Amnesty Int'l Chronicles U.S. Execution Horrors

By Jeralyn, Section Death Penalty
Posted on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 10:37:29 AM EST
Tags: lethal injection (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Amnesty International has released a report tracking the botched executions in the U.S.

"The use of lethal injections in the US has led to at least nine bungled executions, including one in which the prisoner took 69 minutes to die and another in which the condemned man complained five times: "It don't work," a report by Amnesty International says today.

The report contains a catalogue of botched executions dating from 2000, when lethal injection was adopted by 37 of the 38 US states with the death penalty."

As to Texas:

Amnesty notes that Texas, which operates America's busiest execution chamber, has banned one of the chemicals involved for use in euthanising pets, because it does not effectively mask pain.

In other words, you wouldn't do a dog this way.

Yesterday, a Tyler, TX judge set a Nov. 6 execution date for Allen Bridgers.

More...

All execution dates remain in force, and requests to block the executions must be filed case by case. State prosecutors plan to oppose all such motions.

Details of the Amnesty Int'l Report:

World: Medical professionals break ethical oath with lethal injection (Press Release, 4 October 2007)
Execution by lethal injection – a quarter century of state poisoning (Facts and Figures, 4 October 2007)
Execution by lethal injection – a quarter century of state poisoning (Report, 4 October 2007)

< Balkin on BushCo Perfidy | TX Judge Closes Courthouse, Prevents Death Appeal >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Amnesty Int'l Chronicles U.S. Execution Horrors | 37 comments (37 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

"It don't work"?? (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by Edger on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 11:31:47 AM EST

Straight from the horses mouth.

Incompetence seems to be a fairly commmon trait among death penalty proponents, like among war supporters....

The "kill 'em" solution for everything is tailor made to appeal to the ignorant.

Actually, (1.00 / 4) (#2)
by HeadScratcher on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 11:43:14 AM EST

Firing Squads work real well. What's the point?


A firing squad... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by desertswine on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 12:14:35 PM EST

You and the Iranians have something in common I think. How humane of you.


: Iranians (1.00 / 1) (#23)
by HeadScratcher on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:53:22 PM EST

Also breathe air, walk upright, as well as other things I have in common with them. So?
I also believe in democracy and the existence of gays so I don't have that in common with them.
My point, was that this post was another post which does nothing but produce an echo on this site. It doesn't do anything productive or even advance a discussion.
Jeralyn is supporting Clinton, BTD is supporting Dodd, and what are their positions on the death penalty. What is Obama's or Edwards'? Where is clamoring for legislative initiatives to abolish the death penalty in Congress or in State Houses?
That's a better way of dealing with this issue than preaching to the choir.

What's the point? (none / 0) (#11)
by Edger on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 01:00:25 PM EST

No one expected you to get it. The "kill 'em" solution for everything is tailor made to appeal to the ignorant.


Edger, (1.00 / 1) (#22)
by HeadScratcher on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:48:55 PM EST

Thanks for calling me ignorant. When in doubt one should always use personal attacks.

"What's the Point" was my way of saying that this site is against the death penalty under any circumstance. I get it. You get it. We all get it. Amnesty Int'l is against the death penalty. We get it. Writing about it doesn't change anything at all.

Now, if the posts were about the candidates running for office, or legislative bills, then I'd get the point. Otherwise it's preaching to the choir over and over again.


: if you know that and don't like it (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by Jen M on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 03:15:03 PM EST

whats the point of reading? Did you think we had all changed our minds?

Every sob story about a killer (1.00 / 1) (#4)
by Pancho on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 12:16:45 PM EST

needs to be accompanied by a description of their crimes. This is what the piece of garbage that complained that "it don't work" did:

Clark confessed to shooting David A. Manning, a husband and father, during a robbery of a Clark gas station at 3070 Airport Highway on the night of Jan. 13, 1984.
A day earlier, he had killed another store clerk, Donald Harris, 21, at a Lawson Milk Store at 4401 Hill Ave., a crime for which he later received a life sentence

Judicial killing (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by tnthorpe on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 12:25:06 PM EST

is barbaric, period.

Please explain how killing a killer balances the scales of justice. I've never heard a convincing argument there. But you're not offering an argument, just the cheap moral high of sitting in judgment on a murderer. Get over yourself.


What does balance (1.00 / 1) (#9)
by Pancho on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 12:49:24 PM EST

the scales of justice when a kid grows up without a father, because some piece of crap killed him?


Good point.... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Edger on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 01:07:01 PM EST

Where does it balance when a kid grows up without a father, because some piece of crap killed him?


: Now you are (1.00 / 1) (#15)
by Pancho on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 01:19:21 PM EST

talking about executing innocent people; that is an entirely different subject.
I have no problem with reserving the death penalty for only those where the evidence leaves no doubt of guilt, like Gacy and Dahmer and OJ.

You'll need to understand (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by tnthorpe on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 01:11:27 PM EST

that your post isn't an argument. It's a pointless rantlet posed as a question.

Murderers are bad, film at 11 Pancho. Now go figure out a way to answer your own question that doesn't involve state killing.


I already have my answer: (1.00 / 1) (#17)
by Pancho on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 01:24:23 PM EST

There is no balance when two innocent people are killed vs. one piece of crap, but it's the best we can do.

What is your answer?


Killing is the best (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by tnthorpe on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 01:50:19 PM EST

we can do? That's your argument? How is that just? Because it's better than not killing? I don't see any argument again in the post, but if you have a rationale I'd like to hear it.


Where is your answer to youw own question? (none / 0) (#20)
by Pancho on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:00:18 PM EST

How do we balance the scales of justice when an innocent life has been taken?


