Inmates lawyer argues LI amounts to torture; would rather face firing squad

Started by resist, February 16, 2017, 07:01:48 PM

previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Go Down

resist

http://www.bullfax.com/?q=node-death-row-inmate%E2%80%99s-lawyers-argue-lethal-injection-amoun

Quote
Attorneys for Ricky Gray said in a federal complaint that there is a serious risk that Virginia will "chemically torture" the man to death when it uses compounded drugs for his execution scheduled for Jan. 18. A firing squad would be a more humane alternative, his attorneys argue, although that execution method isn't permitted under Virginia law.
"It is both humane, quicker, more effective, and would frankly be completely feasible in Virginia," Lisa Fried, an attorney for Gray, said of a firing squad.
I think it's a bad idea to give inmates choices regarding execution method. It starts turning into an expectation.

But the fact that he'd rather be shot than given LI means that the choice of LI isn't necessarily for the benefit of the offender. More likely, it's for the benefit of the execution team and witnesses that are loaded with squeamish people!

Firing squad isn't available, but electric chair is. He should take that option. His lawyers are probably concerned that it takes about 3 minutes in Virginia (1800 volts at 7.5 amps for 30 seconds followed by 60 seconds of 240 volts at 1.5 amps, repeated once). But he would be unconscious instantly.

Londoner77

If he would prefer a firing squad,  let him have it.  It would take away his chance of appealing the method of execution.

Rick4404

If he would prefer a firing squad,  let him have it.  It would take away his chance of appealing the method of execution.
The firing squad is not an alternate means of execution in Virginia. Only lethal injection and electrocution are currently permitted under Commonwealth of Virginia law.  In order for the firing squad to become an option, the Virginia Legislature would have to enact legislation that allows a firing squad to be used, and of course, the governor would have to sign that bill into law.

The question is this.  Would such legislation be retroactive?  Meaning, would all current death row inmates be able to opt for the firing squad, or would it just apply to anyone who is convicted and sentenced to death after the change in the law were to take effect?

Londoner77

This is why things are going round and round in circles.

There is far too much red tape and legal wrangling.  The law is squarely on the side of the criminal and the only people who benefit are the lawyers who look for ways to get rich at the expense se of everyone else.

It would be so simple if you got one appeal and then it was lights out by a method of your own choosing (with a default should you not choose)
I know this cannot ever happen but what a great deterrent it would be!

Rick4404

#4
February 22, 2017, 01:44:42 PM Last Edit: February 22, 2017, 02:20:11 PM by Rick4404
This is why things are going round and round in circles.

There is far too much red tape and legal wrangling.  The law is squarely on the side of the criminal and the only people who benefit are the lawyers who look for ways to get rich at the expense se of everyone else.

It would be so simple if you got one appeal and then it was lights out by a method of your own choosing (with a default should you not choose)
I know this cannot ever happen but what a great deterrent it would be!
I watched an entirely staged film about Great Britain reinstating the death penalty; and its first defendant to be tried in a death penalty trial in the U.K., was tried and convicted not for murder, but for offenses against a child.

The trial, which was staged in a British courtroom; had all the trappings of a capital offense trial.  There were separate guilt and penalty phases as we see here in the U.S.  Only one very big difference.  When the defendant was found guilty and sentenced to hang, the judge ordered that the execution take place within 30 days.  One month later, Gary Glitter went to the gallows and was hanged. 

In this mockumentary; Britain had reinstated the death penalty, but wanted to avoid the same pitfalls that are seen in the U.S. system.  For example, only one appeal is allowed, which goes to the Home Secretary and not Her Majesty.  Naturally, as a member of parliament; the home secretary championed the death penalty and voted in favor of it. She quickly disposed of the condemned man's only appeal.  Britain also wanted a death sentence carried out quickly.  So, 30 days was set.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPtEWA2BzZQ

Go Up