On R.4 this morning they were talking about the trouble they are having
in the US of A obtaining drugs to use when they carry out the death
penalty, and they were talking to an advocate for one person awaiting
the death sentence.
He said that they have given up trying to get the sentence repealed, but
he is worried that "some of the drug combinations they might use could
be harmful" I thought that was the purpose of them.
David

David Hill wrote:
On R.4 this morning they were talking about the trouble they are
having in the US of A obtaining drugs to use when they carry out the
death penalty, and they were talking to an advocate for one person
awaiting the death sentence.
He said that they have given up trying to get the sentence repealed,
but he is worried that "some of the drug combinations they might use
could be harmful" I thought that was the purpose of them.
David

Ah, but the condemned might die in agony if the are given the wrong drugs -
and that will never do will it?

Far better to hang 'em, less fuss and more pain!

"Let It Be" wrote in message ...

David Hill wrote:
On R.4 this morning they were talking about the trouble they are
having in the US of A obtaining drugs to use when they carry out the
death penalty, and they were talking to an advocate for one person
awaiting the death sentence.
He said that they have given up trying to get the sentence repealed,
but he is worried that "some of the drug combinations they might use
could be harmful" I thought that was the purpose of them.
David

Ah, but the condemned might die in agony if the are given the wrong drugs -
and that will never do will it?

Far better to hang 'em, less fuss and more pain!

As I understand it, the first of the drugs injected is an anaesthetic, so
what comes after that doesn't matter much.

Steve

On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 23:54:16 +0100, "Let It Be"
wrote:

David Hill wrote:
On R.4 this morning they were talking about the trouble they are
having in the US of A obtaining drugs to use when they carry out the
death penalty, and they were talking to an advocate for one person
awaiting the death sentence.
He said that they have given up trying to get the sentence repealed,
but he is worried that "some of the drug combinations they might use
could be harmful" I thought that was the purpose of them.
David

Ah, but the condemned might die in agony if the are given the wrong drugs -
and that will never do will it?


One of the drugs is an anaesthetic so there is no pain. It's still a
barbaric practice regardless of the crime.

On 25/04/2014 15:53, shazzbat wrote:


"Let It Be" wrote in message ...

David Hill wrote:
On R.4 this morning they were talking about the trouble they are
having in the US of A obtaining drugs to use when they carry out the
death penalty, and they were talking to an advocate for one person
awaiting the death sentence.
He said that they have given up trying to get the sentence repealed,
but he is worried that "some of the drug combinations they might use
could be harmful" I thought that was the purpose of them.
David

Ah, but the condemned might die in agony if the are given the wrong drugs -
and that will never do will it?

Far better to hang 'em, less fuss and more pain!

As I understand it, the first of the drugs injected is an anaesthetic, so
what comes after that doesn't matter much.

The cheapest and quickest way to carry out a judicial killing is to
hang them long drop style. The drop is related to their weight and is
designed to provide enough force to break the neck and sever the
spinal chord without decapitation.
--
Phil Cook

On 2014-04-25 15:03:56 +0000, said:

On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 23:54:16 +0100, "Let It Be"
wrote:

David Hill wrote:
On R.4 this morning they were talking about the trouble they are
having in the US of A obtaining drugs to use when they carry out the
death penalty, and they were talking to an advocate for one person
awaiting the death sentence.
He said that they have given up trying to get the sentence repealed,
but he is worried that "some of the drug combinations they might use
could be harmful" I thought that was the purpose of them.
David

Ah, but the condemned might die in agony if the are given the wrong drugs -
and that will never do will it?


One of the drugs is an anaesthetic so there is no pain. It's still a
barbaric practice regardless of the crime.

And murder isn't?
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon

wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 23:54:16 +0100, "Let It Be"
wrote:

David Hill wrote:
On R.4 this morning they were talking about the trouble they are
having in the US of A obtaining drugs to use when they carry out the
death penalty, and they were talking to an advocate for one person
awaiting the death sentence.
He said that they have given up trying to get the sentence repealed,
but he is worried that "some of the drug combinations they might use
could be harmful" I thought that was the purpose of them.
David

Ah, but the condemned might die in agony if the are given the wrong
drugs - and that will never do will it?


One of the drugs is an anaesthetic so there is no pain. It's still a
barbaric practice regardless of the crime.

And the robbing, assaulting and killing of innocent victims is less
barbaric?

I would suggest that you have a very long and hard look at your table of
priorities!

Now just to placate you, I do not believe in capital punishment in any
form - it is a far to easy release for those convicted of crimes that would
invoke that sentence. Far better to lock them up in a black hole, throw away
the key to its door and feed the convicted prisoner on the left-over slops
from the prison's pig-farm (if it has one) and dirty water.

