Botched Execution or Not??

[james60059]

The US state of Oklahoma's use of the lethal injection makes the news again as a convicted child killer yelled that his body was on fire, and violently twitched in the chamber after receiving the lethal injection at the Oklahoma State Penitentiary on Thursday.

Charles Frederick Warner was found guilty for his crime, which took place in 1997 when he murdered an 11 month old baby.

It comes nearly 10 months after Clayton Lockett - a murderer who killed a 19 year old schoolgirl in 1999 by shooting her and burying her while she was still alive suffered a major heart attack during his execution in April 2014.

Personally, both these cretins deserved their punishment following their heinous acts.

The US state of Oklahoma has executed the first death row inmate since a botched lethal injection last year drew intense criticism.

Prison officials said that Charles Warner was injected with a mixture of drugs and did not suffer before dying.

Death row inmates and campaigners have complained that the use of drugs in executions presents an unconstitutional risk of pain and suffering.

Warner was convicted for the rape and murder of an 11-month-old girl in 1997.

He was supposed to be executed on the same night as another high profile murderer, Clayton Lockett, in April 2014.

But it was postponed because the lethal injection of three drugs in Lockett's case failed to work properly.

His execution was stopped after 20 minutes when one of his veins ruptured, preventing the drugs from taking full effect. He writhed and shook uncontrollably after the drugs were administered, witnesses said.

Lockett's execution was one of three that went wrong last year using the midazolam drug, the Washington Post reported, focusing attention on the few states within the US that still conduct capital punishment.

'On fire'

Another murderer, Johnny Shane Kormondy, was executed 12 minutes after Warner in the state of Florida - also with the same three-drug combination.

"Before I give my final statement, I'll tell you they poked me five times. It hurt. It feels like acid," Warner said before his execution started. "I'm not a monster. I didn't do everything they said I did.''

Correspondents say that although Warner complained that his body was "on fire", he showed no obvious signs of distress.

However his lawyer, Madeline Cohen, said there was no way knowing if Warner suffered because the second drug, a paralytic, would have prevented him from moving.

Both Warner and Lockett had unsuccessfully challenged a state law that shields the identities of companies supplying the drugs.

The problems surrounding Lockett's execution in particular were the centre of a wider debate over the legality of the three-drug method and whether its use violates guarantees in the US constitution "against cruel and unusual punishment".

Both men unsuccessfully challenged an Oklahoma state law that blocks officials from revealing - even in court - the identities of the companies supplying the drugs.

The state maintains the law is necessary to protect the suppliers from legal action and harassment.

Lockett and Warner argued they needed to know the names of the suppliers in order to ensure the quality of the drugs that would be used to kill them and to be certain that they had been obtained legally.

Warner's execution went ahead after five out of nine justices in the US Supreme Court voted in favour.

Source

 

[dgl]

I think there are certain people who do not deserve to die in a painless way as I doubt their victims did.
Why should we treat certain people like humans when they haven't treated people like that themselves.

 

[TheEdge]

This is all just overly complicating something that was perfected so much by the modern executioners in the UK, the likes of Pierrepoint.

Short fall sudden stop.

 

[ainsworth74]

Why should we treat certain people like humans when they haven't treated people like that themselves.

Well for one thing, as far as the US goes, if you set out to execute someone in a painful manner then you'll likely fall foul of the Eight Amendment of the US Constitution that states:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

(My bold)​

At which point your execution attempt is likely to be deemed unconstitutional and thrown out, if you go all the way, by the Supreme Court.

I, on a personal level, would argue that seeking revenge is not the purpose of justice and further that we, as a society, should not allow ourselves to be lowered to the level of these scumbags. If we set out to inflict as much pain as possible on them how are we any better?

This is all just overly complicating something that was perfected so much by the modern executioners in the UK, the likes of Pierrepoint.

Short fall sudden stop.

I've always favoured a bullet to the head personally. Much easier and also very quick, and final, for the condemned.

 

[muz379]

The more this happens over there , the more likely it is more states are going to wipe execution off their statute books because they cant constitutionally carry out executions anymore using the current protocol and finding a new protocol wont be an easy task

. I dont think its going to take many more of these instances before the supreme court over there has to revisit the issue around the current protocol for lethal injection and if it finds that it amounts to cruel and unusual punishment which arguably these botched executions do then states will once again have to find another protocol if they wish to continue using the lethal injection .



