Execution of Creech failed after medical team encounters “vein access issues”

I'm not sure you understand when ex post facto applies.

An ex post facto law is a prohibited law. It is a law that applies to events occurring before its enactment and which disadvantages the offender either by altering the definition of criminal conduct or increasing the punishment. People v. Delgado (2006) 140 Cal.

I’m betting the sentences handed down by the Judge was for death by lethal injection as it was the only authorized means at the time. Want to redo the penalty phase again?
 
In this case, Creech is not eligible for such--as the law for such method was only passed in 2023 and he is exempted by the 'ex post facto' provision in the Constitution.
Seems bizarre. Execution is execution and dead is dead. I have no problem with forms of execution, as the victims that put the killers in that position, suffered far worse, going about normal days, normal lives before the killers took them, often in horrific ways.
 
Death is death. As long as it isn't cruel and unusual.
Unless you pass during a sound night's sleep, snug in your bed at home, it will always seem cruel or unusual or frightening, or all three. I have seen it. It is just the way it is.
 
Death is death. As long as it isn't cruel and unusual.

So the details of the Sentence are irrelevant. I wonder. Does it work the other way too? If someone is sentenced to ten years in prison, and are sent to home confinement which isn’t on the order, is that the same as prison?
 
I'm not sure you understand when ex post facto applies.

An ex post facto law is a prohibited law. It is a law that applies to events occurring before its enactment and which disadvantages the offender either by altering the definition of criminal conduct or increasing the punishment. People v. Delgado (2006) 140 Cal.
Uh..OK. How does that not apply to a prisoner sentenced to death, before the method of firing squad was legal, as a remedy to lethal injection not being viable?
Are you contending that killing him by firing squad does not 'disadvantage' him?
 
So the details of the Sentence are irrelevant. I wonder. Does it work the other way too? If someone is sentenced to ten years in prison, and are sent to home confinement which isn’t on the order, is that the same as prison?

They sentenced him to death.
If the drugs become unavailable, for instance, they don't get to carry out the sentence?

Prison is not home confinement.
Death by firing squad is still death.
It isn't increasing the punishment, after the fact.
 
Why would this be a problem? Just send in an ax man to chop his head off, and penalize the staff who couldn't find a vein by sending them in with mops after the decapitation.

Next time, they'll be able to find a vein without a problem
 
Whack him with 300 units of insulin. He'll be dead in half an hour.

Or just get behind him and strangle him with the El Garotte.

Killing someone isn't something that requires much technical experience.

1709223011558.png
 
They sentenced him to death.
If the drugs become unavailable, for instance, they don't get to carry out the sentence?

Prison is not home confinement.
Death by firing squad is still death.
It isn't increasing the punishment, after the fact.

If Death is Death, how does life in prison without parole not qualify?
 
A firing squad isn't increasing the punishment, it's giving it to him faster.
Hmm...Understand, I agree. Every day this guy draws breath is an insult to the people of Idaho, but, the legal system disagrees--and that's what we have to contend with.
The SCOTUS has held, and it's a long-standing precedent, that a defendant must be held to the the standards and conditions of sentencing as they stood at the time sentence was passed. If death by lethal injection was the sentence, that's how it must be. Do I think it's dumb? Yes.


But that's the way is~
 
Hmm...Understand, I agree. Every day this guy draws breath is an insult to the people of Idaho, but, the legal system disagrees--and that's what we have to contend with.
The SCOTUS has held, and it's a long-standing precedent, that a defendant must be held to the the standards and conditions of sentencing as they stood at the time sentence was passed. If death by lethal injection was the sentence, that's how it must be. Do I think it's dumb? Yes.

But that's the way it is~

If that was the case, they couldn't commute all those previous death sentences.
Those sentences were "held to the standards and conditions of sentencing as they stood at the time sentence was passed"

Where did the Supreme Court say that was the case for method of execution?
 

Forum List

Back
Top