Sometimes this state really sucks.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 2:27 am

And this is one of those times. Why should this guy NOT suffer the same level of pain and suffering as his victim?

Calif. Execution Postponed Indefinitely

By DAVID KRAVETS, AP Legal Affairs Writer 15 minutes ago

SAN FRANCISCO - The state on Tuesday postponed indefinitely the execution of a condemned killer amid a court battle over the state's method of lethal injection and the role doctors may play in the death chamber.
ADVERTISEMENT

State officials notified the federal courts they would be unable to comply with a judge's order to have a medical profesional administer a lethal dose of barbiturate to Michael Morales in the execution chamber, a court spokeswoman told The Associated Press.

It was unclear when the execution would be carried out. Prison officials were not immediately available for comment.

Morales, 46, was supposed to die by lethal injection at 12:01 a.m. But the execution was put off until at least Tuesday night after the anesthesiologists objected that they might have to advise the executioner if the inmate woke up or appeared to suffer pain.

"Any such intervention would clearly be medically unethical," the doctors, whose identities were not released, said in a statement. "As a result, we have withdrawn from participation in this current process."

The doctors had been brought in by a federal judge after Morales' attorneys argued that the three-part lethal injection process violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The attorneys said a prisoner could feel excruciating pain from the last two chemicals if he were not fully sedated.

U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel gave prison officials a choice last week: bring in doctors to ensure Morales was properly anesthetized, or skip the usual paralyzing and heart-stopping drugs and execute him with an overdose of a sedative.

Prison officials had planned to press forward with the execution Tuesday night using the second option. The judge approved that decision, but said the sedative must be administered in the execution chamber by a person who is licensed by the state to inject medications intravenously. That group would include doctors, nurses and other medical technicians.

Morales' lawyers planned to appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, but the state notified the court late Tuesday afternoon that it did not intend to go forward with the execution.

The judge's ruling renewed an ethical debate that has persisted for many years about the proper role of doctors in executions and the suitability of the lethal injection method used in California and 35 other states.

The American Medical Association, the American Society of Anesthesiologists and the California Medical Association all opposed the anesthesiologists' participation as unethical and unprofessional.

The anesthesiologists ultimately withdrew after the judge wrote that they might have to demand that the executioner administer more sedatives through a separate intravenous line to make sure the prisoner is unconscious.

The anesthesiologists would have joined another doctor who is on duty at all California executions to declare the prisoner dead and ensure proper medical procedures are followed. The doctor does not insert any of the intravenous lines and is not in the room during the execution itself; typically the doctor watches the inmate's vital signs on electronic monitors outside the death chamber.

Deborah Denno, a Fordham University law professor and expert on lethal injection, said Fogel's order seemed "like a desperate measure."

"These are not circumstances by which somebody ought to be executed," she said. "It's never been done before like this."

The
U.S. Supreme Court has never directly addressed the constitutionality of lethal injection or whether it causes inmates excessive pain.

Morales was condemned in 1983 for killing 17-year-old Terri Winchell, who was attacked with a hammer, stabbed and left to die half-naked in a vineyard.

Morales had plotted the killing with a gay cousin who was jealous of Winchell's relationship with another man. The cousin was sentenced to life in prison without parole

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Wed Feb 22, 2006 2:33 am

Mister Bushice wrote: Why should this guy NOT suffer the same level of pain and suffering as his victim?

Because a free citizenry shouldn't be handing over the power of life and death over to the State.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 2:51 am

Isn't deciding the method of death doing that very same thing?

Bizzarofelice · Post by **Bizzarofelice** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 4:08 pm

Mister Bushice wrote:Why should this guy NOT suffer the same level of pain and suffering as his victim?

Because the founding fathers included references to God and we are thusly a Christian nation and thusly we don't kill people because Christ would not want it that way.

Bizzarofelice · Post by **Bizzarofelice** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 4:27 pm

mvscal wrote:Complete nonsense.

Exactly my point.

Bizzarofelice · Post by **Bizzarofelice** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 4:50 pm

mvscal wrote:The Jews

The Jews didn't establish this nation. There were no Jews signing the Declaration of Independence.

Christians believe in Christ. Capital punishment goes against Christ's teachings.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 4:54 pm

mvscal wrote:The correct translation is "Thou shalt not murder" not "Thou shalt not kill". It isn't even subject to reasonable disagreement.

The Jews practiced capital punishment which would make no sense at all if the comandment was against killing. Not to mention the fact that the OT is chock full of killing.

The OT is chock full of fornication, coveting, stealing, parental disrespect and oath taking as well.

So what's yer point?

titlover · Post by **titlover** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 5:08 pm

BSmack wrote:
mvscal wrote:The correct translation is "Thou shalt not murder" not "Thou shalt not kill". It isn't even subject to reasonable disagreement.

