‘‘The people of the state of Ohio should be appalled at what was done here today in their names.’’

[Nye Bevan]

Dennis McGuire’s attorney Allen Bohnert called the convicted killer’s execution ‘‘a failed, agonizing experiment’’ and added: ‘‘The people of the state of Ohio should be appalled at what was done here today in their names.’’

McGuire’s lawyers had attempted last week to halt his execution, arguing that the untried method could lead to a medical phenomenon known as ‘‘air hunger’’ and cause him to suffer ‘‘agony and terror’’ while struggling to catch his breath.

McGuire, 53, made loud snorting noises during one of the longest executions since Ohio resumed capital punishment in 1999. Nearly 25 minutes passed between the time the lethal drugs began flowing and McGuire was pronounced dead at 10:53 a.m.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/2014/01/16/ohio-killer-close-execution-with-untried-method/WsKbwNxY6braOYeGxw8h5M/story.html

Cruel, barbaric and disgusting. This makes me ashamed to be an American. History will not judge this kindly.

[Arugula Latte]

1. This is barbaric.

I am against the death penalty. I think it is never justified. Putting that aside, this vicious country still condones official murder by the state. I have held several of my animals as they were put to sleep. First they are given a shot that heavily sedates and relaxes them, then they are given a shot that almost instantly stops their heart. IF the death penalty is going to be applied (and again, I think it never should be applied), then WHY can't they do it in a way that causes almost instantaneous death for a human being? There is really no excuse for these botched state-run murders.

[pnwmom]

2. I read somewhere else that it was because those drugs are owned by

European manufacturers who no longer allow them to be used for the death penalty.

[jeff47]

8. The "3-drug" human execution method uses percocet, which European manufacturers won't provide. (nt)

[NaturalHigh]

9. Actually, it's pentobarbital, not percocet.

Percocet is a brand name for oxycodone.

[jeff47]

17. Damn P drugs!!!!! (nt)

[Nye Bevan]

3. If any good can come out of this,

it is people rising up against such a barbaric spectacle and turning against the death penalty.

[pnwmom]

4. This might be the way it happens. Here's more info

on how the manufacturers are withholding the drugs. No one wants to be associated with the death penalty.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/10/10/supplies-of-lethal-injection-drugs-are-dwindling/

[jeff47]

7. Doctors are generally not allowed to actually execute the prisoner.

What they can do is start the IVs. Then a non-doctor releases the toxic chemicals into the IV.

The final shot used to euthanize an animal is directly into the heart. Getting that shot in the right place requires medical training.

So the doctor would have to give that final shot, and they are not allowed to do so.

[Ms. Toad]

19. Re animal euthanasia -

not accurate. I was with the last animal we had to put down, and it was all IV. (And since I have family members and close friends who have described cradling numerous animals as they took their last breaths - without any description of needles to the heart - I would be surprised if that is a common part of euthanasia.)

[jeff47]

20. Most vets only give the sedative in front of the owners.

Usually they only give the sedative in front of the owners, and they give the shot-to-the-heart in the back.

It has been a decade since I last had to euthanize a pet, so they may have a new "all-IV" version. But if it was only one shot, it was probably just the sedative part.

[Ms. Toad]

22. There was no back room

The vet came to our house, and I was present for the entire process. (As were at least some of the others who have shared their stories with me.)

It was a single IV line, and definitely not just a sedative.

[jeff47]

23. IV line lets them use multiple drugs.

So it would be the equivalent of multiple shots.

And as I said, things may have changed in the last decade. But in the previous several decades, it took a shot to the heart to actually euthanize.

[Ms. Toad]

25. Well, at least one of the stories I've heard

is from the late 80s, at the latest - again a home visit. I don't know the mechanics in this process, other than from the description of the process of dying I am certain there was no needle to the heart.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

27. KCl stops the heart.

Potassium chloride.

I remember that from mammalian physiology lab in college.

[Ms. Toad]

28. I wasn't questioning

how the drugs accomplish killing the animal - it was the delivery mechanics.

