is not prohibited. To be unconstitutional the punishment must be both cruel AND unusual. Either one is Constitutional.

This one fits both.

Actually it's redundant. If something were not "unusual" ---- then it couldn't be assessed as "cruel".

The death penalty is not unusual.

Nor is it the topic here.

This is at least the fifth time some wag has tried to change the subject. Apparently my arguments are so strong y'all can't handle them.

 

[Pogo]

Read the Constitution

Referring to the 8th?

"The Eighth Amendment (Amendment VIII) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights (ratified December 15, 1791) prohibiting the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishment."

Bingo

Those who advocate cruel and painful executions do not support the constitution

Your overwhelming concern for a child murdering rapist is a testament to Liberal morals.

Your post is yet another demonstration of the consistent Appeal to Emotion. And abjectly dishonest.

 

[Pogo]

Read the Constitution

Referring to the 8th?

"The Eighth Amendment (Amendment VIII) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights (ratified December 15, 1791) prohibiting the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishment."

Bingo

Those who advocate cruel and painful executions do not support the constitution

"prohibiting the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishment."

So now your excuse for outright sadism is the Fed can't do it but Tennessee can?

Pathetic, dood.

Why doesn't Connecticut just start burning people at the stake then? All bets are off right?

'Fraid not ---

>> The Eighth Amendment (Amendment VIII) of the United States Constitution prohibits the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishments. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that this amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause also applies to the states. The phrases in this amendment originated in the English Bill of Rights of 1689. This amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the United States Bill of Rights.[1]
<<​

----- WHY do you think this case was before the Supreme Court?

More from that link --- the plot sickens:

>> In Wilkerson v. Utah, 99 U.S. 130 (1878), the Supreme Court commented that drawing and quartering, public dissection, burning alive, or disembowelment constituted cruel and unusual punishment.[21] In Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815 (1988), the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty constituted cruel and unusual punishment if the defendant is under age 16 when the crime was committed. Furthermore, in Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), the Court barred the executing of people who were under age 18 when the crime was committed. In Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002), the Court declared that executing people who are mentally handicapped constituted cruel and unusual punishment. <<
​

Besides which, the Eighth makes no qualifications about "the federal government". Roll tape.

>> Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.[2] <<​

That's it. The whole thing. If you're part of the United States, THAT'S THE LAW.

Whelp--- Tennessee has been part of the United States continuously since 1866.

His post concerned the Constitution, not rulings.

Those rulings are ABOUT the Constitution, and specifically that Amendment.
Which, and this has not changed in the last fifteen minutes, still says nothing about a "federal government".

 

[Aba Incieni]

I already answered it. If it's common, it's not at all unusual.

And it isn't "common" either. If it were --- it wouldn't be a story. And it wouldn't have been mulled over by SCOTUS.

Actually, cruelty is not prohibited. To be unconstitutional the punishment must be both cruel AND unusual. Either one is Constitutional.

This one fits both.

Actually it's redundant. If something were not "unusual" ---- then it couldn't be assessed as "cruel".

The death penalty is not unusual.

Nor is it the topic here.

This is at least the fifth time some wag has tried to change the subject. Apparently my arguments are so strong y'all can't handle them.

It wasn't cruel AND unusual. Dems da rules.

 

[Pogo]

And it isn't "common" either. If it were --- it wouldn't be a story. And it wouldn't have been mulled over by SCOTUS.

Actually, cruelty is not prohibited. To be unconstitutional the punishment must be both cruel AND unusual. Either one is Constitutional.

This one fits both.

Actually it's redundant. If something were not "unusual" ---- then it couldn't be assessed as "cruel".

The death penalty is not unusual.

Nor is it the topic here.

This is at least the fifth time some wag has tried to change the subject. Apparently my arguments are so strong y'all can't handle them.

It wasn't cruel AND unusual. Dems da rules.

Read the OP.
And the thread title.
And the part about SCOTUS looking it over. Why would they do that if it weren't?

 

[Aba Incieni]

Actually, cruelty is not prohibited. To be unconstitutional the punishment must be both cruel AND unusual. Either one is Constitutional.

This one fits both.

Actually it's redundant. If something were not "unusual" ---- then it couldn't be assessed as "cruel".

The death penalty is not unusual.

Nor is it the topic here.

This is at least the fifth time some wag has tried to change the subject. Apparently my arguments are so strong y'all can't handle them.

It wasn't cruel AND unusual. Dems da rules.

Read the OP.
And the thread title.
And the part about SCOTUS looking it over. Why would they do that if it weren't?

We can discuss their ruling when it happens.

As is, a child murderer was executed. Would you rather he be locked in a cage for the rest of his life, with no chance of ever leaving?

How cruel. But not cruel AND unusual.

 

[SaxxyBlues]

Well in the press conference that followed they described the death. They said after he was administered the first drug that his name was called out twice and he didn't respond. They said his shoulder was pinched and there was no response. The second drug was administered and there was some actions as they described were gasping for air his stomach moving up and down rapidly, he turned purple and the third drug was administered and he died. How is that cruel and unusual punishment?