The Jews practiced capital punishment which would make no sense at all if the comandment was against killing. Not to mention the fact that the OT is chock full of killing.
The OT is chock full of fornication, coveting, stealing, parental disrespect and oath taking as well.

So what's yer point?

which is why you have the Ten commandments, which are on the Supreme court building, btw.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 5:37 pm

mvscal wrote:Those are also behaviors that are punished.

Not always.

Bizzarofelice · Post by **Bizzarofelice** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 7:09 pm

mvscal wrote:
Bizzarofelice wrote:Christians believe in Christ. Capital punishment goes against Christ's teachings.
No, it doesn't.

Really?
Where?

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 7:47 pm

I'm thinking that even if Jesus was in favor of capital punishment, his opinions might have changed towards the end there, no?

Nothing like having a buzzard pluck your eye out to get you rethinking certain things.

Always look on the bright side of life

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 8:06 pm

mvscal wrote:He allowed himself to get caught and he allowed himself to get nailed to the cross.

How do we know that he didn't agree to it becuase he thought he was about to get into some way kinky stuff?

Huh? How do we know this wasn't the case?

See You Next Wednesday · Wed Feb 22, 2006 9:13 pm

Mister Bushice wrote:And this is one of those times. Why should this guy NOT suffer the same level of pain and suffering as his victim?

Because it is against the Constitution in this case, didn't you read the article?

ChargerMike · Post by **ChargerMike** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 10:39 pm

Does it matter what Jesus would do?...I just checked..and sure enough, the death penalty is still on the books here in Mexifornia. Which of course brings this thought to mind...the dudes name is Morales right?

just a thought... :wink:

See You Next Wednesday · Wed Feb 22, 2006 11:08 pm

mvscal wrote:
See You Next Wednesday wrote:Because it is against some whackjob lunatic's interpretation of the Constitution in this case, didn't you read the article?
Fixed so as not to have my view of the world upset by facts.

Fixed.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 12:37 am

See You Next Wednesday wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:And this is one of those times. Why should this guy NOT suffer the same level of pain and suffering as his victim?
Because it is against the Constitution in this case, didn't you read the article?

Not yet. The lawyers argument/opinion is that it is "Cruel and unusual", so we will waste a few hundred thousand more taxpayer dollars to try and determine the exact definition of cruel and unusual, and my argument is that he should get what he gave.

The end result will be the same. He will be dead, and deserves to be. If he suffers along the way, tough shit as far as I'm concerned, but really - what form of applied death ISN'T essentially painful?

It's absurd that the victims should have to suffer more than the criminals do.

CalaLily · Post by **CalaLily** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 2:20 am

Because murder is morally wrong. Plus you never know, he could be innocent.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 2:34 am

doubtful:

Morales had plotted the killing with a gay cousin who was jealous of Winchell's relationship with another man. The cousin was sentenced to life in prison without parole

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Thu Feb 23, 2006 2:35 am

Mister Bushice wrote: He will be dead, and deserves to be. If he suffers along the way, tough shit as far as I'm concerned...

Words that could easily come from the mouth of some guy planting an IED.

Justice cuts both ways.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:50 am

What about the girl he tortured, maimed, raped and killed? What about the family who has suffered her loss?

Are you trolling here, Marty? Do you think the victims of a horrific crime like this have no rights and the criminals who commit them should have more rights than their victims?

Really. Either you are sabotaging this thread by trolling for a response, or you have a point to make. Do it.

Ang · Post by **Ang** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 4:22 am

Thing is, every time there is a death sentence a whole lot of people just come around saying there should be no death penalty. Well, folks... the way it works right now we have the death penalty in many states, so if you want to fight the death penalty please do it all the time instead of just when someone comes up for it.

I'll be all for doing away with the death penalty when we do away with abortion in our country...I think that as long as we are killing potential youth and potential we might as well just do away with the folks that kill youth and potential. So this guy who raped and brutally murdered someone...in a better country where we all revere life, we might give him another chance. But in this country, we kill people who are inconvenient so he should die, and the sooner the better.

It's what we do.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Thu Feb 23, 2006 10:30 am

Mister Bushice wrote:What about the girl he tortured, maimed, raped and killed? What about the family who has suffered her loss?

Are you trolling here, Marty? Do you think the victims of a horrific crime like this have no rights and the criminals who commit them should have more rights than their victims?

Really. Either you are sabotaging this thread by trolling for a response, or you have a point to make. Do it.

Calm down, Bushice. I really don't believe in giving the power of life or death over to the
State. It sucks big time what happened to the girl, and I'd like to have seen the girl's family behead this poor excuse for a toddowen, but not the State. Never.

