AZ - Thomas Kemp executed for '92 murder of Tucson college student

Again, I don't know how many times I have to say this but it is not about THIS particular defendant. I'm with the lawyer in being concerned that the method used in executions in that state may be unconstitutional and that further inquiry should be made about the drugs being used and who is administering them. This is a bigger issue than this one man. Far, far bigger.

I get what you're saying, however, according to the article, this man shook 'for several seconds' and in the last 9 executions witnessed by the AP in AZ, no other inmates shook.

This, IMO, is not enough to make any kind of fuss about or be a reason to discontinue using this method. The 'several seconds' of shaking could be unrelated to the lethal injection. I understand the constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, but I've noticed there are a lot of things in the constitution that aren't being followed, and I for one am not willing to make this be the one I crusade about.
 
I get what you're saying, however, according to the article, this man shook 'for several seconds' and in the last 9 executions witnessed by the AP in AZ, no other inmates shook.

This, IMO, is not enough to make any kind of fuss about or be a reason to discontinue using this method. The 'several seconds' of shaking could be unrelated to the lethal injection. I understand the constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, but I've noticed there are a lot of things in the constitution that aren't being followed, and I for one am not willing to make this be the one I crusade about.

What jumped out at me was that this state uses the one drug combo, rather than three - and it's phenobarbital, rather than sodium thiopental (although I know there are supply issues with that drug manufacturer). Phenobarbital can cause seizures, whereas sodium thiopental does not seem to. Although there are issues with sodium thiopental wearing off too quickly, because administration of the dose is not done by medical professionals with dosages tailored specifically. Just because no other inmates physically shook does not mean that it's issue-free.

For me personally, the only way I could feel comfortable with the death penalty is if it were administered in such a way that it isn't cruel and unusual punishment - and if we have eliminated innocent persons from being convicted. I cannot imagine anything more horrifying than an innocent person being put to death, and that death being tortuous. It's all about Blackstone for me - better than ten guilty go free than one innocent man condemned.
 
I seriously doubt it will ever be possible to guarantee that no innocent people are executed. Which is why an irreparable punishment is not appropriate to any endeavor involving human beings.

As for the lawyer's complaint, (a) that's his job, and (b) a lawyer who has been with a client through all the disappointments of a failed appeal process and then the actual execution, can't help but feel a personal connection. Maybe he overreacted to what he saw, but can we really blame him? And isn't it a good thing that somebody is around to raise the question? Asking the question doesn't mean (unfortunately, in my eyes) that the method of execution will be abolished.
 
What I found most interesting about the article was the brief mention that most d.p. inmates decline the mild sedative they are offered before execution. I wonder why?

(As I learned from an angioplasty a couple of years ago: whenever they offer you a sedative, take it!)
 
maybe he was shaking because he saw where he was going.
 
What I will never understand is how people can be against the death penalty but for the murder of an innocent child in the womb.

Victims and/or victims families deserve the right to have a say in if the person should get the death penalty or life in prison. And in what way the death penalty should be carried out. Anyone who hurts a child should receive an automatic death sentence no matter what though and it should be carried out swiftly.
 
These threads always demonstrate why the death penalty is barbarous: not just because it is cruel to its victims, but because it brings out the absolute worst in almost everyone else.

He was a murdering monster NOT a victim. And yet we're cruel to want justice? We are losing the fight against criminals everyday because we are to soft on crime. Some people care more about the rights of the criminals, than our rights. Its sad and bothersome to me that you see him as the victim. Imoo:banghead::banghead:
 
He was a murdering monster NOT a victim. And yet we're cruel to want justice? We are losing the fight against criminals everyday because we are to soft on crime. Some people care more about the rights of the criminals, than our rights. Its sad and bothersome to me that you see him as the victim. Imoo:banghead::banghead:

I don't see him as the "victim" in the original crime, obviously. But he is the victim of the more recent crime, that which occurred when we killed him.

We are NOT soft on crime and we are NOT losing any fight. We have the highest rates of incarceration and execution in the free world. Meanwhile our crime rates have been falling for over 30 years. (There may be a link there and I am not opposed to long sentences, including LWOP, for murderers.)

Let's stop scaring ourselves into killing people, even bad people. It isn't necessary and it isn't right.
 
leanaí;7849622 said:
What I will never understand is how people can be against the death penalty but for the murder of an innocent child in the womb.

Largely because we don't believe a single, fertilized cell is a "child" or "baby" just because you use the word.

Victims and/or victims families deserve the right to have a say in if the person should get the death penalty or life in prison. And in what way the death penalty should be carried out.

And why should that be on their heads and their consciences? Haven't they suffered enough? A murder is a crime against the state and should be punished by the state. Murdering to punish murder not only sends a mixed message, it is just plain wrong.

Anyone who hurts a child should receive an automatic death sentence no matter what though and it should be carried out swiftly.

"Hurts" a child? In any way? Are you trying to insure that any child who is molested will also be murdered to prevent future testimony? Because that is what your policy would accomplish.
 
Largely because we don't believe a single, fertilized cell is a "child" or "baby" just because you use the word.
Ehhh...I don't know who this "we" is but please don't presume to speak for anyone but yourself. Regardless, this has nothing to do with the topic of the thread.


Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2
 
I don't see him as the "victim" in the original crime, obviously. But he is the victim of the more recent crime, that which occurred when we killed him.

