"Supreme Court rules Constitution doesn't guarantee "painless" execution"

[USFREEDOM911]

I am old school when it comes to this. Personally I could care less how much they suffer. Anyone convicted of the death penalty should be handed over to the family of the victim to inflict the death part of the sentence. As long as they want it to take.

This is what he was convicted for:

"Bucklew is on death row for the 1996 murder of Michael Sanders, who was living with Bucklew's former girlfriend. After entering a trailer where the two were living with their children, Bucklew fatally shot Sanders and later raped his former girlfriend. Bucklew was arrested after a car chase and shootout with police."

 

[USFREEDOM911]

It wasn't really all that quick, due to inefficiency and a dull blade, it often took more than on attempt

You make it sound like this is a problem; but with todays technology, I'm sure we could make it a "one drop / one kill" situation.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

So you want to resort back to stoning to death those found guilty of adultery

We're talking about someone who killed a man and then raped the ex-girlfriend, not some middle eastern BS.

 

[Airstrip One]

Hammurabi's Code, but I kind of think we've come some ways in the last four millenniums, although a lot of it is still practiced in the Middle East

Except that the prisoner is not going to be suffering to the same degree as the victim.

 

[Teflon Don]

So you want to resort back to stoning to death those found guilty of adultery

That is stupid. Not even an argument.

I would argue that the more painful the better a deterrent.

For example this Obama voter in South Carolina that killed an innocent college student should be made to suffer in the most horrific way possible.

His victim suffered. Why should he be spared?

You are an idiot.

 

[Teflon Don]

Lethal injection is too humane

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Bullet to the back of the head
Chop the head off
Lethal injection
Fry by wire


Take your pick

Or maybe we should bring back the gibbet:

A gibbet is any instrument of public execution, but gibbeting refers to the use of a gallows-type structure from which the dead or dying bodies of criminals were hung on public display to deter other existing or potential criminals. Occasionally the gibbet was also used as a method of execution, with the criminal being left to die of exposure, thirst and/or starvation. The term gibbet may also be used to refer to the practice of placing a criminal on display within a gibbet

Or rethink Vlad the Impaler's method:

Plus, they're are other ways:

There are many more and you wouldn't me to choose the method, if it was a family member of mine that was muredered.

 

[Yurt]

"The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 along ideological lines Monday that the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment," does not mean death row inmates are guaranteed a "painless" execution"

"Russell Bucklew, a convicted murderer sentenced to death 22 years ago, argued that a rare medical condition he has would make lethal injection extremely painful. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that Bucklew failed to propose an alternative method of capital punishment that would be less painful, arguing that it shouldn't be a difficult task unless the inmate is simply seeking to delay his execution."

https://www.axios.com/supreme-court...ain-c8a0700b-0fb3-40ef-b5f3-4f54ff6c7e0b.html

Now this is a bit confusing, how is a painful execution not cruel? I suppose Gorsuch has some legal thinking here, but because the guy couldn't offer a substitute method, or, since he might be seeking ways of delaying his execution doesn't seem to quite rationalize his execution as not being cruel

Would have loved to see Thomas' opinion, well, if he wrote something other than his usual stated concurrence

The ruling did not say painful, you habitual liar.

 

[Bill]

Or maybe we should bring back the gibbet:

A gibbet is any instrument of public execution, but gibbeting refers to the use of a gallows-type structure from which the dead or dying bodies of criminals were hung on public display to deter other existing or potential criminals. Occasionally the gibbet was also used as a method of execution, with the criminal being left to die of exposure, thirst and/or starvation. The term gibbet may also be used to refer to the practice of placing a criminal on display within a gibbet

Or rethink Vlad the Impaler's method:

Plus, they're are other ways:

There are many more and you wouldn't me to choose the method, if it was a family member of mine that was muredered.

From the dick the dick cheny collection, 2002 collectors edition??

 

[RB 60]

From the dick the dick cheny collection, 2002 collectors edition??

 

[USFREEDOM911]

From the dick the dick cheny collection, 2002 collectors edition??