Jeff47 explained that animals are euthanized by a shot delivered directly to the heart and was hypothesizing that they needed to use a new drug combination for executions because a doctor's skill would have been required to inject medication directly into the heart and doctors have refused to participate.

This subthread is about the mechanics of delivery, not the pharmaceutical-biological action of whatever is injected.

[joeglow3]

36. We paid to have someone put our dog to sleep in the home 2 years ago

There was no shot to the heart.

[tblue37]

46. No. I always cradle my pets as they are euthanized. the time between the shot and

the death is so short that I am always surprised at how quickly they are gone.

[yardwork]

11. Agreed. If we are going to kill people, then shoot them.

If we can't find people willing to shoot, then we should reflect that maybe the death penalty isn't as popular as some claim.

[hootinholler]

5. I'm against the death penalty, but

If you are going to employ it for fucks sake if you don't allow the condemned to choose the method at least have a quick and humane method.

1 minute is an eternity when you can't breath, I can't imagine what 15 or 20 is like.

[pnwmom]

10. Neither am I. But not knowing anything about this, I'm wondering about heroin.

Or heroin combined with something else. Would a massive overdose of heroin be quick and painless?

[jmowreader]

15. They're worried about tolerance

Many murderers were heroin addicts - no causality implied here. So they can't say "it will take exactly this much smack to kill someone."

The flipside is, the justice system has no problem getting smack. You'd think they could hook someone to a pump with a quart of heroin emulsion on it, and just pump the guy full of smack until he flatlines.

[marsis]

6. I don't have a huge problem

with capital punishment. My problem lies in the culture and the people making the judgment. For some crimes against humanity I find it difficult to support saving the life of the perpetrator.

[Logical]

58. Because you 100% know mistakes are never made? LOL. n-t

[delta17]

12. A convicted murderer was executed.

I doubt many people will lose sleep over it.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

13. if your moral standards are the same as your enemies

then, you have already lost.

he was a murdered, doesn't make it ok for me to be one as well.

[delta17]

16. I respect your position.

I just can't find any sympathy for someone who would brutally rape and murder a pregnant woman.

[ohheckyeah]

21. Who said anything about sympathy? n/t

[JI7]

24. why do you need to have sympathy ? i oppose the death penalty but don't feel bad for the killers

when they get it.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

29. neither can i. but for me morality is always about what you do, not about what someone else did

[delta17]

32. That is an excellent point.

Sometimes it is hard to separate emotion from logic, especially in situations like this.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

31. You don't have to have sympathy for someone to recognize that killing them solves nothing. nt

[Larsonb]

33. The lawful execution of a convicted murderer isn't the same as the murder of an innocent woman.

And it's also not murder...by definition.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

48. it's premeditated murder and morality does not equal legality. nt

[Larsonb]

49. The lawful execution of a convicted murder is *not* murder.

What's more, I have trouble thinking of a more moral act than removing such an individual from the gene pool.

[OriginalGeek]

50. Even when the lawfully executed person was innocent?

it happens.

Even when the lawfully executed person was mentally challenged enough that he may not have even understood what he did was wrong? It happens.

Even when the lawfully executed person isn't even a legal adult but was only tried as one so the yahoos in charge of the chair could get their rocks off killing another person? It happens.

A more moral act would be trying to rehabilitate. A more moral act would be at the very least studying the person who committed the crime to try and gain an understanding into why people do these things and maybe find a way to stop future incidents. A more moral act would be to NOT murder someone you have in custody that can never do anyone any harm again.

Maybe you just have trouble thinking?

[Larsonb]

51. Just as dropping the atomic bombs on Japan, which certainly killed innocents, was still a moral act.

It's not a perfect world. We have to decide whether the extremely rare (in today's world) instance of an innocent being executed is worse than allowing thousands of murderers to live out their lives, not having paid sufficiently for their crimes.

Even when the lawfully executed person was mentally challenged enough that he may not have even understood what he did was wrong? It happens.

