Pfizer Strikes Blow Against the Death Penalty

[Frodo]

Pfizer Blocks the Use of Its Drugs in Executions

By ERIK ECKHOLM
MAY 13, 2016

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mister Mets]

That's sick.

Why do they want the people on death row to suffer a painful death?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

That's sick.

Why do they want the people on death row to suffer a painful death?

Why should they be forced to help the state killing people? The sole responsibility lies on the state.

[ag]

That's sick.

Why do they want the people on death row to suffer a painful death?

I am sure that would be easy to rectify, if only you and your fellow state-murder-affictionados were to volunteer to be executioners. I am sure you would do your best to help make it as painless as possible. Why aren't you already on the job?

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

What these medi-trolls are actually going to achieve is bringing back hanging and firing squads.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

What these medi-trolls are actually going to achieve is bringing back hanging and firing squads.

The only responsible part will be states. They alone decided they want to execute people. Expecting  others to participate in this awful business would be laughable if the matter wasn't so sad.

[MaxQue]

What these medi-trolls are actually going to achieve is bringing back hanging and firing squads.

I think that's pretty obvious. These methods are quite less popular with public, so they might hope it will lead to repeal in a few states.

[Angel of Death]

Isn't the firing squad a bit too "honorable" of a death?

[IceSpear]

That's sick.

Why do they want the people on death row to suffer a painful death?

I am sure that would be easy to rectify, if only you and your fellow state-murder-affictionados were to volunteer to be executioners. I am sure you would do your best to help make it as painless as possible. Why aren't you already on the job?

Er...I doubt the vast majority of Americans would have any problems pulling the lever for someone like John Wayne Gacy or Dzhokar Tsarnaev.

[RightBehind]

That's sick.

Why do they want the people on death row to suffer a painful death?

I am sure that would be easy to rectify, if only you and your fellow state-murder-affictionados were to volunteer to be executioners. I am sure you would do your best to help make it as painless as possible. Why aren't you already on the job?

Er...I doubt the vast majority of Americans would have any problems pulling the lever for someone like John Wayne Gacy or Dzhokar Tsarnaev.

I think nothing good of those likes, but I'd have been fine with Tsarnaev spending his life at the ADX Supermax in Florence. He's there now until he is moved to Terre Haute.

[Virginiá]

Is there anything stopping a coalition of pro-death penalty states from pooling their money and manufacturing certain drugs to carry out executions? Of course, keeping in mind that they don't have to use the standard 3-drug cocktail.

[MaxQue]

Is there anything stopping a coalition of pro-death penalty states from pooling their money and manufacturing certain drugs to carry out executions? Of course, keeping in mind that they don't have to use the standard 3-drug cocktail.

That would be socialism.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

From both a standpoint of humanity and cost, the guillotine would be the best readily available option in my opinion.

[Virginiá]

Is there anything stopping a coalition of pro-death penalty states from pooling their money and manufacturing certain drugs to carry out executions? Of course, keeping in mind that they don't have to use the standard 3-drug cocktail.

That would be socialism.

I'm not talking about selling it, just making their own chemicals for their own use. It's not like the federal government at least doesn't do this for numerous things. I think they are slowly running out of options here.

[politicallefty]

From both a standpoint of humanity and cost, the guillotine would be the best readily available option in my opinion.

From the standpoint of conducting a quick and painless executions, you're absolutely right. In terms of conducting a quick and otherwise painless execution, there's no reason why a guillotine or a firing squad shouldn't be used. I think the real issue is that death penalty states are trying to hide the fact that they are actually killing people. Lethal injection essentially medicalizes the process that attempts to cover up the reality of an actual execution.

If states started reverting back to hanging and electrocution or whatever else, the general public may start rethinking its stance on the death penalty. The truth is that there are many reasons why the death penalty should be abolished. There is really only one reason why it should be retained: vengeance. Either way though, should a President Hillary Clinton nominate a fifth solid liberal to the Supreme Court (to replace Justice Scalia), I think the death penalty will probably be ruled unconstitutional. The death penalty is on its last legs in this country. It will only take the right move to finish it off. A President Hillary Clinton nominating a fifth liberal to the Supreme Court will almost certainly mean the end of the death penalty in the United States.

[MK]

From both a standpoint of humanity and cost, the guillotine would be the best readily available option in my opinion.

From the standpoint of conducting a quick and painless executions, you're absolutely right. In terms of conducting a quick and otherwise painless execution, there's no reason why a guillotine or a firing squad shouldn't be used. I think the real issue is that death penalty states are trying to hide the fact that they are actually killing people. Lethal injection essentially medicalizes the process that attempts to cover up the reality of an actual execution.

If states started reverting back to hanging and electrocution or whatever else, the general public may start rethinking its stance on the death penalty. The truth is that there are many reasons why the death penalty should be abolished. There is really only one reason why it should be retained: vengeance. Either way though, should a President Hillary Clinton nominate a fifth solid liberal to the Supreme Court (to replace Justice Scalia), I think the death penalty will probably be ruled unconstitutional. The death penalty is on its last legs in this country. It will only take the right move to finish it off. A President Hillary Clinton nominating a fifth liberal to the Supreme Court will almost certainly mean the end of the death penalty in the United States.