When you give the power of life and death over to the State you get:

Schiavo

Coat hanger abortions

Dead Americans in the desert

Katrina victims

SunCoastSooner · Post by **SunCoastSooner** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 1:06 pm

Bizzarofelice wrote:
mvscal wrote:The Jews
The Jews didn't establish this nation. There were no Jews signing the Declaration of Independence.

Christians believe in Christ. Capital punishment goes against Christ's teachings.

Many of the signers of the delclaration weren't Christian either moron. Many were Deists, namely Ben Franklin, Caesar Rodney, George Ross, Joseph Hughes, and numerous others. George Washington was a deist as well, you know that guy who was the first president.

SunCoastSooner · Post by **SunCoastSooner** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 1:11 pm

Bizzarofelice wrote: Capital punishment goes against Christ's teachings.

Luke 22:36 "He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one"

Matthew 10:34 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword"

Bizzarofelice · Post by **Bizzarofelice** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 2:35 pm

SunCoastSooner wrote:Many of the signers of the delclaration weren't Christian either

I'm not Christian. I'm mocking those people who think that "one nation under God" inserted into the pledge during McCarthy's days needs to be defended at all costs. I'm mocking the people who believe in capital punishment and take Old Testament or out of context snippets of the gospels to back their case.

Moron.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 2:42 pm

SunCoastSooner wrote:
Bizzarofelice wrote: Capital punishment goes against Christ's teachings.
Luke 22:36 "He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one"

Matthew 10:34 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword"

Some context for those quotes please?

SunCoastSooner · Post by **SunCoastSooner** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:01 pm

BSmack wrote:
SunCoastSooner wrote:
Bizzarofelice wrote: Capital punishment goes against Christ's teachings.
Luke 22:36 "He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one"

Matthew 10:34 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword"
Some context for those quotes please?

That is a rather tricky question and would most likely result in the complete hijacking of this thread. Think about it and get back to me as to wheather or not you really want that question and the pandoras box it opens answered.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:44 pm

SunCoastSooner wrote:
BSmack wrote:
SunCoastSooner wrote: Luke 22:36 "He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one"

Matthew 10:34 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword"
Some context for those quotes please?
That is a rather tricky question and would most likely result in the complete hijacking of this thread. Think about it and get back to me as to wheather or not you really want that question and the pandoras box it opens answered.

You offered those quotes as a rebuttal to the idea that capital punishment is contrary to the teachings of Christ. So yea, you should add some context to those quotes in a fairly brief, non scanner like summation.

Bizzarofelice · Post by **Bizzarofelice** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 4:41 pm

mvscal wrote:
SunCoastSooner wrote:Many of the signers of the delclaration weren't Christian either moron. Many were Deists,
A difference without a distinction.

Huh?

SunCoastSooner · Post by **SunCoastSooner** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 5:47 pm

mvscal wrote:
SunCoastSooner wrote:Many of the signers of the delclaration weren't Christian either moron. Many were Deists,
A difference without a distinction.

Read some of George Washington's own thoughts on the subject of religion and tell me he was a christian.

Bsmack it's pretty difficult to examine those statements by Jesus/Yeushua without, like I said, opening a Pandora's Box; atleast from my persepective. In the end it depends on wheather or not you subscribe by the catholic, and in turn the chritstian, definition and description of the events as the new testament alone describes them.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 6:33 pm

SunCoastSooner wrote:Bsmack it's pretty difficult to examine those statements by Jesus/Yeushua without, like I said, opening a Pandora's Box; atleast from my persepective. In the end it depends on wheather or not you subscribe by the catholic, and in turn the chritstian, definition and description of the events as the new testament alone describes them.

I subscribe to the idea that Jesus came as a peacemaker. He had ample opportunity to lead his people to war against Rome had he chosen to do so. You may be able to cite a few passages out of context that purport to support your claim, but you cannot possibly offer any context for them. Therefore, they are essentialy useless.

"You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away. "

You have heard that it was said, "You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.

Matthew 5:38-48

SunCoastSooner · Post by **SunCoastSooner** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 6:40 pm

mvscal wrote:
SunCoastSooner wrote:Read some of George Washington's own thoughts on the subject of religion and tell me he was a christian.
I would have if there was any. He very seldom mentioned religion in correspondence and occassionally attended the Episcopalian church with his wife. His primary attitude towards religion was indifference.

Deism is nothing but Christianity Lite for those who hate going to church.

I'm a deist and if you were going to catagorize me as anything it would be a Jew not a christian. Me myself being a deist I resent the fact that you lump in with chrstians from a mythological/omnipotent being standpoint.

