hello to everyone, 1st post on here and maybe a stupid question but why did the state need to give him mild sedatives where other states do not ? And what classes as mild ? I know missouri makes you have an antihistermine which helps the drugs flow, sorry for the weird question but just curious if he was sorta out of it or was very concious of what was happening
 

Haywire, the most common drug used is Ativan which is an anti-anxiety drug. As you say an antihistamine is widely used as well, with the most common being Vistaril.

Out of the 38 states with the DP….19 offers a form of sedative.

Main points that are raised by their use:

1)   It keeps the condemned docile which some believe prevents unnecessary torture being tantamount to “cruel and unusual” punishment
2)   It helps the prison staff deal with the execution procedure as the condemned is more compliant. This reduces the burden and stress upon the prison staff.
3)   Some believe it takes away from the course of justice because most crimes committed are not done under sedated medication.
4)   Some believe it paints an unrealistic picture of the event as it shows the world (via media witnesses) that death is calm.
5)   Sedatives are generally administered by physicians or doctors and it brings up the whole Hippocratic Oath debate.

Hopefully that helps answer your questions (and welcome)

Each state is different, but largely (as I understand it) the process can be simplified to:

1)   The District Attorney will meet with council for the defence and attempt to find what should be pursued (i.e. imprisonment or DP). The gravity and nature of the crime could lend itself to being a prosecuted as a DP case.

2)   The first trial is the “Guilt/Innocence” phase. The Jury is simply directed to assess the evidence on the accused’s culpability for that particular crime only. A Majority decision based on “beyond reasonable doubt” test will determine the outcome.

3)   Should guilt be established then it moves onto the “Penalty/Sentencing” phase. Here the Jury will listen the aggravating factors (put forward by the DA) and mitigating factors (put forward by the defense). It is at this stage that you will see arguments about the accused’s remorse, abusive childhood, drug/alcohol abuse and mental competency. The Jury is simply directed to weigh on aggravating Vs. mitigating and if one outweighs the other then that wins. For instance should the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating then DP will be recommended. Aggravating = DP and mitigating = Imprisonment.

4)   The judge will then follow the recommendation of the Jury to select DP or imprisonment.

Hopefully that’s helpful and you weren’t requesting info about jury selection? (or voire dire as you may have seen it written).

Hi Sam,

A genuine introduction which will be well received by all im sure. Look forward to reading your posts!

Sorry to hear that ICE. A very difficult time but sounds like you have a supportive family! As you say your father no longer needs to suffer. So keep strong with your family!

It's so hard to tell what's real and what's not nowadays @_@

The fact that you are willing to question it shows maturity and intelligence. All you can do is make an informed decision. Always be sceptical of every source you read from….and as long as you can justify your opinion to yourself then as Bob Marley says ‘everything is guna be alright’. 

I don't know what to believe anymore. There's too much half truths that the antis like to spin around @_@

Although they haven’t admitted their stance on the DP…being students/professors I think it is safe to assume they are anti-DP. So that certainly does need to be considered when reading the report.

A report written by the Pro camp in a similar vain, i.e. years of study, is what is needed. It is reports like this one on De Luna which is swaying public opinion on the issue – perfectly timed before the Cali ballot do we think?

Quote

Why does he need a map and GPS?  I don't get it.

I didn't get that either.  In fact, I really didn't understand anything in that entire post.  It was like trying to decipher a mixture of cave paintings, ancient hyroglifics and bad graffiti.  Who knows, though?  It could be pure genius when translated through Sanskrit.

Dilligaf brought a sound point.  Failing to administer meds to psychotic inmates would likely otherwise be deemed as unconstitutional.   

I was planning a road trip this weekend, only to the local destruction derby race where I will coalesce with some great minds, but thank god I can now adumbrate the use of a GPS and a map. A map without a GPS is very much like a ship without a sail, a redneck without a gun or a Pope without a 13 year old boy – they all co-exist!

But the point Dillgaff raises is interesting. To take it further I would expect most health professionals may cite the Hippocratic Oath as a reason NOT to administer the medication. If the medication is given solely to allow the “patient” (as they see him) to gain the necessary mental competency to be executed then they may refuse.

The fact  any one  reads it is odd..  I care  more about  cats and dog's that are needlessly put down then I do about some inmate.

I have a genuine interest in all aspects of the legal process. We all would agree that killing any innocent person is horrifying (it’s the main reason to support to DP in the first place, i.e. the victims). If the process is refined to ensure 100% that the correct justice is met to the correct recipient then the anti’s would struggle. So I will not bury my head in the sand with the issue. I will read it with an open mind.