What could those reasons possibly be ?

[Blair]

From both a standpoint of humanity and cost, the guillotine would be the best readily available option in my opinion.

From the standpoint of conducting a quick and painless executions, you're absolutely right. In terms of conducting a quick and otherwise painless execution, there's no reason why a guillotine or a firing squad shouldn't be used. I think the real issue is that death penalty states are trying to hide the fact that they are actually killing people. Lethal injection essentially medicalizes the process that attempts to cover up the reality of an actual execution.

If states started reverting back to hanging and electrocution or whatever else, the general public may start rethinking its stance on the death penalty. The truth is that there are many reasons why the death penalty should be abolished. There is really only one reason why it should be retained: vengeance. Either way though, should a President Hillary Clinton nominate a fifth solid liberal to the Supreme Court (to replace Justice Scalia), I think the death penalty will probably be ruled unconstitutional. The death penalty is on its last legs in this country. It will only take the right move to finish it off. A President Hillary Clinton nominating a fifth liberal to the Supreme Court will almost certainly mean the end of the death penalty in the United States.

What could those reasons possibly be ?

+ Doesn't lower crime rates
+ Isn't a deterrent
+ Costs more than life in prison

[MK]

From both a standpoint of humanity and cost, the guillotine would be the best readily available option in my opinion.

From the standpoint of conducting a quick and painless executions, you're absolutely right. In terms of conducting a quick and otherwise painless execution, there's no reason why a guillotine or a firing squad shouldn't be used. I think the real issue is that death penalty states are trying to hide the fact that they are actually killing people. Lethal injection essentially medicalizes the process that attempts to cover up the reality of an actual execution.

If states started reverting back to hanging and electrocution or whatever else, the general public may start rethinking its stance on the death penalty. The truth is that there are many reasons why the death penalty should be abolished. There is really only one reason why it should be retained: vengeance. Either way though, should a President Hillary Clinton nominate a fifth solid liberal to the Supreme Court (to replace Justice Scalia), I think the death penalty will probably be ruled unconstitutional. The death penalty is on its last legs in this country. It will only take the right move to finish it off. A President Hillary Clinton nominating a fifth liberal to the Supreme Court will almost certainly mean the end of the death penalty in the United States.

What could those reasons possibly be ?

+ Doesn't lower crime rates
+ Isn't a deterrent
+ Costs more than life in prison

1 AND 2 can be answered with the same ; In its current form it can't accomplish that.

If it was used more efficiently and quickly I have no doubt you would see a drop in violent crime.  Think 3 years after date of conviction.  Its been neutered so much now that of course its not a deterrent anymore because the chances of getting it even if committed the most horrible acts is very small.  Take for example in NC this week a guy shot a pregnant girl friend in the head and then shot a 3 yearold in the head.   This guy without a question should be givin the death penalty, but most likely he wont.   I'd  be in favor of mandatory death sentences for certain crimes.


Lastly, its costs more because of the time spent on death row along with endless appeals. Now there is issues with getting the death drugs.  Someone mentioned earlier there were cheaper/ faster metholds that we have went away from because ironically some leftist thought "lethal injections" were better.     

[ag]

That's sick.

Why do they want the people on death row to suffer a painful death?

I am sure that would be easy to rectify, if only you and your fellow state-murder-affictionados were to volunteer to be executioners. I am sure you would do your best to help make it as painless as possible. Why aren't you already on the job?

Er...I doubt the vast majority of Americans would have any problems pulling the lever for someone like John Wayne Gacy or Dzhokar Tsarnaev.

Well, they should volunteer then.

[ag]

I, actually, think executions should be broadcast on TV in prime time, with executioners selected in the same way as jurors. In fact, it would make sense to select executioners from among the trial jurors. And no injections: guillotine would be much better.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

That's sick.

Why do they want the people on death row to suffer a painful death?

I am sure that would be easy to rectify, if only you and your fellow state-murder-affictionados were to volunteer to be executioners. I am sure you would do your best to help make it as painless as possible. Why aren't you already on the job?

Er...I doubt the vast majority of Americans would have any problems pulling the lever for someone like John Wayne Gacy or Dzhokar Tsarnaev.

Well, they should volunteer then.

It's typical for death penalty fans, isn't it? They want people executed, but they wouldn't want to get their own hands dirty.

[Cassius]

That's sick.

Why do they want the people on death row to suffer a painful death?

I am sure that would be easy to rectify, if only you and your fellow state-murder-affictionados were to volunteer to be executioners. I am sure you would do your best to help make it as painless as possible. Why aren't you already on the job?

Er...I doubt the vast majority of Americans would have any problems pulling the lever for someone like John Wayne Gacy or Dzhokar Tsarnaev.