This from my personal viewpoint is a good result

 

[TheEdge]

The more this happens over there , the more likely it is more states are going to wipe execution off their statute books because they cant constitutionally carry out executions anymore using the current protocol and finding a new protocol wont be an easy task

I dont think its going to take many more of these instances before the supreme court over there has to revisit the issue around the current protocol for lethal injection and if it finds that it amounts to cruel and unusual punishment which arguably these botched executions do then states will once again have to find another protocol if they wish to continue using the lethal injection .

This from my personal viewpoint is a good result

I think the issue is that one of the constituents of the more effective lethal injection cocktail was/is made and is patented by a European company and has been banned from exporting said drug to the US for use in executions so various US states are experimenting with other chemicals.

In my mind, which obviously supports capital punishment (as long as all doubt is gone) the old, more mechanical methods are much more humane. Look at the long drop hangings (as practiced in the UK historically and Japan today) and then the firing squad and decapitation (as practiced by the French until the late 1970s) and compare their failure/botch rate to the overly clever methods used now by the US.

 

[SS4]

I think there are certain people who do not deserve to die in a painless way as I doubt their victims did.
Why should we treat certain people like humans when they haven't treated people like that themselves.

Diffusion of responsibility. The charade is not for the benefit of the condemned but for those doing the killing.

Personally, I think anyone in favour of the death penalty should not be allowed to refuse to carry it out if called upon. I'd not ask them to shoot someone they have a personal connection to mind.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Nowt but state-endorsed revenge. Glad we scrapped it.

 

[muz379]

I think the issue is that one of the constituents of the more effective lethal injection cocktail was/is made and is patented by a European company and has been banned from exporting said drug to the US for use in executions so various US states are experimenting with other chemicals.

In my mind, which obviously supports capital punishment (as long as all doubt is gone) the old, more mechanical methods are much more humane. Look at the long drop hangings (as practiced in the UK historically and Japan today) and then the firing squad and decapitation (as practiced by the French until the late 1970s) and compare their failure/botch rate to the overly clever methods used now by the US.

It is true that the export ban of a drug produced in the EU has had some impact . Even over in the states as the attitudes are shifting some drug companies there are even refusing to allow their drugs to be used to take part in these executions and are enforcing measures in the distribution network to prevent them from being distributed to state justice departments and prisons etc .
As supplies have run out States have therefore turned to compounding pharmacies who essentially produce bespoke drugs for patients and can produce drugs similar to ones already out there . But they are not FDA approved with obviously could be viewed through a cynical lens .

One of the big things I always viewed as a constitutional issue in my research in this area was the actual administration of the injection itself .In my opinion if the administration of such powerful and potentially dangerous drugs is going to be done (dangerous in the sense that if they dont have the desired effect the recipient will be suffering intense pain)Only someone suitably medically qualified should administer such such drugs . The calculations of body weight to drug ratio and actual establishment of an IV line and administration of the drugs in my view is a job for only someone with medical experience and skill . Especially when we are talking about patients who might have misused drugs so have issues like collapsed veins that make setting up IV lines harder . Obviously the medical profession does not condone the death penalty and the Hippocratic oath doctors nurses etc take when they go into that profession would prevent them from being involved in executions .So in my view unless someone else suitably trained and experienced carries out the execution and their medical skill is accredited I think there is another issue that is yet to be considered by the supreme court . And could actually be the issue that is leading to these botched executions .


as for my actual thoughts on a death penalty even if it could be administered in a completely humane manner I'm against it because countless times in this country we have had miscarriages of justice and found that people we had found guilty of offences are actually not guilty . and in some cases we would have killed completely innocent people .

 

[Welly]

I favour the death penalty as long as the judge and the prosecutor gets executed when the wrongly executed is exonerated.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

Nowt but state-endorsed revenge. Glad we scrapped it.

I used to be opposed to the death penalty but I think it is necessary - not as a deterrent or as an act of revenge but to protect the general population.
There are people about who are pure evil and will always be a threat to anybody around them if they are released or to the staff in prisons if they are not released.
I know it sounds a bit hackneyed to say it but how many lives would have been saved if sadistic killers had been executed rather than released from prison to kill again ?

