Death row inmate: I'm too fat to execute

[Manedwolf]

France only stopped using La Guillotine in the 70's.

As for a "new" method of execution, I'd suggest a lead chamber and a high-power radiation source that would generate an absolutely lethal pulse on the order of a neutron bomb blast, the sort that'd cause immediate nervous system cessation.

[Tallpine]

Could always behead him.

Yeah, with a butter knife 

[Marnoot]

Yeah, we had the firing squad in Utah until about 4 years ago. I don't remember for sure, but I think they did away with it because it was too sensational, caused too much of a ruckus. I know the last guy that got it in 1996 chose it specifically because it would be awkward for state officials.

[seeker_two]

I guess guillotines have a bad rap also.

Surprisingly, France used the guillotine up until the '70s.

1970's!?

Yep..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillotine#Guillotine_retired

Too bad.....it had a 100% success rate in quick executions....

[The Annoyed Man]

Just shoot him? How hard should it be?

[The Annoyed Man]

That would creep me out just a little.  I actually could have went my life without knowing your dad watched this procedure on you.

It's not that weird. lol.  He is a gastroenterologist, so it's his specialty.  He just doesn't do the procedure himself, he has his partner do it.  However, he watches and they talk about everything as they go along.  I have Crohns disease, so having two Gastroenterologists working together during each procedure with me is a good thing.  The average patient doesn't get that.

He sees butts all day long.  I couldn't care less.

[mtnbkr]

He sees butts all day long.  I couldn't care less.

He's your dad, he's seen yours before anyway.

How convenient is that to have a disease like Crohn's and a dad who is a gastroenterologiest. 

Chris

[Werewolf]

I think the firing squad is probably one of more humane choices, besides lethal injection.

40gr 22LR behind the ear - fired from a Buckmark, S&W 22-A or any other suitable 22LR handgun would do the trick. No special training needed for the executioner. Bill the family the nickel it'd cost for the cartridge - that's the least we can do - consider it a fine for raising the scumbucket wrong.

IF the miscreant tries to claim cruel and unusual just point out that if getting shot and killed in the service of one's country while serving in the military is acceptable then getting shot is probably a way better death than some maniac getting the death penalty deserves.

Hell if it were up to me the death penalty would involve long periods of excruciating torture administered by the family of the victim if they so chose, otherwise by a paid executioner - preferably some sicko from an insane asylum that'd enjoy it. The torture would be conducted daily until the miscreant expired.

[The Annoyed Man]

How convenient is that to have a disease like Crohn's and a dad who is a gastroenterologiest. 

It has pros and cons.... but it does certainly help.  What a coincidence huh?

[AJ Dual]

France only stopped using La Guillotine in the 70's.

As for a "new" method of execution, I'd suggest a lead chamber and a high-power radiation source that would generate an absolutely lethal pulse on the order of a neutron bomb blast, the sort that'd cause immediate nervous system cessation.

We already have just the thing, long shelf-life food and medical sterilization irradiation plants.

They have big lead fail-safe doors and nifty Cobalt 60 gamma sources.

[Bigjake]

Am I the only one sickened that we're even having this conversation?  The dude is a piece of filth, convicted of violently raping and murdering 2 young women, why do we even care if his death is "excruciating"? 

Sad fact is that the rotten bastard is getting the same treatment as a loved family pet.

[The Annoyed Man]

BigJake - agreed, but it is the 8A and we have to respect it just as much as we respect the 2A.

That's where we differ from the anti-gunners.  They don't like the 2A so they want to make it disappear.  Sometimes the 8A gives the worst kinds of criminals liberties that some of us feel ought not to be afforded to them, but we must respect our founding fathers' intentions and follow the law.

Whether or not this case qualifies, is up to a court to decide.

[The Annoyed Man]

  Not having a vein accessable isn't a problem. It takes a doctor to give the drugs anyway, and it takes maybe 5-10 minutes to put in a "central line", access to a vein next to the heart. The question is moot. The problem with capital punishment seems to be that the people who carry it out hate to do so, I hear. That's why firing squads left one gun unloaded, so they could all delude themselves that they didn't do the dirty deed. Of course, there are people I would cheerfully off, like the Mexican perp in Texas, even if I am a little old lady.