Unconstitutional, as per the Supreme Court.

Even when the lawfully executed person isn't even a legal adult

Unconstitutional, as per the Supreme Court.

...so the yahoos in charge of the chair could get their rocks off killing another person? It happens.

Yes, I'm sure that's a common reason for giving the death penalty.



A more moral act would be trying to rehabilitate.

A less moral act would be letting a murderer live while foolishly trying to persuade him that murder is wrong.

A more moral act would be at the very least studying the person who committed the crime to try and gain an understanding into why people do these things and maybe find a way to stop future incidents.

I don't have the slightest problem with studying murderers while they're on death row. Assuming they're executed in a timely manner, mind you.

A more moral act would be to NOT murder someone you have in custody that can never do anyone any harm again.

A more moral act would be to NOT murder someone you have in custody that can never do anyone any harm again.

No convicted murderer has ever done harm to any person while in custody?

Really?

Do you want to stand by that statement, or must I go to the trivial effort of disproving it?

(Perhaps you just have trouble reasoning)

[OriginalGeek]

52. "the extremely rare (in today's world) instance of an innocent being executed is worse"

Yes. Way worse.

[Larsonb]

53. And at this point I acknowledge that we have irreconcilable differences in our opinions

on this issue...and that the chance of either of us changing the mind of the other is, as in virtually all internet discussions, virtually nil.

Shrug.

[OriginalGeek]

57. Sometimes that's how it shakes out

I'm not willing to kill even one innocent.
I think it's more moral to try to rehabilitate even if it takes the rest of their life locked up.
I think it wouldn't be hard to keep convicts from hurting anyone but it might be inhumane to keep them in solitary.
USA and Iran have executed more youthful offenders than the next 8 countries combined. (OK, minors when they committed the crime, executed after reaching adult-hood)
Texas just recently executed a man sufficiently mentally challenged to raise huge questions.
And hyperbole. My bad.

But yeah, I've thought about it for a long time and I oppose the death penalty. I assume you have as well and you do not. We are at an impasse on this topic.

On the other hand, welcome to DU! Perhaps we are in agreement elsewhere. That also sometimes happens.

[morningfog]

55. It is not murder by only one definition, the one circularly perpetuated by the state.

Murder is "the unlawful killing of another." The only thing that removes an execution from that definition is that the state says it is lawful. The state says it is lawful, meaning it doesn't fall under the definition written and enforced by the state.

Fuck any state that thinks it can legalize killing a person.

[Chan790]

14. If we're going to start a count...

1.

I've been an anti-death-penalty activist since I was 15. If I can't support it for the monsters that murdered the family of my mother's endocrinologist, I can't support it for anybody.

[treestar]

34. But if they are going to do it

It is not supposed to be long and drawn out. Sounds like something went wrong here.

[840high]

56. I won't.

[Th1onein]

63. I am sorry for your ignorance.

[delta17]

64. Get off your high horse.

[Th1onein]

66. There's no high horse here. I am against the death penalty.

Anyone who is for it is simply ignorant.

If you want to discuss this issue in a civil manner, I am perfectly willing to do that. If you choose to be rude, I will put you on my Ignore list.

[Samantha]

18. This seems to me to be cruel and unusual punishment which is unconstitutional

Just wanted to refresh my memory, so I looked it up:

The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that "cruel and unusual punishments [shall not be] inflicted". The general principles the United States Supreme Court relied on to decide whether or not a particular punishment was cruel and unusual were determined by Justice William Brennan.[3] In Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972), Justice Brennan wrote, "There are, then, four principles by which we may determine whether a particular punishment is 'cruel and unusual'."

The "essential predicate" is "that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity," especially torture.
"A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion." (Furman v. Georgia temporarily suspended capital punishment for this reason.)
"A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society."
"A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary."

