Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://abcnews.go.com/US/oklahoma-plans ... d=12113350" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Lawyers for a death row inmate in Oklahoma are protesting a state plan to kill their client using a drug typically used to put down animals amid a nationwide shortage of the anesthetic regularly used in executions.

Oklahoma is considering the use of pentobarbital, a drug used to euthanize animals, in the upcoming execution of John David Duty, a convicted murderer scheduled to be executed on Dec. 12.

If the goal of the state is death for the inmate then why do they care? Is he going to come back and sue? Are hangings or firing squads painless or more humane in some way?

Didn't we have a post a month or two ago about a guy having to put his dog down a second time because the drug didn't do it all the way the first time?

Amy Grant is the answer to this issue

dbackjon wrote:Amy Grant is the answer to this issue

D.A.M.?

Death by Awful Music.

D.A.G.?

Death by Amy Grant.

A.G.S.?

Amy Grant Sucks.

bandl wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Amy Grant is the answer to this issue

D.A.M.?

Death by Awful Music.

ASUG8 wrote:
If the goal of the state is death for the inmate then why do they care? Is he going to come back and sue?

Because that pesky Constitution thing bans cruel and unusual punishment.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:
If the goal of the state is death for the inmate then why do they care? Is he going to come back and sue?

Because that pesky Constitution thing bans cruel and unusual punishment.

So knocking someone out with a paralytic then using a drug to stop their heart is more cruel than hanging or firing squads? How about Ol' Sparky?

We are talking about the same Constitution that has been in effect for all these methods, right?

Skjellyfetti wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:
If the goal of the state is death for the inmate then why do they care? Is he going to come back and sue?

Because that pesky Constitution thing bans cruel and unusual punishment.

But seeing how Death is the punishment, how you get there is just style points....

ASUG8 wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:
Because that pesky Constitution thing bans cruel and unusual punishment.

So knocking someone out with a paralytic then using a drug to stop their heart is more cruel than hanging or firing squads?

I believe the big question is whether this paralytic effectively knocks out humans.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:
So knocking someone out with a paralytic then using a drug to stop their heart is more cruel than hanging or firing squads?

I believe the big question is whether this paralytic effectively knocks out humans.

A .45 to the temple will effectively knock him out, but I digress.....

I'm not for the death penalty but...

If you really want to kill someone just tie them to railroad tracks and let a freight train run them over. It will be quick, painless, 100% effective and you could kill as many people as you want in one shot.

Too many things can go wrong with all the politically correct methods being used now days.

You could also hook up a passenger car and let the victims families ride along, let them think that they helped carry out the sentence. Pay for the whole thing by selling tickets to anyone else who wished to take part. Maybe you could install a glass floor in the passenger car.

BlueHen86 wrote:I'm not for the death penalty but...

If you really want to kill someone just tie them to railroad tracks and let a freight train run them over. It will be quick, painless, 100% effective and you could kill as many people as you want in one shot.

Too many things can go wrong with all the politically correct methods being used now days.

You could also hook up a passenger car and let the victims families ride along, let them think that they helped carry out the sentence. Pay for the whole thing by selling tickets to anyone else who wished to take part. Maybe you could install a glass floor in the passenger car.

This idea is right on so many levels....well, the glass floor might be a little over the top (unless you charge a PSL license fee).....

Appaholic wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:I'm not for the death penalty but...

If you really want to kill someone just tie them to railroad tracks and let a freight train run them over. It will be quick, painless, 100% effective and you could kill as many people as you want in one shot.

Too many things can go wrong with all the politically correct methods being used now days.

You could also hook up a passenger car and let the victims families ride along, let them think that they helped carry out the sentence. Pay for the whole thing by selling tickets to anyone else who wished to take part. Maybe you could install a glass floor in the passenger car.

This idea is right on so many levels....well, the glass floor might be a little over the top (unless you charge a PSL license fee).....

Not as over the top as having a dining car that sold sloppy joe's and pulled pork sandwiches.

BlueHen86 wrote:I'm not for the death penalty but...

If you really want to kill someone just tie them to railroad tracks and let a freight train run them over. It will be quick, painless, 100% effective and you could kill as many people as you want in one shot.

Too many things can go wrong with all the politically correct methods being used now days.

You could also hook up a passenger car and let the victims families ride along, let them think that they helped carry out the sentence. Pay for the whole thing by selling tickets to anyone else who wished to take part. Maybe you could install a glass floor in the passenger car.