[alex_trebek]

I have worked in air separation plants and one of the big safety issues is inert atmospheres especially in confined spaces.  You are warned repeatedly that you may not even realize you are in a bad atmosphere before you get groggy or pass out.  I have heard that an almost pure nitrogen atmosphere will cause someone to pass out almost immediately.  It is also a common safety concern for anyone using breathing air bottles.  That is reason the idea occurred to me.  I haven't been sitting down dreaming of ways to kill people.  Cheesy

This is true, they have warned us about this many times in school and work.  Many case studies have proven the killing efficiency of N2 environments.  The original gas chamber used sulphuric acid and sodium cyanate to make HCN gas.  There was no storage of cyanide gas on site, it was made on demand.  The terrorist issue doesn't concern me.  One could order much worse than cyanide gas off the internet, if one were so inclined.

I think the nitrogen mask is not such a bad idea, but here is a curve ball.  The criminal could claim to be claustrophobic.  Wearing gas masks and similar equipment generally causes panic attacks in people with even mild claustrophobia.  Sometimes the person didn't even know they were claustrophobic, until they wear a mask.  There is a chance a lawyer could argue a mask would violate the 8th A, as it would be a form of torture.  Personally, I wouldn't buy it, but someone could make the case...

A small room really wouldn't be that much more expensive.  I can do you one better also. 

Instead of buying poisonous gas, why not vent the building's furnace to the gas chamber and let carbon monoxide kill him?  That way we could get rid of those pesky bottles.

Am I the only one sickened that we're even having this conversation?  The dude is a piece of filth, convicted of violently raping and murdering 2 young women, why do we even care if his death is "excruciating"? 

Sad fact is that the rotten bastard is getting the same treatment as a loved family pet.

While I don't particularly feel sorry for him, or want him out of jail.  I don't necessarily want him to suffer.  Torturing him won't bring back the girls he hurt, and it generally doesn't alleviate any of the pain the family feels.  The fact that he is gone for good does that.

Allowing government to torture is kind of a slippery slope, if we say it is ok only for terrorists and inmates now, who will it be ok for 50 years from now? 

[Tallpine]

it is the 8A and we have to respect it just as much as we respect the 2A.

Hanging wasn't considered "cruel and unusual" at the time the 8A was written. 

[Perd Hapley]

Just because I find his cheek so infuriating, I would like the chance to prove to him, personally, that you're never too fat to be executed.  Don't insult my intelligence, scum-bag. 

[Tallpine]

Hang him by his ankles, and let his blubber suffocate him when it falls down over his face 

[The Annoyed Man]

Not having a vein accessable isn't a problem. It takes a doctor to give the drugs anyway, and it takes maybe 5-10 minutes to put in a "central line", access to a vein next to the heart. The question is moot.

That is an excellent point and something I had not thought about.  So, you're right - that rules out the vein argument.  Whether or not being on Topamax will affect the anesthesia is the next hurdle.  To that I ask, is there an alternative medication that could be used that does not have this problem with being on Topamax?  I don't know the answer.  My uncle is an anesthesiologist, if I happen to talk to him in the next day or so I'll ask.

Hanging wasn't considered "cruel and unusual" at the time the 8A was written.

True.  So the question becomes, what standard do we apply to "cruel and unusual"?  I don't know.  I won't take Con Law for another year or so.  Maybe somebody else here has the answer.  Do we compare things against what was used as capital punishment when the 8A was written?  Or has the standard been modified as technology has improved?

I tend to be in the camp that says that the 2A applies to the people owning technologically advanced weapons such as AR-15s, etc.  Rather than just what it applied to at the time it was written, ie: muzzle-loaders.  As technology advanced, our right covered us owning at least what the military uses as far as small-arms.  So, with that in mind, has the 8A evolved to mean that a criminal being put to death has a right to the least painful means of death?  Again, these are questions I don't have answers to - I'm just more or less typing my line of thought on this.

I tend to think that the 8A these days means that the least cruel method of capital punishment is legally preferable.  So, if in this case, if there is no way to anesthetize the guy properly, it might be worth resorting to a different method of capital punishment.

Then again, what do I know?  My screen-name references a lactose-intolerant retarded cartoon character that is supposedly an imaginary friend.  I'm certainly no Rhodes scholar.