: LWOP (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by tnthorpe on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:03:47 PM EST

in the most gruesome cases. In no case is killing by the state a reasonable alternative.

One of the earliest, (1.00 / 2) (#14)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 01:15:49 PM EST

and most important services that a "city/state/nation" performed was to substitute itself for the family of the victim(s, providing trials instead of claims, and by executing the convicted killer(s) preventing blood feuds.

On a personal note I am against capital punishment unless there is absolutely no doubt of the guilt. There appears to be none in the case of Clark.

And while I am for executing them as painlessly as possible, I am astute enough to know that the question being raised is about stopping all executions, not pain.


Problem is (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by Jen M on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 03:18:49 PM EST

there was no doubt in some cases where the defendant turned out to be innocent.

How do you separate the "no doubt" where there is doubt and the no doubt cases.


If you are talking of an innocent being executed (none / 0) (#26)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 03:32:26 PM EST

would letting us know who that was?


"would you mind letting us know..." (none / 0) (#28)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 03:38:48 PM EST

I was referring to the (none / 0) (#30)
by Jen M on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 04:34:30 PM EST

people who have been exonerated. As far as I know they're still alive or were when they were released.

There have been quite a few. It even made the news.


Which of those (none / 0) (#32)
by Pancho on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 04:37:37 PM EST

that have been exonerated were convicted based on solid,seemingly indisputable evidence?


: they were all convicted (none / 0) (#36)
by Jen M on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 09:34:52 AM EST

in spite of the fact that no one thought they were guilty. Riiiight.

Fair enough, (none / 0) (#33)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 04:52:53 PM EST

as far as you know, there have been no innocents executed.

Your comment, though, led me to believe that you might have had some info about an innocent(s) who had been executed - of which I am fully convinced there are some...though probably not for many years - executions being what this thread and the comment your responded to are about.


innocent(s) who had been executed (none / 0) (#34)
by Edger on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 05:09:11 PM EST

Faulty Testimony Sent 2 to Death Row, Panel Finds

HOUSTON, May 2 [2006]-- Faulty evidence masquerading as science sent two men to death row for arson in Texas and led to the execution of one of them, a panel of private fire investigators concluded in a report released Tuesday in Austin.

Jeralyn posted about this here.

Innocence and the Death Penalty: The Increasing Danger of Executing the Innocent

A total of 69 people have been released from death row since 1973 after evidence of their innocence emerged. Twenty-one condemned inmates have been released since 1993, including seven from the state of Illinois alone. Many of these cases were discovered not because of the normal appeals process, but rather as a result of new scientific techniques, investigations by journalists, and the dedicated work of expert attorneys, not available to the typical death row inmate.

: Thanks Edger (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 05:18:26 PM EST

Many arson investigators were self-taught and "inept," the report said, adding: "There is no crime other than homicide by arson for which a person can be sent to death row based on the unsupported opinion of someone who received all his training 'on the job.' "
the "science" of reading scorch marks and such from fires does seem like reading tea leaves to me.

no doubt (none / 0) (#37)
by Jen M on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 09:36:07 AM EST

no doubt

I was addressing no doubt

you know, its ok to kill someone if there is NO DOUBT about their guilt.

See, no doubt

I was talking about doubt.


Clark confessed (none / 0) (#31)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 04:36:23 PM EST

the question being raised (none / 0) (#16)
by Edger on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 01:21:15 PM EST

is about stopping all executions

Maybe there is hope for you after all.


So (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by Al on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 12:39:31 PM EST

you're advocating killing a convict as slowly and as painfully as possible in revenge.

Obviously, people have been killed like this for a long time without making the slightest dent in crime statistics, so that's not the point.

Nobody is made any safer by torturing someone to death, so that's not the point either.

It's simply this: You want the state to vent your rage.

May I suggest you find other more constructive ways of venting your rage, helping victims perhaps, or helping kids not to fall into crime or addictions. If you feel so strongly about crime, get up and do something real to help. Any fool can type "off with his head".


Au contraire, (1.00 / 1) (#8)
by Pancho on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 12:47:24 PM EST

actually I advocate killing them as quickly and painlessly as possible; I just don't cry for them if something goes wrong. If they can't find a vein because you destroyed them with IV drugs in between killing innocent people, too freaking bad.

I cry for their victims.


: I cry for their victims. (none / 0) (#10)
by Edger on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 12:50:51 PM EST

You're trying to imply that death penalty opponents don't?
The topic and issue here in this thread is the death penalty.
Victims rights is also a valid issue, but it is not the topic here.
Incompetence seems to be a fairly commmon trait among death penalty proponents, like among war supporters....
The "kill 'em" solution for everything is tailor made to appeal to the ignorant.

You're advocating (none / 0) (#7)
by Edger on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 12:41:24 PM EST

executing Bush and Cheney as slowly and painfully as possible?

Hmmmm....


A minor correction (5.00 / 2) (#18)
by roy on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 01:31:34 PM EST

It's a trivial point, but the Grauniad as quoted above is incorrect about the law in Texas banning pancuronium bromide for use with animals. It's not banned because "it does not effectively mask pain", it's banned because it does mask pain in the sense of making it difficult for veterinarians to detect an animal's pain, as in the AI report:

...inadequate anaesthetic may be delivered into circulation and that the use of a paralysing agent [like pancuronium bromide] in the lethal mixture could mask any suffering caused to the prisoner...

assisted suicide (none / 0) (#27)
by diogenes on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 03:36:38 PM EST

Oregon and the Netherlands allow assisted suicide; presumably it isn't done in a cruel and unusual way. Just use the same cocktails for the death row inmates.

: Use heroin.... (none / 0) (#29)
by kdog on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 03:42:43 PM EST

if you don't use enough, the condemned ain't gonna mind...trust me.