Not bad...you couldn't blow the whistle because that would make the inmate uncomfortable and would likely be unconstitutional.

I love normally strict constructionist conservatives poopooing the Constitution.


If you want a quick, effective, and inexpensive way to excecute people.. look no further than the guillotine. Though, I would be against public excecutions... I'd have nothing against beheading people.

I prefer slower, more painful methods.

Skjellyfetti wrote:I love normally strict constructionist conservatives poopooing the Constitution.


If you want a quick, effective, and inexpensive way to excecute people.. look no further than the guillotine. Though, I would be against public excecutions... I'd have nothing against beheading people.

How is not caring how a convicted murderer dies "poopooing the constitution"? "Cruel & unusual" is subjective just like pornorgraphy. Death is death. As a matter of fact, it's more "unusual" for people to be sedated before death, so why are convicted murderers afforded this added benefit prior to execution?

Strict Constitutionalist saying the wording in the Constitution is subjective.

Appaholic wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:I love normally strict constructionist conservatives poopooing the Constitution.


If you want a quick, effective, and inexpensive way to excecute people.. look no further than the guillotine. Though, I would be against public excecutions... I'd have nothing against beheading people.

How is not caring how a convicted murderer dies "poopooing the constitution"? "Cruel & unusual" is subjective just like pornorgraphy. Death is death. As a matter of fact, it's more "unusual" for people to be sedated before death, so why are convicted murderers afforded this added benefit prior to execution?

I would think being drawn and quartered would suck, or being given the William Wallace treatment. I could see that being cruel and unusual.

Just so we're straight here Jelly - who's the strict Constitutionalist?

Skjellyfetti wrote:Strict Constitutionalist saying the wording in the Constitution is subjective.

Yes, it is. Like "speech" & "privacy"....

ASUG8 wrote:

Appaholic wrote:
How is not caring how a convicted murderer dies "poopooing the constitution"? "Cruel & unusual" is subjective just like pornorgraphy. Death is death. As a matter of fact, it's more "unusual" for people to be sedated before death, so why are convicted murderers afforded this added benefit prior to execution?

I would think being drawn and quartered would suck, or being given the William Wallace treatment. I could see that being cruel and unusual.

I think both of those would rank above the methods currently used in my book. The more cruel the better. Perhaps THEN it would become a deterrent.

AZGrizFan wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:
I would think being drawn and quartered would suck, or being given the William Wallace treatment. I could see that being cruel and unusual.

I think both of those would rank above the methods currently used in my book. The more cruel the better. Perhaps THEN it would become a deterrent.

Since Skelly is so concerned with the wording in the constitution, let's make execution whatever the previous year's number one cause of death nationally was....heart attack? we can induce...cancer? we can inject....whatever....seems to me the way we've been executing prisoners (electric chair, lethal injection) are more unusual and therefore, since we don't have the experience or knowledge, more cruel....let 'em experience painful debilitating death (accelerated of course) like most of the rest of the population due to heart disease or cancer....

Appaholic wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
I think both of those would rank above the methods currently used in my book. The more cruel the better. Perhaps THEN it would become a deterrent.

Since Skelly is so concerned with the wording in the constitution, let's make execution whatever the previous year's number one cause of death nationally was....heart attack? we can induce...cancer? we can inject....whatever....seems to me the way we've been executing prisoners (electric chair, lethal injection) are more unusual and therefore, since we don't have the experience or knowledge, more cruel....let 'em experience painful debilitating death (accelerated of course) like most of the rest of the population due to heart disease or cancer....

In the murder trial I was on in '96 (he strangled 4 women, was suspected in up to 8) we found him guilty in 20 minutes, and sentencing to death took an hour.

Where is he now, nearly 15 yrs later? Three hots and a cot on NC's death row.

Pretty chilling read if you have a couple of minutes.
http://maamodt.asp.radford.edu/Psyc%204 ... 02007_.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Appaholic wrote: Since Skelly is so concerned with the wording in the constitution, let's make execution whatever the previous year's number one cause of death nationally was....heart attack? we can induce...cancer? we can inject....whatever....seems to me the way we've been executing prisoners (electric chair, lethal injection) are more unusual and therefore, since we don't have the experience or knowledge, more cruel....let 'em experience painful debilitating death (accelerated of course) like most of the rest of the population due to heart disease or cancer....

Oooooooo.... inducing a heart attack?

You mean... like lethal injection?