Court rejects lethal injection challenge

WASHINGTON â?? The Supreme Court by a 7-2 vote Wednesday rejected a challenge to the lethal injection method of executions. The decision in a Kentucky case is likely to end the nationwide moratorium on the death penalty that began last fall when the justices agreed to take up the claim.
The splintered rationale among the justices in the majority, however, could spur lawsuits in particular states over how their executions are carried out.

The two condemned prisoners who brought the case had said a widely used three-drug lethal injection method constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.

Most of the 36 states that permit capital punishment use the same mix: sodium thiopental (an anesthetic), pancuronium bromide (a paralyzing agent) and potassium chloride (which stops the heart). The prisoners said the second drug can mask signs of distress and create a risk that inmates suffer excruciating pain before death occurs.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing the leading opinion for the court, said the inmates failed to show that the method poses an unconstitutional risk of pain,

Dissenting were Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter. They said: "Kentucky's protocol lacks basic safeguards used by other states to confirm that an inmate is unconscious before injection of the second and third drugs."
Court rejects lethal injection challenge - USATODAY.com

The poor things!:mad: More time in wasted in the court system.

Have a good one!:s4:

Honestly, why don't they just shoot them full of morphine until dead? Nobody should have anything to complain about then!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf_The_Grey

Honestly, why don't they just shoot them full of morphine until dead? Nobody should have anything to complain about then!

---

Or put them to sleep and then shoot them in the head. No pain, no nothing. Just a mess for the janitor.



side note: i do not agree with capital punishment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf_The_Grey

Honestly, why don't they just shoot them full of morphine until dead? Nobody should have anything to complain about then!

---

LOL....that's an illegal addictive drug. Wouldn't want to send them to hell addicted to a drug now would we?

I say bring back the hangman's noose! Let the s.o.b. dangle and think about what he/she did for a bit. Besides that it would probably be more cost efficient.:thumbsup:

Have a good one!:s4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

LOL....that's an illegal addictive drug.

---

Actually it's a schedule 2 narcotic, which means it's all good via doctor's authorization. Hmmmmm, do no harm and whatnot though. Alright, we introduce an amendment to allow use of scedule 2's for lethal injection.



As for the death penalty itself...... eh, I can't say I firmly stand in support of one side or another. If it were up to me I think I'd just snuff the real pieces of shit; the John Wayne Gacies and Ted Bundy's and Mitt Romney's such. :D

I dont think they gave there victims any mercy so what would it matter how they die cruel or not

I'm very pro death penalty. An eye for an eye I say (Of course there are exceptions, like honest to god accidents). I believe that the family of the victim(s) should decide the fate of the convicted.

I'm so very sick and tired of seeing people who are sentenced to death waiting around for 30 freakin' years.

I also believe that more crimes should be allowed on the list of crimes the death penalty is applied to. Like rape for example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rebgirl420

I'm very pro death penalty. An eye for an eye I say (Of course there are exceptions, like honest to god accidents). I believe that the family of the victim(s) should decide the fate of the convicted.

I'm so very sick and tired of seeing people who are sentenced to death waiting around for 30 freakin' years.

I also believe that more crimes should be allowed on the list of crimes the death penalty is applied to. Like rape for example.

---

Well put Rebgirl i agree with you 100%.:thumbsup:

Just give them a head shot i'm sure that costs less money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reefer Rogue

Just give them a head shot i'm sure that costs less money.

---

Yes that's the way to go Reefer Rogue.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rebgirl420

I'm very pro death penalty. An eye for an eye I say

---

Of course I could quote the cliche Ghandi quote in response, but appeal's to authority and their opinions isn't a factual argument. So why do I bring it up? To ruin it for whomever will inevitably use it. :D

Quote:

---

I believe that the family of the victim(s) should decide the fate of the convicted.

---

Seems like a much better idea to me than letting the state decide. Then if the family's anti-death-penalty or whatever, justice can be enacted as they see fit.

Quote:

---

I'm so very sick and tired of seeing people who are sentenced to death waiting around for 30 freakin' years.

---

Isn't the 30 years an added-on punishment? I know it takes a few years for appeals and whatnot, but I imagine at this point 30 years would just be for the benefit of added punishment. But if only for that reason, then I think nothing more than death is necessary (especially on the taxpayer).

But sorry Reb, overall I gotta disagree. I wish I could remember the statistics that I read a while back, but I know that quite a few people are expunged of their charge while waiting on death row, and freed. If it were so instant, a lot (more) innocent people would end up dead.

Quote:

---

I also believe that more crimes should be allowed on the list of crimes the death penalty is applied to. Like rape for example.

---

I think repeated rape would be a more ethical basis. Rape, while horrible in and of itself, does have it's varrying degrees. There's "drunk and won't take no for an answer", and there's Ted Bundie-style assaults with metal bars and such. Lets not go into graphic detail...






Personally, I think the justice system should be based on Utilitarian harm-reduction through and through. None of this seeing the criminals as victims who need a hug, and none of this blood-thirsty mentallity that we have to exact revenge via suffering just for the sake of inflicting suffering itself. The answer to the suffering caused by cancer isn't to punish the cancer and make it suffer, it's to cut it out as efficiently as possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf_The_Grey

Personally, I think the justice system should be based on Utilitarian harm-reduction through and through. None of this seeing the criminals as victims who need a hug, and none of this blood-thirsty mentallity that we have to exact revenge via suffering just for the sake of inflicting suffering itself. The answer to the suffering caused by cancer isn't to punish the cancer and make it suffer, it's to cut it out as efficiently as possible.

---

That's the way I look at it! I think a good start would be to eliminate victimless crimes from being punished and starting to punish corporate workers for crimes with victims. If a corporation comes out with a product that causes death or some other great bodily harm, they should be punished the same way a person would. Admittedly it would take some working out... but there's always a person that approves of a product being made, and they should be held responsible. I just say that because my dad was one of the people that had a Ford Explorer who's tire blew up while driving due to bad manufacture. If I personally did something to make someone's tires explode... I'd be in jail.

On the other hand, someone smoking pot shouldn't be in jail, since there's no actual victim. In the same line of thinking, the government should jail people that eat too much sugar, since they'd be harming their bodies and increasing their chances of getting diabetes.

That way we have a clear distinction showing what exactly is a crime, and you go to jail in order to make the community safer. All utilitarian-like... like you said.