Appeals court rules 2-1 to allow resumption of federal executions

[Stevicus]

But there may still be more litigation.

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/arti...in-to-trump-plan-to-resume-federal-executions

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Trump administration's effort to resume federal executions got a boost on Tuesday from a U.S. appeals court, which tossed a district judge's injunction that blocked four death penalty sentences from being carried out.

The 2-1 ruling by a three judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit could pave the way to the Justice Department carrying out the first execution of federal death row inmates since 2003, although other issues remain to be litigated.

The two judges in the majority, Greg Katsas and Neomi Rao, were both appointed to the bench by Republican President Donald Trump. The dissenting judge, David Tatel, was appointed by Democratic President Bill Clinton.

The court concluded that U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan was wrong to find in her November ruling that a law called the Federal Death Penalty Act requires the federal government to follow all execution protocols in the state where the execution is set to take place. The two judges in the majority differed on what aspects of state rules the federal government have to follow.

It seems the main argument is over what drugs are used in lethal injection, not over the issue of execution itself.

Most executions in the United States have been carried out by states rather than the federal government, which has been hindered by protracted litigation over the drugs used in lethal injection executions.

The inmates scheduled for execution by lethal injection all were convicted in federal courts of murder. They are Daniel Lee, Wesley Purkey, Alfred Bourgeois and Dustin Honken.

I have to admit that I've found it somewhat strange, that the argument is not over whether society has the right to execute people for crimes, but more along the lines of finding the "most humane" way of doing it.

I also question the ways and means of how it's decided who gets executed and who doesn't. There are plenty of murderers who aren't given death sentences. If we, as a society, decide that we must execute all murderers, then that would be consistent, but if we decide to pick and choose which ones are going to live and die, then that might require a more detailed explanation and justification.

I am somewhat mystified over this argument over method and which drugs to use. Dead is dead, no matter how you slice it. Obviously, we don't want to crucify anyone or bring back some horrific, medieval torture or method of execution. As long as it's quick, like a bullet in the back of the head or something like that - that should be sufficient to satisfy that particular argument - if it's even an argument at all.

The larger question is whether it should be done at all, no matter what method is used. I'll admit I have somewhat mixed feelings myself, especially when someone is guilty of some truly horrible, ghastly crime. The idea of burning them at the stake suddenly makes sense, but I'd like to think we've learned to temper and restrain such impulses.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

But there may still be more litigation.

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/arti...in-to-trump-plan-to-resume-federal-executions





It seems the main argument is over what drugs are used in lethal injection, not over the issue of execution itself.



I have to admit that I've found it somewhat strange, that the argument is not over whether society has the right to execute people for crimes, but more along the lines of finding the "most humane" way of doing it.

I also question the ways and means of how it's decided who gets executed and who doesn't. There are plenty of murderers who aren't given death sentences. If we, as a society, decide that we must execute all murderers, then that would be consistent, but if we decide to pick and choose which ones are going to live and die, then that might require a more detailed explanation and justification.

I am somewhat mystified over this argument over method and which drugs to use. Dead is dead, no matter how you slice it. Obviously, we don't want to crucify anyone or bring back some horrific, medieval torture or method of execution. As long as it's quick, like a bullet in the back of the head or something like that - that should be sufficient to satisfy that particular argument - if it's even an argument at all.

The larger question is whether it should be done at all, no matter what method is used. I'll admit I have somewhat mixed feelings myself, especially when someone is guilty of some truly horrible, ghastly crime. The idea of burning them at the stake suddenly makes sense, but I'd like to think we've learned to temper and restrain such impulses.

I agree that they should be more consistent. Anyone found guilty of murder should be executed. No exceptions. Not manslaughter, but murder.

I think they should do away with death by injection and go back to hangings. It wouldn't bother me if they made them public. But today that is just too much to ask.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Regiomontanus]

But there may still be more litigation.

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/arti...in-to-trump-plan-to-resume-federal-executions





It seems the main argument is over what drugs are used in lethal injection, not over the issue of execution itself.



I have to admit that I've found it somewhat strange, that the argument is not over whether society has the right to execute people for crimes, but more along the lines of finding the "most humane" way of doing it.

I also question the ways and means of how it's decided who gets executed and who doesn't. There are plenty of murderers who aren't given death sentences. If we, as a society, decide that we must execute all murderers, then that would be consistent, but if we decide to pick and choose which ones are going to live and die, then that might require a more detailed explanation and justification.

I am somewhat mystified over this argument over method and which drugs to use. Dead is dead, no matter how you slice it. Obviously, we don't want to crucify anyone or bring back some horrific, medieval torture or method of execution. As long as it's quick, like a bullet in the back of the head or something like that - that should be sufficient to satisfy that particular argument - if it's even an argument at all.

The larger question is whether it should be done at all, no matter what method is used. I'll admit I have somewhat mixed feelings myself, especially when someone is guilty of some truly horrible, ghastly crime. The idea of burning them at the stake suddenly makes sense, but I'd like to think we've learned to temper and restrain such impulses.

I pray for the day that we end state sanctioned murder.

 

[Debater Slayer]

The U.S. has recently been making astonishing progress in cementing itself as the third world of the developed world. The "land of opportunity" is living up to its epithet!