We are NOT soft on crime and we are NOT losing any fight. We have the highest rates of incarceration and execution in the free world. Meanwhile our crime rates have been falling for over 30 years. (There may be a link there and I am not opposed to long sentences, including LWOP, for murderers.)

Let's stop scaring ourselves into killing people, even bad people. It isn't necessary and it isn't right.

This where IMO comes in....you are speaking in facts when nothing is provided to back them up.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2
 
Ehhh...I don't know who this "we" is but please don't presume to speak for anyone but yourself. Regardless, this has nothing to do with the topic of the thread.


Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

I think the "we" was obvious: it was those of us who oppose the d.p. but support a woman's right to choose. And find no contradiction in doing so.
 
This where IMO comes in....you are speaking in facts when nothing is provided to back them up....

And how would that make me different from the poster who claimed we are "losing" the war on crime?

But since you asked:

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm


You'll find the total number of murders for 2010 was as low as it has been since 1968, when the U.S. had only two-thirds its current population. And that's TOTAL murders, not per capita!

As I implied above, some of this decline may be due to our keeping murderers in prison for longer periods of time and I have no problem with that. But it simply isn't true that we are slowly "losing" our battle against violent crime and therefore need to kill murderers.
 
And how would that make me different from the poster who claimed we are "losing" the war on crime?

But since you asked:

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm


You'll find the total number of murders for 2010 was as low as it has been since 1968, when the U.S. had only two-thirds its current population. And that's TOTAL murders, not per capita!

As I implied above, some of this decline may be due to our keeping murderers in prison for longer periods of time and I have no problem with that. But it simply isn't true that we are slowly "losing" our battle against violent crime and therefore need to kill murderers.

Going off on a tangent here, but I remember seeing or reading something some time ago about rates of recidivism and the great success that the Quakers had in their prisons. I'll have to see what I can find about it. If I recall correctly, they had extremely low rates, despite shorter prison sentences.
 
Wow, the waking up during surgery happened to me. The paralyzing drug worked but the one to put me under and to keep me from feeling pain didnt. I was feeling every cut of the knife into my back and could not talk, move or tell them. Luckily the anesthesiologist saw my vital signs were going crazy and quickly gave me a huge dose to put me under again. Come to find out, redheads require MORE anesthesia, usually at least 25% more than others, Weird but true.

But as for the executed criminal who was "shaking". Heck he could have been laughing for all we know. I know I shake the bed when I am looking at funny stuff on the internet and trying not to wake up Mr. Swamp with my giggling.

What he experienced was nothing more than any person getting an IV does. I still have zero sympathy for him.

He could have been shaking with anger that he was getting what he deserved and could not hurt anyone anymore.

oh my, i have had.about 10th surgeries in 12 years and that happening is one of my worst fears. I feel so bad for you. Always remember to tell your surgon about this if you you ever require more surgery or the anesthesiologist.
 
Going off on a tangent here, but I remember seeing or reading something some time ago about rates of recidivism and the great success that the Quakers had in their prisons. I'll have to see what I can find about it. If I recall correctly, they had extremely low rates, despite shorter prison sentences.

I don't know anything about Quaker prisons, Ana. But although I am anti-d.p., I'm really not "soft" on crime. I have no problem sending murderers away for life--for the protection of the rest of society.
 
Shaking is not necessarily a sign of pain.



When were we granted the right to a painless death?

Accident victims die painful deaths.
Cancer patients suffer for months in many cases.

Lethal injection made one guy shake?
Not high on my list of social issues that need resolution.
 
Largely because we don't believe a single, fertilized cell is a "child" or "baby" just because you use the word.

That's not what I've heard from those who have gotten one. They knew very well that they were killing a child and did it any ways. And Since this thread isn't about abortion I will refrain myself from talking about it anymore.

And why should that be on their heads and their consciences? Haven't they suffered enough? A murder is a crime against the state and should be punished by the state. Murdering to punish murder not only sends a mixed message, it is just plain wrong.

I said they DESERVE the right to have a say in it, if they can't handle that then the state can decide.

"Hurts" a child? In any way? Are you trying to insure that any child who is molested will also be murdered to prevent future testimony? Because that is what your policy would accomplish.

Would that really be the case? Because how I see it now kids are still being murdered who were molested even though the scum bag wouldn't receive the dp for just molesting them.

Replied in bold.
 
leanaí;7852604 said:
Would that really be the case? Because how I see it now kids are still being murdered who were molested even though the scum bag wouldn't receive the dp for just molesting them.

In far too many cases, that's true. But why provide an incentive for ALL child molesters to kill their victims?
 
I don't know anything about Quaker prisons, Ana. But although I am anti-d.p., I'm really not "soft" on crime. I have no problem sending murderers away for life--for the protection of the rest of society.

I didn't mean to imply that you were - the general slant of discussion just made me remember it. I've googled and haven't found anything substantive yet, so perhaps I'm misremembering the program. What I remember was that prison sentences were shorter, but solitary confinement was used more - the only contact a prisoner had was with a minister. It significantly cut down on reoffending. Granted, I think this would be more towards things like theft, rather than murder, but recidivism rates are interesting to me. If I can find that info, maybe it will have stats broken down by crime. I really should have written this down when I saw it!
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
194
Guests online
2,158
Total visitors
2,352

Forum statistics

Threads
589,964
Messages
17,928,417
Members
228,021
Latest member
Ghost246
Back
Top