If that also offends you, then put them out to work for eighteen hours a day
on hard labour - and then return them to the black hole AND still feed and
water them as above!

sacha wrote:
On 2014-04-25 15:03:56 +0000, said:

On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 23:54:16 +0100, "Let It Be"
wrote:

David Hill wrote:
On R.4 this morning they were talking about the trouble they are
having in the US of A obtaining drugs to use when they carry out
the death penalty, and they were talking to an advocate for one
person awaiting the death sentence.
He said that they have given up trying to get the sentence
repealed, but he is worried that "some of the drug combinations
they might use could be harmful" I thought that was the purpose
of them. David

Ah, but the condemned might die in agony if the are given the wrong
drugs - and that will never do will it?


One of the drugs is an anaesthetic so there is no pain. It's still a
barbaric practice regardless of the crime.

And murder isn't?

For once we agree Sacha.

"Let It Be" wrote in message ...

wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 23:54:16 +0100, "Let It Be"
wrote:

David Hill wrote:
On R.4 this morning they were talking about the trouble they are
having in the US of A obtaining drugs to use when they carry out the
death penalty, and they were talking to an advocate for one person
awaiting the death sentence.
He said that they have given up trying to get the sentence repealed,
but he is worried that "some of the drug combinations they might use
could be harmful" I thought that was the purpose of them.
David

Ah, but the condemned might die in agony if the are given the wrong
drugs - and that will never do will it?


One of the drugs is an anaesthetic so there is no pain. It's still a
barbaric practice regardless of the crime.

And the robbing, assaulting and killing of innocent victims is less
barbaric?

I would suggest that you have a very long and hard look at your table of
priorities!

Now just to placate you, I do not believe in capital punishment in any
form - it is a far to easy release for those convicted of crimes that would
invoke that sentence. Far better to lock them up in a black hole, throw away
the key to its door and feed the convicted prisoner on the left-over slops
from the prison's pig-farm (if it has one) and dirty water.

If that also offends you, then put them out to work for eighteen hours a day
on hard labour - and then return them to the black hole AND still feed and
water them as above!
================================================== ======

Couldn't agree more. Prison is NOT a deterrent and is much too soft. I spent
two years in Camp Hill Prison here on the Isle of Wight teaching. I got on
fine with the prisoners and the prison staff, it was the Home Office and
their rules and regulations on me! But it is the following little story
which shows just what is in the mind of those inside and their attitude.

Camp Hill was a Category 'C' prison, adults with minor crimes. One on my
course was in for taking away cars, he just loved driving, often returning
the car from where he got it, but he said one day "Do you know Mr Crowe the
government are wasting money putting me in here. It would be much cheaper
for them to buy me a car so I can get my pleasure". I gave him a polite
lecture on 'working for one'.

I feel that prison should be a deterrent. Hard work and a warning that if
they offend again the sentence will be twice as long. 2 Years will be 4. 4
Years will be 8. 8 Years will be 16. etc. I put this to the car driving
prisoner and asked him 'If you knew that your next sentence would be twice
as long, would you think twice before you put your hand on the door handle?'
A very prompt "YES". Whether it would stop him who knows, but it would make
him think about his crime. Just done 4 years and the possibility of
8?????????

Mike

---------------------------------------------------------------
www.friendsofshanklintheatre.co.uk

On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 22:57:33 +0100, sacha wrote:

On 2014-04-25 15:03:56 +0000, said:

On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 23:54:16 +0100, "Let It Be"
wrote:

David Hill wrote:
On R.4 this morning they were talking about the trouble they are
having in the US of A obtaining drugs to use when they carry out the
death penalty, and they were talking to an advocate for one person
awaiting the death sentence.
He said that they have given up trying to get the sentence repealed,
but he is worried that "some of the drug combinations they might use
could be harmful" I thought that was the purpose of them.
David

Ah, but the condemned might die in agony if the are given the wrong drugs -
and that will never do will it?


One of the drugs is an anaesthetic so there is no pain. It's still a
barbaric practice regardless of the crime.

And murder isn't?

It is the execution by proxy that is barbaric.

wrote in message ...
On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 22:57:33 +0100, sacha wrote:

On 2014-04-25 15:03:56 +0000, said:

On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 23:54:16 +0100, "Let It Be"
wrote:

David Hill wrote:
On R.4 this morning they were talking about the trouble they are
having in the US of A obtaining drugs to use when they carry out the
death penalty, and they were talking to an advocate for one person
awaiting the death sentence.
He said that they have given up trying to get the sentence repealed,
but he is worried that "some of the drug combinations they might use
could be harmful" I thought that was the purpose of them.
David

Ah, but the condemned might die in agony if the are given the wrong drugs -
and that will never do will it?


