A federal judge on Saturday issued an injunction blocking Arkansas from its rush to carry out 6 executions in less than two weeks, siding with the plaintiffs who argued that the "assembly line" killings could subject inmates to a torturous and botched execution.
Remarkable to see a pharmaceutical company on the right side of an issue.
I am for capitol punishment, but definitely not 'assembly line' style -- we need to take more thought, deliberation and care when we execute, otherwise we are no different than those who have committed murder.
Each of these condemned prisoners got > 10 years of thought, deliberation and care on the question of whether they are guilty and deserve the penalty. So that leaves the matter of executing them.
I can sympathize and approve of states that have adopted back-up methods for executing, should the preferred method be blocked.
Judges writing the opinion of the court do not argue -- they teach.
I dunno. I'm pretty sure Arkansas really would like to torture prisoners to death.
Another year of "action hero" politics from the pro-death contingent.
Yea, and I'm wondering - given all of the people exonerated by DNA testing, how many innocents were executed before there ever was DNA testing? I guess those innocents don't matter. Capital punishment does not belong in a civilized country. I guess that's why we have it here. You might like living in North Korea. They like things like that too.
Hate to say it - but you are a moron and mental retard. I'm still waiting for justice in all of the lynchings that happened in this country. Seems like none of those cases came to court. Seems like we have different systems of justice here in the USA. You would have loved it before DNA testing - we could have dispensed with innocents without a clue. But that's ok. Right?
Sorry - I meant moral retard not mental. Funny how all of this came up on the weekend where the life of someone executed by the state was celebrated under one of the world's major religions.
We have had federal, and state, anti-lynching laws for at least 117 years. No doubt there ARE records of how many cases were brought to trial and how many were resolved this way or that way.
-- The only case I will comment on now is the death of Emmett Till. The people who did it were brought to trial in state court. They were acquitted, but after the real truth came out after the trial the community ostracized and shunned the perpetrators and they were 'ruined'. I know, not as satisfying as a conviction and their own trip up to the scaffold.
We hear of those cases. Singletons. Those innocents matter. To clarify that some innocents wrongly convicted were cleared before there was DNA testing. See the documentary 'The Thin Blue Line.' Those innocents were released from prison and some obtained damages from the state for their wrongful conviction. I have also heard of cases where they have sought DNA testing, and that testing added evidence of the person's guilt. I would like to see the statistics, such as %. The number cleared is probably low.
-- Which is worse? To get executed for a crime you didn't commit? Or to spend the rest of your life in prison for a crime you didn't commit? To not get treated for mental illness, because if it is treated they can then execute you? (Subject of a play by Luigi Pirandello). -- There are condemned prisoners who drop their appeals because they want to end their existence in a cage.
-- And there are people, like Herman Goering. (So guilty that typing up the court order condemning him to death took longer than deciding it...) He opted to commit suicide a few hours before his scheduled execution rather than hang.
BTW, God bless the people at law schools who work on 'The Innocence Project'.