 

[muz379]

I used to be opposed to the death penalty but I think it is necessary - not as a deterrent or as an act of revenge but to protect the general population.
There are people about who are pure evil and will always be a threat to anybody around them if they are released or to the staff in prisons if they are not released.
I know it sounds a bit hackneyed to say it but how many lives would have been saved if sadistic killers had been executed rather than released from prison to kill again ?

And how many would have been cut short by wrongful convictions ?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Do we actually have any stats on serial killers and sadastic killers who where released and Murdered again ?

My experience and understanding is that the worst evil kinds of killer that would be ripe for execution are on whole life tariffs anyway so the public are already more than adequately protected .

 

[Mutant Lemming]

And how many would have been cut short by wrongful convictions ?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Do we actually have any stats on serial killers and sadastic killers who where released and Murdered again ?

My experience and understanding is that the worst evil kinds of killer that would be ripe for execution are on whole life tariffs anyway so the public are already more than adequately protected .

I would hazard a guess that the Guildford Four would have been but those responsible for the unsafe convictions would themselves be liable to a charge of murder.
Do you think the money spent on keeping Ian Brady and Myra Hindley alive over the years would have been better spent on a treatment centre for child cancer victims ?

 

[muz379]

I would hazard a guess that the Guildford Four would have been but those responsible for the unsafe convictions would themselves be liable to a charge of murder.
Do you think the money spent on keeping Ian Brady and Myra Hindley alive over the years would have been better spent on a treatment centre for child cancer victims ?

How legally would those responsible for the unsafe convictions have actually committed the offence of Murder ?

Yes but then the money used to do loads of things could be better spent .

Do you think it would be any cheaper to administer a CJS with the massive and seemingly endless appeal processes that you would have to have in place if you where to execute people . Not to mention a special fund to compensate the families of those wrongfully convicted and executed ?

 

[Bevan Price]

I have no sympathy for murderers, but unless there was 100% certainty that they were guilty, I could not support the death penalty. To me, the "guilty beyond all reasonable doubt" is not acceptable. There have been too many cases of deficient police procedures, planted evidence, etc. that have led to innocent people being found guilty.

See, for example

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Evans

The real killer, serial killer John Christie, left evidence that implicated Timothy Evans, who was convicted of murdering his wife. He was hanged. He was innocent.

If anyone still favours the death penalty, I would ask:
"Would you be prepared to carry out the execution yourself - even on a relative or friend, and even knowing that they might just be innocent" ?

That said, I have no objection if armed criminals, caught in the act of committing dangerous crimes, just happen to get shot by armed police.

 

[bb21]

Why do I get the sense that there will never be consensus on this subject?

 

[Abpj17]

It's unusual, in my experience, for posters on a forum to be so weighted in opposing the death penalty. It's quite refreshing.

 

[yorkie]

....but those responsible for the unsafe convictions would themselves be liable to a charge of murder....

The article linked to by Bevan Price doesn't seem to reveal what happened to the Judge, but our legal system is rather unjust and bonkers (and was probably even more unjust then) and I'm certain he would have got away with it!

The person who killed him later turned against the idea of capital punishment, and those who are pro-killing others should consider this:

It is said to be a deterrent. I cannot agree. There have been murders since the beginning of time, and we shall go on looking for deterrents until the end of time. If death were a deterrent, I might be expected to know. It is I who have faced them last, young men and girls, working men, grandmothers. I have been amazed to see the courage with which they take that walk into the unknown. It did not deter them then, and it had not deterred them when they committed what they were convicted for. All the men and women whom I have faced at that final moment convince me that in what I have done I have not prevented a single murder.[23]

 

[muz379]

The article linked to by Bevan Price doesn't seem to reveal what happened to the Judge, but our legal system is rather unjust and bonkers (and was probably even more unjust then) and I'm certain he would have got away with it!

not read the piece properly but why should the judge have got into trouble ?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
sorry , just to provide context to my questions , why for example should the police who prepared false confessions , or the jury who convicted him despite knowing he would face death not have questions to answer ?

