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He said that they have given up trying to get the sentence repealed,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He said that they have given up trying to get the sentence repealed,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 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He said that they have given up trying to get the sentence repealed,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 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 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

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.

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.

Nick Maclaren wrote:
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.

I really think that you live on another planet other than earth with a
statement like that.

At least the perpertators of crime have an opportunity to state their case
before a court - which is far more than their murdered victims and victims
relatives get.

But as I previously stated, I am not an advocate of the death sentence as it
is a far to easy release for the convicted murderer, but I certainly believe
that their sentence should be one of whole life and made as hard and
uncomfortable as possible.

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

On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 12:41:42 +0100, sacha wrote:

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.

I have no solution to suggest. If you take the argument to it's
logical conclusion the executioner is also a murderer. In a conflict
situation that is how he/she would be treated.

On 2014-04-26 13:47:43 +0000, said:

On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 12:41:42 +0100, sacha wrote:

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.

I have no solution to suggest. If you take the argument to it's
logical conclusion the executioner is also a murderer. In a conflict
situation that is how he/she would be treated.

But we're not talking about a time of conflict when - frankly - chaos
rules. We're talking about in a normally-functioning society, or as
normal as it gets. So we're talking about upholding the rule of law IF
the law provides for execution, whereupon the executioner is an
instrument and upholder of the law.
--

Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon
www.helpforheroes.org.uk