And he added: "The function of these principles, after all, is simply to provide means by which a court can determine whether a challenged punishment comports with human dignity. They are, therefore, interrelated, and, in most cases, it will be their convergence that will justify the conclusion that a punishment is "cruel and unusual." The test, then, will ordinarily be a cumulative one: if a punishment is unusually severe, if there is a strong probability that it is inflicted arbitrarily, if it is substantially rejected by contemporary society, and if there is no reason to believe that it serves any penal purpose more effectively than some less severe punishment, then the continued infliction of that punishment violates the command of the Clause that the State may not inflict inhuman and uncivilized punishments upon those convicted of crimes."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruel_and_unusual_punishment

I am against the death penalty and always have been but this is beyond belief.

Sam

[davidpdx]

26. The court had all the evidence preserved

That is going to force an investigation and lead to a stronger possibility of stopping the executions from happening. The governor in Ohio needs to do what Kitzhaber did in Oregon which is to have a moratorium on executions.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

30. The death penalty is based out of an outdated, barbaric type of mindset.

Basically, people believe that by killing a person, you are killing evil and thus solving a situation.

But evil itself can never be killed. And people are deluding themselves into thinking this somehow constitutes "justice" or provides a victim's loved one with an actual, permanent sense of closure. It does neither.

[joeglow3]

38. I disagree

Most people I know feel by killing them, they are ridding the earth of a piece of shit and avoiding further expense to house said piece of shit.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

40. Well you might want to tell "most people you know"....

That human beings, no matter how horrifically flawed they may be, are not wild animals, live stock, or even domesticated pets. Our government should not be in the business of "putting people down" as such.

And just so you know, I'm sure you are aware that it costs more to execute someone than to incarcerate them for life. And yeah I'm sure you could cut the costs by eliminating the appeals process and executing everyone shortly after conviction....if you don't mind the guilt associated with the fact that you'd probably execute scores of innocent people under that scenario.

So go ahead and tell "most people you know" that.

[joeglow3]

43. I agree with you

Just because I call the person what they are (a piece of shit) doesn't mean I support killing the piece of shit. Nice inference, though.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

44. You seemed to be implying that. nt

[joeglow3]

45. Sometime "most people I know" really means "most people I know"

Personally, I won't lose sleep over this person being killed. If I was the husband, father, etc. of the murdered person, I am sure I would find satisfaction in his death. However, when I look at it objectively (as a government should), I feel it is wrong.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

47. I really think the long term closure notion is a myth.

Whatever satisfaction for a victim's family member that may initially be felt on the night of the execution would quickly dissipate when they come to the sobering revelation that their loved one is still dead and killing the killer will not bring him or her back.

Nothing, including an execution, will ever take that type of pain away. It's a sad farce to think that it would. And in my opinion, farces ought to be chucked out the window.

[Logical]

59. Have you researched this topic 10 minutes? Obviously not. It costs MORE! Jesus. n-t

[joeglow3]

65. And their argument is: "unnecessarily so"

They would easily make it more cost efficient. Not saying it is right.

[aikoaiko]

35. But still less barbaric than what the killer did.

for what its worth.

[Nye Bevan]

37. I don't think anyone is disputing that.

And to anyone who believes in the medieval "eye for an eye" thesis, he got off too lightly. But many of us do not subscribe to this point of view.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

41. In the end, what does that mean?

That's like the people who defend waterboarding detainees because it doesn't actually kill them, or arguing that it's okay because Al Qaeda beheads people and we only waterboard them.

You lose all moral authority when you get even remotely close to the level of those you claim to oppose.

[aikoaiko]

42. I oppose taking of someone and holding them against their will in a cage

But I'm fine with life in prison for some crimes given appropriate due process.

I still have my moral authority.

[Logical]

60. LOL, so that is your criteria? classic! n-t

[aikoaiko]

61. Yes, it is classic.

[redqueen]

39. K&R

We shouldn't have the death penalty at all.

This was a whole other level of fucked up.

[morningfog]

54. The people of the United States should be ashamed that this is still our practice.

Agreed with OP 100%.

[Logical]

62. So true! Look at the other countries who do this! Sickening! nt