NOPE, from Goggle Images.

 

[RB 60]

NOPE, from Goggle Images.

When the needle hurts too much

 

[dukkha]

"The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 along ideological lines Monday that the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment," does not mean death row inmates are guaranteed a "painless" execution"

"Russell Bucklew, a convicted murderer sentenced to death 22 years ago, argued that a rare medical condition he has would make lethal injection extremely painful. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that Bucklew failed to propose an alternative method of capital punishment that would be less painful, arguing that it shouldn't be a difficult task unless the inmate is simply seeking to delay his execution."

https://www.axios.com/supreme-court...ain-c8a0700b-0fb3-40ef-b5f3-4f54ff6c7e0b.html

Now this is a bit confusing, how is a painful execution not cruel? I suppose Gorsuch has some legal thinking here, but because the guy couldn't offer a substitute method, or, since he might be seeking ways of delaying his execution doesn't seem to quite rationalize his execution as not being cruel

Would have loved to see Thomas' opinion, well, if he wrote something other than his usual stated concurrence

SCOTUS was saying" (literally) "pick your poison" -
absent a choice by the defendant due to his condition the execution must go forward

 

[RB 60]

"The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 along ideological lines Monday that the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment," does not mean death row inmates are guaranteed a "painless" execution"

"Russell Bucklew, a convicted murderer sentenced to death 22 years ago, argued that a rare medical condition he has would make lethal injection extremely painful. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that Bucklew failed to propose an alternative method of capital punishment that would be less painful, arguing that it shouldn't be a difficult task unless the inmate is simply seeking to delay his execution."

https://www.axios.com/supreme-court...ain-c8a0700b-0fb3-40ef-b5f3-4f54ff6c7e0b.html

Now this is a bit confusing, how is a painful execution not cruel? I suppose Gorsuch has some legal thinking here, but because the guy couldn't offer a substitute method, or, since he might be seeking ways of delaying his execution doesn't seem to quite rationalize his execution as not being cruel

Would have loved to see Thomas' opinion, well, if he wrote something other than his usual stated concurrence

 

[Bobb]

Just kill the white n1gger the way he killed. How is it cruel to have a punishment that matches the crime?

 

[lisasanders1964]

So the 5 pro-life conservative Justices voted in support of the death penalty. What part of pro-life don't these idiots understand?

 

[RB 60]

So the 5 pro-life conservative Justices voted in support of the death penalty. What part of pro-life don't these idiots understand?

Uh...an aborted baby hasn't killed anyone?

 

[Earl]

So the 5 pro-life conservative Justices voted in support of the death penalty. What part of pro-life don't these idiots understand?

There is a huge difference between an innocent unborn child and a monster who tortures and murders.

I expect you knew that.

 

[CFM]

"The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 along ideological lines Monday that the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment," does not mean death row inmates are guaranteed a "painless" execution"

"Russell Bucklew, a convicted murderer sentenced to death 22 years ago, argued that a rare medical condition he has would make lethal injection extremely painful. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that Bucklew failed to propose an alternative method of capital punishment that would be less painful, arguing that it shouldn't be a difficult task unless the inmate is simply seeking to delay his execution."

https://www.axios.com/supreme-court...ain-c8a0700b-0fb3-40ef-b5f3-4f54ff6c7e0b.html

Now this is a bit confusing, how is a painful execution not cruel? I suppose Gorsuch has some legal thinking here, but because the guy couldn't offer a substitute method, or, since he might be seeking ways of delaying his execution doesn't seem to quite rationalize his execution as not being cruel

Would have loved to see Thomas' opinion, well, if he wrote something other than his usual stated concurrence

Too fucking bad for the convicted POS. It should be as painful as what the guilty murderer caused his INNOCENT victim. Why do you care more about the guilty than the innocent?

 

[CFM]

So the 5 pro-life conservative Justices voted in support of the death penalty. What part of pro-life don't these idiots understand?

Someone doing what the guilty murderer has said by his actions is that his life isn't worth living.