Well, they should volunteer then.

It's typical for death penalty fans, isn't it? They want people executed, but they wouldn't want to get their own hands dirty.

[ingemann]

From both a standpoint of humanity and cost, the guillotine would be the best readily available option in my opinion.

From the standpoint of conducting a quick and painless executions, you're absolutely right. In terms of conducting a quick and otherwise painless execution, there's no reason why a guillotine or a firing squad shouldn't be used. I think the real issue is that death penalty states are trying to hide the fact that they are actually killing people. Lethal injection essentially medicalizes the process that attempts to cover up the reality of an actual execution.

If states started reverting back to hanging and electrocution or whatever else, the general public may start rethinking its stance on the death penalty. The truth is that there are many reasons why the death penalty should be abolished. There is really only one reason why it should be retained: vengeance. Either way though, should a President Hillary Clinton nominate a fifth solid liberal to the Supreme Court (to replace Justice Scalia), I think the death penalty will probably be ruled unconstitutional. The death penalty is on its last legs in this country. It will only take the right move to finish it off. A President Hillary Clinton nominating a fifth liberal to the Supreme Court will almost certainly mean the end of the death penalty in the United States.

What could those reasons possibly be ?

+ Doesn't lower crime rates
+ Isn't a deterrent
+ Costs more than life in prison

1 AND 2 can be answered with the same ; In its current form it can't accomplish that.

If it was used more efficiently and quickly I have no doubt you would see a drop in violent crime.  Think 3 years after date of conviction.  Its been neutered so much now that of course its not a deterrent anymore because the chances of getting it even if committed the most horrible acts is very small.  Take for example in NC this week a guy shot a pregnant girl friend in the head and then shot a 3 yearold in the head.   This guy without a question should be givin the death penalty, but most likely he wont.   I'd  be in favor of mandatory death sentences for certain crimes.

Lastly, its costs more because of the time spent on death row along with endless appeals. Now there is issues with getting the death drugs.  Someone mentioned earlier there were cheaper/ faster metholds that we have went away from because ironically some leftist thought "lethal injections" were better.     

You can lower crime rates with the death penalty, you just need to remove things like; right to a trial, rule of law, expand it to cover ridiculous harmless offenses and do it on large enough scale.
I'm sure if the police just began to execute people in public instead of arresting them for faredodging and shoplifting, I'm sure you would see a effect on the crime rate.

But your suggestions would do nothing to the crime rate.

[Virginiá]

I'm not really sure we should be removing the death penalty unless we fully commit to actually rehabilitating prisoners instead of just caging them for years on end. Life in prison should only be used very sparingly, and solitary confinement should be abolished for all situations except temporary (weeks) use.

I don't understand why people can be so against the death penalty but then shrug at life in prison. Can you imagine being locked up in your 20s or even 30s for life? I know a couple people who have spent time in prison/jail (albeit not max security, as they were not violent), and they both say it's hell. So at that point you might as well just kill the person, and if humans didn't have such a powerful self-preservation instinct embedded in their psyche, they'd probably opt for that too. Life in prison / extended solitary confinement is torture.

If society demands life in prison or death, then you're not really doing the convict a favor by giving life in prison. That's the more inhumane option between the two.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I'm not really sure we should be removing the death penalty unless we fully commit to actually rehabilitating prisoners instead of just caging them for years on end. Life in prison should only be used very sparingly, and solitary confinement should be abolished for all situations except temporary (weeks) use.

I don't understand why people can be so against the death penalty but then shrug at life in prison. Can you imagine being locked up in your 20s or even 30s for life? I know a couple people who have spent time in prison/jail (albeit not max security, as they were not violent), and they both say it's hell. So at that point you might as well just kill the person, and if humans didn't have such a powerful self-preservation instinct embedded in their psyche, they'd probably opt for that too. Life in prison / extended solitary confinement is torture.

If society demands life in prison or death, then you're not really doing the convict a favor by giving life in prison. That's the more inhumane option between the two.

You're making (as usual) very valuable points. Life imprisonment can be considered more severe than execution, so there's no suprise many prisoners either ask for the death penalty or, if already sentenced, drops their remaining appeals to just get over with this. This man is a very good example. He actually killed while in prison, so he can get a death sentence.

Are there people beyond rehabilitation? Yes. Are there people just too dangerous to ever let loose? Yes. But they does not represent the full picture.

Putting people in jail en masse, especially for lesser offenses, does not benefit the society. It more frequently turns redeemable individuals into more dangerous criminals, not to mention the great burden on the taxpayers to keep overcrowded prisons running.

As of more serious offender, I'm inclined to favor the Norwegian system. The maximum sentence is 20 years, but can be extended if an individual is deemed too dangerous to be released (that's why, despite right-wing screams, Breivik is very unlikely to ever get out). Their main focus is on rehabilitation and they get better results on this field than "let's put more people in jail" systems.

So absolutely, opposing the death penalty while turning a blind eye on stuffing prisons with people is at least inconsistent.