I'm not saying that I agree with his argument that he shouldn't be put to death.  I'm just saying that there might be some credence to an argument that he shouldn't be put to death via lethal injection.... and instead be put to death via another method.

[Firethorn]

True.  So the question becomes, what standard do we apply to "cruel and unusual"?  I don't know.  I won't take Con Law for another year or so.  Maybe somebody else here has the answer.  Do we compare things against what was used as capital punishment when the 8A was written?  Or has the standard been modified as technology has improved?

Well, I normally make the argument that the standard is 'cruel AND unusual', not 'cruel OR unusual'.  Punishments are allowed to be cruel, as long as they aren't unusual.  Punishments are allowed to be unusual, as long as they aren't cruel.

The general standard I'd apply is:

A: Is the punishment effective?  If nine lashes with a cane turns out to be extremely effective in preventing vandalism/graffiti, and becomes a standard punishment, even though it causes pain, it's not cruel.  Cruelty is causing unnecessary suffering.  I'd argue that nine lashes with a cane could be considered less cruel than nine months in Arapio's jail, especially if it works.

B: Is it unusual?  Giving a first time (arrested/convicted) purse snatcher 20 years when the standard is 1 would be unusual.  Giving a third time offender a longer sentence when that is the standard wouldn't be.

[Dntsycnt]

Not having a vein accessable isn't a problem. It takes a doctor to give the drugs anyway, and it takes maybe 5-10 minutes to put in a "central line", access to a vein next to the heart. The question is moot.

That is an excellent point and something I had not thought about.  So, you're right - that rules out the vein argument.

Doctors usually don't administer the drugs.  Random Correctional Officer Joe does it.  The American Medical Association considers it unethical for members to take part.

[Marnoot]

Not having a vein accessable isn't a problem. It takes a doctor to give the drugs anyway, and it takes maybe 5-10 minutes to put in a "central line", access to a vein next to the heart. The question is moot.

That is an excellent point and something I had not thought about.  So, you're right - that rules out the vein argument.

Doctors usually don't administer the drugs.  Random Correctional Officer Joe does it.  The American Medical Association considers it unethical for members to take part.

According to the American Medical Association's own numbers, only 19% of physicians are members of the AMA. The AMA can squawk all it wants about the ethics, but they can't do squat about it if a doctor participates, they have no authority.

[The Annoyed Man]

Well, I normally make the argument that the standard is 'cruel AND unusual', not 'cruel OR unusual'.

Interesting.  I suppose it does use the word "and" in the text.  Have there been any judicial opinions that mention that distinction?

The AMA can squawk all it wants about the ethics, but they can't do squat about it if a doctor participates, they have no authority.

True, but there have been doctors who have refused to participate as they claim it violates their Hippocratic oath.

[Marnoot]

The AMA can squawk all it wants about the ethics, but they can't do squat about it if a doctor participates, they have no authority.

True, but there have been doctors who have refused to participate as they claim it violates their Hippocratic oath.

Right, and I fully respect their decision to not participate. I could very well see where a doctor could feel that participating in an execution would be at odds with their oath.

I just dislike the AMA in general and was taking a swipe at them and groups like Amnesty International, who say that the AMA's position effectively "prohibits doctors from participating in executions," when the AMA is nothing more than a guild, membership in which is increasingly irrelevant.

[Declaration Day]

I'd vote for firing squad.  A .308 FMJ would be plenty to penetrate his fat arse.

While we're on this topic, I don't believe in making condemned criminals suffer painful, torturous deaths.  Not that they don't deserve it, but to do so would be inhuman (not to be confused with inhumane).  Those of us who don't rape, torture or murder are better than those who do.  Don't let your disdain for criminals or your sympathy for victims obscure that fact. 

If someone deserves to die, it should be done quickly and painlessly.

[seeker_two]

I'd vote for firing squad.  A .308 FMJ would be plenty to penetrate his fat arse.

While we're on this topic, I don't believe in making condemned criminals suffer painful, torturous deaths.  Not that they don't deserve it, but to do so would be inhuman (not to be confused with inhumane).  Those of us who don't rape, torture or murder are better than those who do.  Don't let your disdain for criminals or your sympathy for victims obscure that fact. 

If someone deserves to die, it should be done quickly and painlessly.

Agreed.....hence, the guillotine....