One of the drugs is an anaesthetic so there is no pain. It's still a
barbaric practice regardless of the crime.

And murder isn't?

It is the execution by proxy that is barbaric.

You think it should be done by the victim?

Ardmhor

On 26/04/2014 10:15, Martin wrote:
On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 09:55:50 +0100, "philgurr"
wrote:


wrote in message ...
On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 22:57:33 +0100, sacha wrote:

On 2014-04-25 15:03:56 +0000, said:

On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 23:54:16 +0100, "Let It Be"
wrote:

David Hill wrote:
On R.4 this morning they were talking about the trouble they are
having in the US of A obtaining drugs to use when they carry out the
death penalty, and they were talking to an advocate for one person
awaiting the death sentence.
He said that they have given up trying to get the sentence repealed,
but he is worried that "some of the drug combinations they might use
could be harmful" I thought that was the purpose of them.
David

Ah, but the condemned might die in agony if the are given the wrong drugs -
and that will never do will it?


One of the drugs is an anaesthetic so there is no pain. It's still a
barbaric practice regardless of the crime.

And murder isn't?

It is the execution by proxy that is barbaric.

You think it should be done by the victim?

Posthumously?

We read so often about drug users being found dead because the drug they
used is to pure and so to strong.
Why cant they use pure heroin or something then the condemned could die
happy?

On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 11:28:12 +0200, Martin wrote:

Nobody wants happy heroin addicts.

I spent my later teenage years with couple who were heroin addicts.
She got pregnant so they gave up the drug. Their daughter is now a mum
and they are happy registered ex-addicts by about 40 years.

BTW they found heroin fairly easy to give up. OTOH they are still
addicted to nicotine.

Steve

--
Neural Network Software http://www.npsnn.com
EasyNN-plus More than just a neural network http://www.easynn.com
SwingNN Prediction software http://www.swingnn.com
JustNN Just a neural network http://www.justnn.com

In article ,
Martin wrote:

On R.4 this morning they were talking about the trouble they are
having in the US of A obtaining drugs to use when they carry out the
death penalty, and they were talking to an advocate for one person
awaiting the death sentence.
He said that they have given up trying to get the sentence repealed,
but he is worried that "some of the drug combinations they might use
could be harmful" I thought that was the purpose of them.

Ah, but the condemned might die in agony if the are given the wrong drugs -
and that will never do will it?

One of the drugs is an anaesthetic so there is no pain. It's still a
barbaric practice regardless of the crime.

And murder isn't?

It is the execution by proxy that is barbaric.

You think it should be done by the victim?

Posthumously?

I don't normally post on this sort of thing, so shall not continue.
The reasons that it is so barbaric is that the majority of people
on death row never had a chance - not just the (deliberate)
deprivation of their childhood, but they didn't get fair trials
(due to race prejudice, not being defended properly and more), and
quite often are mentally subnormal or were sentenced for a crime
committed when they were children. In a few cases, they have been
killed despite evidence having appeared between conviction and
prosecution showing that they almost certainly were NOT guilty.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On 2014-04-26 08:48:53 +0000, said:

On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 22:57:33 +0100, sacha wrote:

On 2014-04-25 15:03:56 +0000, said:

On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 23:54:16 +0100, "Let It Be"
wrote:

David Hill wrote:
On R.4 this morning they were talking about the trouble they are
having in the US of A obtaining drugs to use when they carry out the
death penalty, and they were talking to an advocate for one person
awaiting the death sentence.
He said that they have given up trying to get the sentence repealed,
but he is worried that "some of the drug combinations they might use
could be harmful" I thought that was the purpose of them.
David

Ah, but the condemned might die in agony if the are given the wrong drugs -
and that will never do will it?


One of the drugs is an anaesthetic so there is no pain. It's still a
barbaric practice regardless of the crime.

And murder isn't?

It is the execution by proxy that is barbaric.

How else would you suggest such a thing should be done, if it is to be
done at all? The victim can hardly punish the person who took their
life. So do you think close relatives should do it? Or perhaps a
firing squad where nobody in it knows who has the blank? Imo, and
disregarding the ethics or otherwise of capital punishment, if
someone's life is forfeit because they've taken another life, then from
their point of view and society's, it's far more 'civilised' to
administer that punishment via trained but uninvolved individuals,
ranging from the investigating officers, to the pathologists to the
executioner.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon