Live by The Needle, Die by The Needle

Captain.Heroin

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Nov 3, 2008
Messages
94,863
Location
Thousands of Miles Away From You
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47780123

The US Supreme Court has ruled that a convicted murderer on death row in Missouri has no right to a "painless death".

The ruling clears the way for the execution of Russell Bucklew, who asked for gas rather than lethal injection, citing an unusual medical condition.

Bucklew, 50, argued the state's preferred method amounts to legally banned "cruel and unusual punishment".

The 5-4 ruling split along the court's ideological lines.

Bucklew was sentenced to death in 1996 for rape, murder and kidnapping in an attack against his ex-girlfriend and her new partner and six-year-old son.

In recent court filings, Bucklew argued that his congenital condition, cavernous hemangioma, might cause him excessive pain if he is put to death by lethal injection.

The condition causes blood-filled tumours in his throat, neck and face, which he said could rupture during his execution causing him extreme pain and suffocation.

According to Bucklew, he would feel excessive pain if the state executioner is allowed to use the state's preferred method of a single drug, pentobarbital, applied by needle.

But the Supreme Court's conservative justices said on Monday they considered the legal effort to be a stalling tactic.

They said it was up to the prisoner to prove that another method of execution would "reduce a substantial risk of severe pain", but he had not done so.

Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch noted that Bucklew had been on death row for more than 20 years.

"The eighth amendment [to the US constitution] forbids 'cruel and unusual' methods of capital punishment but does not guarantee a prisoner a painless death," wrote Justice Gorsuch, who was appointed by President Donald Trump in 2017.

He continued: "As originally understood, the eighth amendment tolerated methods of execution, like hanging, that involved a significant risk of pain, while forbidding as cruel only those methods that intensified the death sentence by 'superadding' terror, pain or disgrace."

Liberals on the court, including Justice Stephen Breyer, argued that Bucklew's condition should have allowed for him to be put to death by nitrogen gas, a method allowed in three states.

"There are higher values than ensuring that executions run on time," wrote Justice Sonia Sotomayor in a separate opinion, adding that secrecy in the death penalty process has recently yielded different results in two similar cases.

In one case in Alabama, a Muslim man was forbidden from having an imam with him during his execution, but the court halted a similar sentence after an appeal by a Buddhist who wanted his spiritual adviser present when he was put to death.

In Justice Gorsuch's majority opinion in the Bucklew case, he referred to those two cases, saying the inmate in Alabama had been given ample time to voice his complaint, but chose to do so only 15 days before he was scheduled to die.
 
I actually happen to agree with the ruling. What is the difference when the person is going to die? Some might argue inert gasses are more torturous or painful. Who has inhaled a bunch of nitrogen or helium gas and survived to tell the tale of what it was like? Can you trust their opinion?

"Might" dislodge a tumor and cause suffocation is a pretty big might. Let's stick him and find out. You are de-facto donating your body to science and society when you end up in death row. This is pretty much why it is a literal death penalty.

The Supreme Court could rule differently on if the death penalty is even constitutional; barring this, nothing is going to change. States laws will triumph here, and pretty much every state is going to move to a barbiturate IV overdose prescribed for death. Indeed, if anything the prisoner can be orally fed the drugs; I do not know why the state's constitution passes an emergency resolution so that 1) he doesn't go through "suffocation" (proof of condition? is he possibly faking?) and 2) so that he can still die as prescribed by the state.

Cases like this are going to inflame anti-death penalty rhetoric and likely will lead to its overturn, which is not something I believe should happen in our world. This is why Missouri needs to pass the oral barbiturate exception for medical cases where it is proven the person may die before the barbiturates kick in from the insertion of a needle (most people do not apply to this exception).

Oh, but what happens then if someone couldn't stand the harsh, bitter taste of the solution? Isn't requiring someone to drink a poison inducing suicide, not state-sanctioned homicide? Just fucking stick him with the needle and get it over with. He had a fair court trial, and the jury decided he was guilty. That was his right, to a trial by jury or a trial by judge. We live in a country where people are presumed innocent before being found guilty in court. We live in a country with access to top-tier lawyers money can buy. I don't see why this guy needs a second shake or a get-out-of-needle-free pass. *shrugs*
 
This actually does seem like a stalling tactic, looking at it objectively. Why would a large barbiturate injection cause a tumor to explode?
 
I actually happen to agree with the ruling. What is the difference when the person is going to die? Some might argue inert gasses are more torturous or painful. Who has inhaled a bunch of nitrogen or helium gas and survived to tell the tale of what it was like? Can you trust their opinion?

"Might" dislodge a tumor and cause suffocation is a pretty big might. Let's stick him and find out. You are de-facto donating your body to science and society when you end up in death row. This is pretty much why it is a literal death penalty.

The Supreme Court could rule differently on if the death penalty is even constitutional; barring this, nothing is going to change. States laws will triumph here, and pretty much every state is going to move to a barbiturate IV overdose prescribed for death. Indeed, if anything the prisoner can be orally fed the drugs; I do not know why the state's constitution passes an emergency resolution so that 1) he doesn't go through "suffocation" (proof of condition? is he possibly faking?) and 2) so that he can still die as prescribed by the state.

Cases like this are going to inflame anti-death penalty rhetoric and likely will lead to its overturn, which is not something I believe should happen in our world. This is why Missouri needs to pass the oral barbiturate exception for medical cases where it is proven the person may die before the barbiturates kick in from the insertion of a needle (most people do not apply to this exception).

Oh, but what happens then if someone couldn't stand the harsh, bitter taste of the solution? Isn't requiring someone to drink a poison inducing suicide, not state-sanctioned homicide? Just fucking stick him with the needle and get it over with. He had a fair court trial, and the jury decided he was guilty. That was his right, to a trial by jury or a trial by judge. We live in a country where people are presumed innocent before being found guilty in court. We live in a country with access to top-tier lawyers money can buy. I don't see why this guy needs a second shake or a get-out-of-needle-free pass. *shrugs*

Multiple people have been exconerated after execution. Meaning the state commited murder. Not only that studies have proven executions provide little to no deterrent effect and are horrifically expensive to the tax payer. The trend in most states is too slow the appeal process to a crawl so the politicians can say they are tough on crime without the bad publicity of killing anyone. I just think the whole system is too arbitrary. You won't find any rich people on death row. It's mostly poor minorities who couldn't afford a defense worth a shit
 
This actually does seem like a stalling tactic, looking at it objectively. Why would a large barbiturate injection cause a tumor to explode?

Read the details, I do believe the science. If the defense was making this up the prosecution would have squashed it thoroughly and then wiped his ass with the defense attorney's tie.

It just doesn't matter. Maybe he should have thought about his tumor disorder before abducting, raping and killing. It's not a mental disorder where we have different protocols. Not at all.

Multiple people have been exconerated after execution. Meaning the state commited murder. Not only that studies have proven executions provide little to no deterrent effect and are horrifically expensive to the tax payer. The trend in most states is too slow the appeal process to a crawl so the politicians can say they are tough on crime without the bad publicity of killing anyone. I just think the whole system is too arbitrary. You won't find any rich people on death row. It's mostly poor minorities who couldn't afford a defense worth a shit

No, that's not fair to say the state committed murder just because they were exonerated. The justice system works the way it does because *it does work* and we need to be thankful we don't live in a justice-less society.

Whether or not they are exonerated, the state did or didn't murder them and the person's previous actions really don't have much connotation to the latter action of what the state does. It would be absurd, almost impossible in my mind, for the majority of people on death row to be innocent. < 7% innocence sounds about right to me and I accept that number as a plausible error rate for such a grand undertaking (executing people for gross, inhumane behaviors such as abduction, rape, murder, etc).

If you guys want to chant "no more death penalty" for the drug traffickers, be my guest. This guy doesn't deserve a second chance at life.

The cost to the taxpayer was something we addressed in the state of CA by speeding up the process. We can minimize the cost to society. We can and will (look at CA's track record) execute less people. The whole nation isn't Texas, guys, putting hundreds of mentally ill people to death per year. We can be better than that.

You can *and will* find rich people on death row! Look at the guy Newsom just pardoned! That is WHY he did it, he took a fucking bribe and I'm sure of it even if the world thinks me insane for seeing through how things like this work. YES it may be mostly poor minorities. IF ANYTHING, this points to how we need to revamp public defenders and to pump more money into that program, into these funds, etc.

Just like Hillary said we can fix Obamacare, guys, WE CAN FIX THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. It's not like we need to throw it away or make major changes. Make real progress. Define some terms. Expand on ideas, have some ideals. Perhaps we need an independent review board for death penalty cases. This isn't impossible.

Dont they give you fent and midazolam first? Or is that old news. How anything could he painful on that combo I have no clue

Preach! Love it. The state could kill me in a fentanyl + midazolam coma and I would never complain.

I think they are going with secobarbital or pentobarbital "only" injections now, so the prisoner can FEEL THE BURN! (If this was the lounge I'd post a FEEL THE BERN meme with Bernie Sanders)

I really don't see what a little bitter, caustic drug in the vein in the last few seconds of life really matters. The overwhelming sensation of anxiety relief and sedation downers bring is sure to be way more humane than the way people kill others, die naturally, etc.
 
Multiple people have been exconerated after execution. Meaning the state commited murder. Not only that studies have proven executions provide little to no deterrent effect and are horrifically expensive to the tax payer. The trend in most states is too slow the appeal process to a crawl so the politicians can say they are tough on crime without the bad publicity of killing anyone. I just think the whole system is too arbitrary. You won't find any rich people on death row. It's mostly poor minorities who couldn't afford a defense worth a shit

I'm gonna start by saying that I agree that the death penalty has no deterrence value. I'd also agree that the justice system is simply not accurate enough for me to support having a death penalty.

That said, I am not aware of a single person exonerated after having been executed in the United States. I know of it having happened in other countries, it's entirely plausible that it might have already happened in America. But I'm not aware of any confirmed cases and I've gone looking several times.

If you know of even one example of an American death sentence that was carried out where the person was later exonerated, please let me know.

As for this particular case, I can't say I really care about this guy being executed this way as opposed to some other way. In other words if I still supported the death penalty I would agree with this decision.

I don't have much patience for all these claims of torture by way of pain killers and sedatives. I think it's the same bullshit as the claims of the death penalty serving as an effective deterrent. It's all political bs, just for difference sides.
 

When Texas admits it made a mistake you know it was bad. There are more just google wrongful executions in the US

Hmm, thank you for this example. I've asked people to show me proof that the US has ever definitively executed an innocent man several times before. All of which ended up quietly reinterpreting what id asked for and ending up just giving me examples where the person definitely shouldn't have been convicted, but might still have been guilty.

While this isn't a case of it being definitely proven he was innocent, it comes significantly closer than any other example I've seen. So much so this might be the first time where I've gotten an answer with an example where I didn't feel like my time had been wasted. I really appreciate that. Thank you.
 

When Texas admits it made a mistake you know it was bad. There are more just google wrongful executions in the US
Thank you. I do know it does happen. It's not the majority; but a minority of cases.

I'm not sticking my head in the sand and claiming 100% accuracy rates.

It helps to keep it real, look at the cases like this and make an informed decision on the matter and I thank you CJ for linking this. I've always said it and I do mean it, CJ is a well-read guy and he'll know stuff that I don't have stuck upstairs in my brain yet. Very helpful CJ thank you bro.
 
Top