 

[yorkie]

not read the piece properly but why should the judge have got into trouble ?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
sorry , just to provide context to my questions , why for example should the police who prepared false confessions , or the jury who convicted him despite knowing he would face death not have questions to answer ?

They all should have!

 

[muz379]

They all should have!

Further reading suggests the Police obviously should have for basically setting this guy up , although at the time that was pretty typical behavior

The Judge should have for the way he led the Jury and was biased against the defendant .

The Jury though Im struggling to see why they should face any comebacks . Studies have proven that a judges summing up is very persuasive to the Jury so I personally dont think the Jury did anything wrong in convicting someone based off the evidence they would have had and the way they where instructed by the Judge .

 

[455driver]

Death penalty for people like those who killed Lee Rigby and where it is plainly obvious that they will never be any use to society, life sentences for those where the evidence is less damning or more forensic in nature!

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I favour the death penalty as long as the judge and the prosecutor gets executed when the wrongly executed is exonerated.

But not the Jury?
The Jury whom the Judge would have asked to make the decision of Guilt or otherwise, in full knowledge of the consequences of their decision?
The Jury of ordinary citizens who sit in Judgement, and whose decision is not available for the Judge to make?

The Jury though Im struggling to see why they should face any comebacks . Studies have proven that a judges summing up is very persuasive to the Jury so I personally dont think the Jury did anything wrong in convicting someone based off the evidence they would have had and the way they where instructed by the Judge .

A summing-up may be persuasive, but so should be the evidence, and so should be the reading of the law.
Substantial doubts in either would lead to a direction to find a Not Guilty verdict.
Yes, a summing-up will often include instructions, but these do not remove the responsibility of a Juror; a Juror who has heard the evidence first hand from the witnesses, in their own words, and watched and listened to how they responded to the questionning and to all the efforts to expose different interpretations of any and every uncertainty.

. . . our legal system is rather unjust and bonkers . . . .

You say this quite regularly on here, but whatever you mean to say by describing something as 'bonkers' in this context, you may find some support in this excellent critique by Sir Alan Moses, a senior Judge of the Court of Appeal (which I was pleasantly surprised to find online): Summing down the Summing up in which he said "It should not be forgotten that however clear the new directions are to a lawyer, they are in a foreign tongue to a member of the jury. The concepts are alien, far removed from the problems they have to confront in every day life…people in their daily drift are not called on to distinguish direct from circumstantial evidence. Everyday routine, in everyday life, does not require people to distinguish between inference and suspicion and few if any in their everyday lives ask themselves whether they are driven to a conclusion."

But I call that analysis and self-criticsism, by one of our leading Judges, a reassuring awareness of the challenges facing all Judges in the process of reaching a fair and just decision through the stage of the summing up; I do not call it "rather unjust or bonkers".

 

[radamfi]

Why do the Americans still have botched executions when legal euthanasia in the Netherlands, Switzerland etc. have no such problems?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Why do the Americans still have botched executions when legal euthanasia in the Netherlands, Switzerland etc. have no such problems?

I have had similar questions, specifically in respect of the decision-making and responsibility issues involved in both.

It seems that the involvement of the public (through the legal process and its evolutionary development) in the application of Criminal Law attracts much more criticism from the public than in the essentially private decisions and responsibilities in euthanasia. I find that contradiction perplexing.
We should expect that the crucial inclusion of the public in Criminal Juries would make the Criminal procedure more acceptable than in the private decisions of euthanasia, from which we are all excluded.

 

[radamfi]

I have had similar questions, specifically in respect of the decision-making and responsibility issues involved in both.

It seems that the involvement of the public (through the legal process and its evolutionary development) in the application of Criminal Law attracts much more criticism from the public than in the essentially private decisions and responsibilities in euthanasia. I find that contradiction perplexing.
We should expect that the crucial inclusion of the public in Criminal Juries would make the Criminal procedure more acceptable than in the private decisions of euthanasia, from which we are all excluded.

Are you saying that some euthanasia patients could have similarly painful deaths, but we don't hear about it?

I am wondering whether the Americans are simply using a poor technique compared to that used for euthanasia elsewhere. For example, when the BBC showed the man dying at Dignitas, they made him drink a potion which appeared to make him very thirsty for a few seconds, and then fall asleep.