The issue at hand here has solely been the deliberation of whether or not due process was correctly followed. Nothing else is being discussed here so I fail to why some posters have started discussing:

1)   The need to do away with clemency
2)   Something about a phone call (couldn’t quite decipher that part)
3)   Not buying DR bulls*&t
4)   Conditions of DR cells
5)   Playing football with the guards (or something)

Its very simply. The correct and codified format for the clemency hearing was not adhered to! The AZ Supreme Court agreed. The execution was stayed. The execution will go ahead for this nasty and disgusting crime at a later date. Simple!

For me it is the role of justice and correct rule of law that is the most important feature of all. If justice is undermined then so to is the punishment. Do you want to give the anti’s more ammo?

Lemme get this right. He was smart enough to commit murder and get a lawyer to get off. Files many appeals. And now when the time comes to PAY for his crime he is to effing stupid. Bull shirt. Read the law any way you want to. Try common sense. Smart enough to kill dumb enough to die for it.

Where to start…

1)   He didn’t “Get” a lawyer. He was appointed a public defender.
2)   He didn’t file appeals. His public defender filed appeals as is customary.
3)   ‘Read the law any way you want’ – its not ‘reading the law they way I want (that’s what kirsch did above)…its simply reiterating the correct position of the law as found in the black and white.

Whether or not you agree with the law is a completely different matter.  But that would be a personal opinion and not FACT.   

I still say the law is defined as when he/she is at trial. If they go nut in a cell to F ing bad. Time to replace some judge's.

Read Naviators’ comment above explaining the correct position/interpretation of the law.

You cannot simply alter the correct position of a legally binding ruling because it doesn’t agree with your “opinion”.

The law deals in accuracies and facts…not opinions.

Untrue Frenchy. You responded to my post and I had very few problems with it which Is why I commented no further. My post was more aimed at this:

Then get your a$$ back to Germany and keep your big effing nose out of our business! 

 

Which was ‘thanked’ (more an more it appears to be a silly system as everyone ‘thanks’ every comment, even offensive ones, which undervalues there use and stops genuine posts gaining the recognition they deserve) by 7 people!

I though that was appalling because everyone is entitled to have an opinion on ANY matter which you also agree with. Mrs Hammell had more right than most because of what suffering she endured and the trauma that followed knowing that the system failed her and then 6 other victims!

P.s. I too am still cautious about the posters identity

Naviator makes a very sound and logical statement. No one would argue that a fair legal process is essential to the rule of law. Simply taking a brief look at those countries which have a tainted process will show you how much destruction it can cause (usually developing countries).

A state/countries citizens need to understand the limitations of their actions and what the “effect” will be if they surpass those limitations (effects on themselves as well as other citizens). Each citizen should be treated equally and judged equally against the same set of rules.

As soon as the system is influenced by any medium which does not swear an oath to upholding the rule of law then the whole system is undermined. Suddenly a man sentenced to death who has his clemency denied by a board notorious for simply doing what the Governor wants becomes questionable. The Anti’s/Defence Lawyers have another argument that their client has not been treated with due process. Going further still, the citizens no longer have faith in the rule of law which in turn can lead to a disregard for the laws they uphold.

Fair and unbiased process is essential for ALL!

A very difficult moment…but attempt to find some peace in that he is no longer suffering from an awful and aggressive disease. He can rest and be remembered the way he should be.

Respects

P.s. I donate regularly the Macmillan Cancer UK – but will increase the donation for this month.

Granny,

I will obvious respectively accept your reasoning because there is little I can do to sway otherwise. All I was intending to do is simply point out that not everything is so black and white, as some posters here make out. There is another side. The idea/notion/thought behind ‘families of the executed feel a loss’ does have a logic behind it (certainly to someone who has never experienced tragic loss first hand). I was just trying to raise that if such opinions are raised by anyone, be it new or old, that they shouldn’t be chastised for them. Simply that people should look to ‘educate the uninformed’ as the website motto states.

He claims he was a ‘confused bunny’ over the DP – if true then he would be the perfect character to be informed. However he was insulted first – that much is fact. I don’t understand his attacks against you personally. But there is no denying other posters attacked Sir Daniel first – and being well versed on this forum I feel they should have known better.

Finally, if he is was a troll then wouldn’t he keep harping on about his agenda until he was banned? He has taken his leave after being told that a poster wished ‘he would lose a family member to a brutal murder’. He has stayed true to his word and looking at his comments section on his blog he doesn’t look like returning.

(Also as an aside there is a post in the comment section by an anonymous poster on his blog that states some very slanderous things)

Respects