SCOTUS - Gives With One Hand Takes With The Other.
29 Jun 2015, 9:53 am
I applaud the Court's granting of civil liberties but today there's this:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/ ... _dt_tw_top
The Court is allowing the use of drugs that cause pain and suffering before death which I find very Unchristian. It deeply offends my Christian sensibilities.
Christ has a heart for criminals and does not wish to see them tortured so he took a fellow sufferer to Paradise with him.
I am an opponent of the death penalty and the state I live is such a Bible thumping one, you would think the majority of people living here would be against it also because what happened to Christ????
He was given the death penalty by the state. HE WAS TORTURED TO DEATH.
So I cannot for the life of me understand how they can give the death penalty and claim to have a Christian conscience.
30 Jun 2015, 5:33 pm
The state's attorney general has filed a brief today challenging the SC's decision the 10 Commandments violates the state's constitution by remaining on the capitol grounds. Someone needs to file a brief challenging their decision on allowing the administration of midazolam by means of lethal injection.
30 Jun 2015, 6:11 pm
You don't understand the case or the ruling adequately.
This method of execution cruel if you do it wrong. Having a right way to do it, that doesn't cause pain, means that it is not, strictly speaking, a cruel method.
The fact that it is screwed up so frequently, and that states should do something about that, is a different case.
Might have something to do with how hard it is to acquire those drugs, since most manufacturers aren't interested in providing them anymore. Because this is such a terrible way to execute people.
As I understand it, it became popular when some death penalty advocate asked an apparently unwary veterinarian what a cheap painless method would be.
At the time, it wasn't fully understood, or at least not widely understood, that it could go horribly wrong.
The vet who offered the details of this method has since repeatedly voiced his regrets about his involvement, and what he recommended. He no longer stands by that advice. He feels very badly about it.
The American Veterinary Medical Association no longer allows this method to be used to put down animals. Because it can go wrong, and there are other ways.
From my perspective, the whole idea that there might be a "humane" method of state-sponsored murder is kinda wacky.
Frankly, and there are other threads about it, the death penalty is too expensive, and it couldn't possibly be worth it. And I'm pretty sure that if we let all the non-violent drug offenders out, there will be plenty of room in the prisons we have now to keep the really bad people locked up forever.
I don't know that this method will persist much longer anyway. Like i said, some of the drugs are becoming increasingly difficult to acquire. On purpose.
30 Jun 2015, 7:49 pm
This method of execution cruel if you do it wrong. Having a right way to do it, that doesn't cause pain, means that it is not, strictly speaking, a cruel method.
The fact that it is screwed up so frequently, and that states should do something about that, is a different case.
Might have something to do with how hard it is to acquire those drugs, since most manufacturers aren't interested in providing them anymore. Because this is such a terrible way to execute people.
As I understand it, it became popular when some death penalty advocate asked an apparently unwary veterinarian what a cheap painless method would be.
At the time, it wasn't fully understood, or at least not widely understood, that it could go horribly wrong.
The vet who offered the details of this method has since repeatedly voiced his regrets about his involvement, and what he recommended. He no longer stands by that advice. He feels very badly about it.
The American Veterinary Medical Association no longer allows this method to be used to put down animals. Because it can go wrong, and there are other ways.
From my perspective, the whole idea that there might be a "humane" method of state-sponsored murder is kinda wacky.
Frankly, and there are other threads about it, the death penalty is too expensive, and it couldn't possibly be worth it. And I'm pretty sure that if we let all the non-violent drug offenders out, there will be plenty of room in the prisons we have now to keep the really bad people locked up forever.
I don't know that this method will persist much longer anyway. Like i said, some of the drugs are becoming increasingly difficult to acquire. On purpose.
This state doesn't know how to do it.
01 Jul 2015, 7:34 am
It boggles the mind. They are fighting tooth and nail to keep the Ten Commandments statue yet they haven't qualms about administering a lethal dose ofa drug they do not know how to properly administer. What part of Thou Shalt Not Kill is so difficult to understand? It doesn't say Thou Shalt Not Kill Except In Cases Of Capitol Punishment does it?
Doesn't the state realize how this must appear to the SCOTUS? It's no wonder they rejected the statue of the Ten Commandments on capitol grounds AFTER they approved the usage of controversial death penalty drugs. If they allowed the statue to remain the state would have to abandon the death penalty.
01 Jul 2015, 6:16 pm
Doesn't the state realize how this must appear to the SCOTUS? It's no wonder they rejected the statue of the Ten Commandments on capitol grounds AFTER they approved the usage of controversial death penalty drugs. If they allowed the statue to remain the state would have to abandon the death penalty.
I figure it's about hate, blood lust, and vengeance. That and being able to say you are "tough on crime".
It's also something that prosecutors can use to put a notch on their belt.
I'm an atheist, remember. Not some milquetoast agnostic. I believe that mankind is answerable only to mankind, and that this places a great deal of responsibility on mankind that most would place on some supernatural being, which i am fairly certain does not exist.
And i believe that while some maybe people may deserve killing, we as a society don't deserve to have to kill them.
Much easier and more humane for everyone if we just put them somewhere where they can't hurt anybody.
Cheaper, too.
01 Jul 2015, 7:08 pm
Doesn't the state realize how this must appear to the SCOTUS? It's no wonder they rejected the statue of the Ten Commandments on capitol grounds AFTER they approved the usage of controversial death penalty drugs. If they allowed the statue to remain the state would have to abandon the death penalty.
I figure it's about hate, blood lust, and vengeance. That and being able to say you are "tough on crime".
It's also something that prosecutors can use to put a notch on their belt.
I'm an atheist, remember. Not some milquetoast agnostic. I believe that mankind is answerable only to mankind, and that this places a great deal of responsibility on mankind that most would place on some supernatural being, which i am fairly certain does not exist.
And i believe that while some maybe people may deserve killing, we as a society don't deserve to have to kill them.
Much easier and more humane for everyone if we just put them somewhere where they can't hurt anybody.
Cheaper, too.
If you are going to insist on having the Ten Commandments on the lawn of your capitol building, even challenge the Supreme Court who determines it's against the state's constitution, why would you have capitol punishment when violates one of the Commandments? Even the state cannot follow them so why would they expect others to do the same?
01 Jul 2015, 11:56 pm
Doesn't the state realize how this must appear to the SCOTUS? It's no wonder they rejected the statue of the Ten Commandments on capitol grounds AFTER they approved the usage of controversial death penalty drugs. If they allowed the statue to remain the state would have to abandon the death penalty.
I figure it's about hate, blood lust, and vengeance. That and being able to say you are "tough on crime".
It's also something that prosecutors can use to put a notch on their belt.
I'm an atheist, remember. Not some milquetoast agnostic. I believe that mankind is answerable only to mankind, and that this places a great deal of responsibility on mankind that most would place on some supernatural being, which i am fairly certain does not exist.
And i believe that while some maybe people may deserve killing, we as a society don't deserve to have to kill them.
Much easier and more humane for everyone if we just put them somewhere where they can't hurt anybody.
Cheaper, too.
If you are going to insist on having the Ten Commandments on the lawn of your capitol building, even challenge the Supreme Court who determines it's against the state's constitution, why would you have capitol punishment when violates one of the Commandments? Even the state cannot follow them so why would they expect others to do the same?
because it's a way of pandering to your political base