 

[Glaurung]

I have to admit that I've found it somewhat strange, that the argument is not over whether society has the right to execute people for crimes, but more along the lines of finding the "most humane" way of doing it.

Not that I support the death penalty, but I've always found this concern to be bizarre as well. You're willing to take a life but you squirm at the prospect of inflicting momentary pain upon the condemned? Why?

The truth is that there's no such thing as a 'civilised' way to kill someone. Either embrace that or abolish the death penalty.

I think they should do away with death by injection and go back to hangings. It wouldn't bother me if they made them public. But today that is just too much to ask.

If I had to endorse a method, it would be firing squad. Cheap and quick.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Not that I support the death penalty, but I've always found this concern to be bizarre as well. You're willing to take a life, but you squirm at the prospect of inflicting momentary pain upon the condemned? Why?

The truth is that there's no such thing as a 'civilised' way to kill someone.


If I had to endorse a method, it would be firing squad. Cheap and quick.

If they did go back to firing squad I would like to see the shooters sitting at a table instead of the offhand standing position. The offhand is the most difficult in keeping the barrel still.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Altfish]

Welcome to the 18th Century

 

[Glaurung]

If they did go back to firing squad I would like to see the shooters sitting at a table instead of the offhand standing position. The offhand is the most difficult in keeping the barrel still.

Whatever works. So long as it's competent and quick. My point is that an execution is necessarily an act of violence. Electric chairs and lethal injections are the concoctions of a society trying to convince itself otherwise. If the U.S. believes the death penalty is just then it should have the courage of its convictions and stop its handwringing over being 'humane' because there's no such thing as a humane way to end a human life. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Stevicus]

Whatever works. So long as it's competent and quick. My point is that an execution is necessarily an act of violence. Electric chairs and lethal injections are the concoctions of a society trying to convince itself otherwise. If the U.S. believes the death penalty is just then it should have the courage of its convictions and stop its handwringing over being 'humane' because there's no such thing as a humane way to end a human life. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

I think just a bullet in the back of the head would be quick and painless enough. At least, it seems more certain than lethal injections, where there have been problems in the past where a took quite a while for the condemned inmate to die.

I remember they used to tout electric chairs as more humane, since it was supposed to be an instantaneous death, but it didn't always turn out that way.

Oddly enough, the guillotine was supposedly a more humane form of execution, which it probably was, compared to some of the more grisly methods which were used in the Middle Ages. Even that would seem quicker than hanging or the electric chair.

 

[Twilight Hue]

But there may still be more litigation.

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/arti...in-to-trump-plan-to-resume-federal-executions





It seems the main argument is over what drugs are used in lethal injection, not over the issue of execution itself.



I have to admit that I've found it somewhat strange, that the argument is not over whether society has the right to execute people for crimes, but more along the lines of finding the "most humane" way of doing it.

I also question the ways and means of how it's decided who gets executed and who doesn't. There are plenty of murderers who aren't given death sentences. If we, as a society, decide that we must execute all murderers, then that would be consistent, but if we decide to pick and choose which ones are going to live and die, then that might require a more detailed explanation and justification.

I am somewhat mystified over this argument over method and which drugs to use. Dead is dead, no matter how you slice it. Obviously, we don't want to crucify anyone or bring back some horrific, medieval torture or method of execution. As long as it's quick, like a bullet in the back of the head or something like that - that should be sufficient to satisfy that particular argument - if it's even an argument at all.

The larger question is whether it should be done at all, no matter what method is used. I'll admit I have somewhat mixed feelings myself, especially when someone is guilty of some truly horrible, ghastly crime. The idea of burning them at the stake suddenly makes sense, but I'd like to think we've learned to temper and restrain such impulses.

Bullets would be much cheaper and quick although the victims family and friends might come up with some more 'creative' ways.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I think just a bullet in the back of the head would be quick and painless enough. At least, it seems more certain than lethal injections, where there have been problems in the past where a took quite a while for the condemned inmate to die.

I remember they used to tout electric chairs as more humane, since it was supposed to be an instantaneous death, but it didn't always turn out that way.

Oddly enough, the guillotine was supposedly a more humane form of execution, which it probably was, compared to some of the more grisly methods which were used in the Middle Ages. Even that would seem quicker than hanging or the electric chair.

I suppose the gas chamber might be revisited. I guess the latter is too messy.

 

[Glaurung]

I remember they used to tout electric chairs as more humane, since it was supposed to be an instantaneous death, but it didn't always turn out that way.

Yeah. Whoever came up with the idea of frying people alive with electricity as a humane method of execution was a crank.

 

[Nakosis]

Personally, I don't find the death penalty beneficial to society except for those who confuse revenge with justice.

Obviously society need pay no attention to my personal moral values.

 

[metis]

Why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong? It certainly ain't being "pro-life".

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Whatever works. So long as it's competent and quick. My point is that an execution is necessarily an act of violence. Electric chairs and lethal injections are the concoctions of a society trying to convince itself otherwise. If the U.S. believes the death penalty is just then it should have the courage of its convictions and stop its handwringing over being 'humane' because there's no such thing as a humane way to end a human life. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

I agree. Quit worrying about the 'humane' aspect. Bring back hanging.

Good-Ole-Rebel