Justice Elena Kagan's first vote is against an execution

[Smokinokie]

Justice Elena Kagan's first vote is against an execution

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/sc-dc-1028-court-execution-20101027,0,6859358.story

"The newest member of the Supreme Court is in the minority in backing a stay of execution over questions about the safety of a drug to be used in a lethal injection. Shortly after the stay was overturned Tuesday, Arizona executed Jeffrey Landrigan."

But my favorite is this bit.

The judge in Phoenix put the execution on hold because she said she was "left to speculate" whether this drug was safe for its intended use.

Safe for it's intended use? What the hell? I simply can't get my mind around this one unless it's strictly political.

[Cats Cats Cats]

You obviously missed the real best part of the story.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31751_162-20020890-10391697.html

[we vs us]

Justice Elena Kagan's first vote is against an execution

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/sc-dc-1028-court-execution-20101027,0,6859358.story
But my favorite is this bit.
Safe for it's intended use? What the hell? I simply can't get my mind around this one unless it's strictly political.

There's been a debate amongst law enforcement folks involved in capital punishment about whether or not lethal injection is humane treatment.  Reason being is that the "injection" is actually comprised of a couple of different needle-sticks:  the first is a paralytic/sedative and the second is the lethal dose of poison that stops the heart.  There have been several instances where the administration of the drugs has been flawed so that the paralytic worked partially or not at all.  ie. people were only paralyzed and not sedated for the injection of the second drug, which causes great pain.  In other words, the people being killed were unable to move, unable to communicate, but still totally conscious for up to 30 min or between the time of their injection and the time of their death. 

Interestingly, there's an angel-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-needle argument happening here . . . there's a lot of splitting hairs about when "humanely" ending a person's life becomes inhumane, when it's equally as arguable that any forcible ending of a person's life by the state is inhumane. 

But that's a digression, and not part of what this case is about (as far as I know).

[Smokinokie]

There's been a debate amongst law enforcement folks involved in capital punishment about whether or not lethal injection is humane treatment.  Reason being is that the "injection" is actually comprised of a couple of different needle-sticks:  the first is a paralytic/sedative and the second is the lethal dose of poison that stops the heart.  There have been several instances where the administration of the drugs has been flawed so that the paralytic worked partially or not at all.  ie. people were only paralyzed and not sedated for the injection of the second drug, which causes great pain.  In other words, the people being killed were unable to move, unable to communicate, but still totally conscious for up to 30 min or between the time of their injection and the time of their death. 

Interestingly, there's an angel-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-needle argument happening here . . . there's a lot of splitting hairs about when "humanely" ending a person's life becomes inhumane, when it's equally as arguable that any forcible ending of a person's life by the state is inhumane. 

But that's a digression, and not part of what this case is about (as far as I know).

Firing squad?

[Red Arrow]

Anyone else watch Braveheart on the TV last weekend?  Now there was some inhumane punishment.