 

[TheEdge]

Why do the Americans still have botched executions when legal euthanasia in the Netherlands, Switzerland etc. have no such problems?

A quick Google and some Wiki would imply the export ban from the EU. I'm not 100% sure but it seems the drugs used in the old and seemingly more effective cocktail were either Pentobarbital and Sodium Thiopental. Pentobarbital is patented by a Danish company who refuse to sell it to the US, Sodium Thiopental is blocked by the EU ban and the company in the US than makes it wont allow it to be used in executions.

Both however are still available for use in legal euthanasia.

I think...

 

[ainsworth74]

A quick Google and some Wiki would imply the export ban from the EU. I'm not 100% sure but it seems the drugs used in the old and seemingly more effective cocktail were either Pentobarbital and Sodium Thiopental. Pentobarbital is patented by a Danish company who refuse to sell it to the US, Sodium Thiopental is blocked by the EU ban and the company in the US than makes it wont allow it to be used in executions.

Both however are still available for use in legal euthanasia.

I think...

This would be my understanding. The States can no longer import the most effective drug cocktails and so are being forced to use less effective combinations of drugs which, whilst still lead to death, are more prone to failure.

The other consideration (and I think this is possibly a key issue) is that lethal injection is not administered by medical professionals, for understandable reasons, no doctors or nurses would ever agree to play a key role in an execution. Hence why there are plenty or reports of it taking multiple attempt to get an IV connected to a vein or even cases where they've missed a vein and gone into muscle tissue instead.

This is not such an issue for euthanasia where organisations like Dignitas have doctors and nurses on their staff to administer the oversee the process.

 

[muz379]

But not the Jury?
The Jury whom the Judge would have asked to make the decision of Guilt or otherwise, in full knowledge of the consequences of their decision?
The Jury of ordinary citizens who sit in Judgement, and whose decision is not available for the Judge to make?
A summing-up may be persuasive, but so should be the evidence, and so should be the reading of the law.
Substantial doubts in either would lead to a direction to find a Not Guilty verdict.
Yes, a summing-up will often include instructions, but these do not remove the responsibility of a Juror; a Juror who has heard the evidence first hand from the witnesses, in their own words, and watched and listened to how they responded to the questionning and to all the efforts to expose different interpretations of any and every uncertainty.
.

In america yes the Jury do make a guilty verdict knowing that the death penalty is being sought by the state for the defendant on trial . That in my opinion is severely flawed and jury selection and suitability in america has many critics .

If we had the death penalty in this country though would it not be up to the Judge to decide what sentence is passed down as is already the case now . The jury have no input whatsoever in the sentence that somebody serves . They might use common sense to deduce that someone is going to spend a long time in prison but then equally we know that juries at times can severely lack common sense .

Of course a Juror should be aware of and exercise their responsibilities in a sensible fashion but you are learned in Law and would understand the process and be able to critically analyses the evidence much better than the average person .In my opinion on a practical level you just cannot expect such levels of dedication or prior knowledge from Lay juries. Personally I can see how jurors do reach factually incorrect verdicts having actually been to watch a number of trials when I was at university If I was a juror in some of those cases I would have struggled in deciding guilt . Studies have shown time and time again Jurors use things that are irrelevant are easily led by the Judge and of course the quality of a barrister either defending or prosecuting can sway a jury massively . Things are of course better now with standard directions to juries . But being judged by a Jury of your peers is in no way perfect just ask the judge presiding over the trial of Vicky Price .
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The other consideration (and I think this is possibly a key issue) is that lethal injection is not administered by medical professionals, for understandable reasons, no doctors or nurses would ever agree to play a key role in an execution. Hence why there are plenty or reports of it taking multiple attempt to get an IV connected to a vein or even cases where they've missed a vein and gone into muscle tissue instead.

This is not such an issue for euthanasia where organisations like Dignitas have doctors and nurses on their staff to administer the oversee the process.

Indeed this would by my view of why these botched executions are happening

 

[Abpj17]

And surely the frequency? If the executions are infrequent, then it's a practice that doesn't happen often enough for them to really be skilled at it...