SunCoastSooner · Post by **SunCoastSooner** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 6:46 pm

BSmack wrote:
SunCoastSooner wrote:Bsmack it's pretty difficult to examine those statements by Jesus/Yeushua without, like I said, opening a Pandora's Box; atleast from my persepective. In the end it depends on wheather or not you subscribe by the catholic, and in turn the chritstian, definition and description of the events as the new testament alone describes them.
I subscribe to the idea that Jesus came as a peacemaker. He had ample opportunity to lead his people to war against Rome had he chosen to do so. You may be able to cite a few passages out of context that purport to support your claim, but you cannot possibly offer any context for them. Therefore, they are essentialy useless.

"You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away. "

You have heard that it was said, "You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.

Matthew 5:38-48

Man it would take me more time than I have to post today on this subject to really get into it, Bsmack. I just don't have that kind of spare time to touch on the Theiring Theories or any number of other annomolies that could be discussed by hiujacking this thread. :( I would really like to get into this. I love these sort of discussions when they can be had by level headed people such as ourselves :D. Suffice it to say the least I don't agree with you. Maybe some other time or if I find the day today we can have a theological/historical/Political/Philosophical discussion. Suck me in some other morning when I am not cleaning up other peoples screw ups at work.

Much can be said about telling a lot about someone from the company they keep though. I think you might be interested in looking into what is known or even theorized about the apostles and the lives they led both before and after Jesus passing.

titlover · Post by **titlover** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 8:47 pm

Mister Bushice wrote:
See You Next Wednesday wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:And this is one of those times. Why should this guy NOT suffer the same level of pain and suffering as his victim?
Because it is against the Constitution in this case, didn't you read the article?
Not yet. The lawyers argument/opinion is that it is "Cruel and unusual", so we will waste a few hundred thousand more taxpayer dollars to try and determine the exact definition of cruel and unusual, and my argument is that he should get what he gave.

The end result will be the same. He will be dead, and deserves to be. If he suffers along the way, tough shit as far as I'm concerned, but really - what form of applied death ISN'T essentially painful?

It's absurd that the victims should have to suffer more than the criminals do.

anesthetize him then give him the needle.

not sayin that's what I would do, just answerin' the question. :wink:

stuckinia · Post by **stuckinia** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 9:27 pm

titlover wrote:anesthetize him then give him the needle.

not sayin that's what I would do, just answerin' the question. :wink:

That was going to be tried but the anesthesiologist refused due to Hippocratic entanglements.

SunCoastSooner · Post by **SunCoastSooner** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 9:36 pm

mvscal wrote:You must have me mistaken for somebody who cares what you resent.

Actually resent was a bad word. To use something more appropriate is that I feel you are moron if lump people like me into a group like christianity. A moron or just simply ignorant.

Dr_Phibes · Post by **Dr_Phibes** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 10:02 pm

mvscal wrote:
What the fuck would a Canadian know about "free citizenry"?

Their government allows them to go to Cuba and observe it first-hand.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:21 pm

Dr_Phibes wrote:
mvscal wrote:
What the fuck would a Canadian know about "free citizenry"?
Their government allows them to go to Cuba and observe it first-hand.

...zing...

tough love · Post by **tough love** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 12:21 pm

mv wrote:
The correct translation is "Thou shalt not murder" not "Thou shalt not kill". It isn't even subject to reasonable disagreement.

Straight outta your Bu$h bible

The Jews practiced capital punishment which would make no sense at all if the comandment was against killing.

The Jews record on following the Will of God has been pretty freakin dismal, especially at the time when they bestowed their "capital punishment" upon the Son of God.
Religion was a very profitable business for the Jewish leadership when Christ arrived, and they were not about to let the Word of God mess up their thang.

Mv; I acknowledge that you are very good at debating, and even better at baiting, but for you to suggest that God supports man killing man is just to much for me to let slide.
We live in the NEW, and Jesus lived his life teaching that we are all children of God, and Gods Will for us is that we love and show compassion for each other, as He does for us.
Jesus was the living and dying example of the will of our Paridise Father.
Their is only one way which leads to God Paradise, and that is by us living our life trying to do the Will of our heavenly Father.

You can play your games all you want for whatever reasons you do, but be warned that when you 'take' against The Holy Spirit of Truth, the stakes become a whole lot higher.

God is Love; and while his Son lived his/our Heavenly Fathers will for man on earth, he replaced the 360ish rules and regs that the Jewish relig leaders were using against their people for their own advancement, with only two commandments.

God's will in the man flesh taught that #1...We are to love and honor our Paradise Father, and #2...Love others as we would want others to love us.

At the last supper Jesus gave his Apostle's a new commandment to follow...Just One..."Love others as I have loved you"

Love Love Love...It's just that simple.
How far have we strayed from God's simple truth. :(

Uncle Fester · Post by **Uncle Fester** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 10:46 pm

My verdict:

30 days in the electric chair.

T1B

Sometimes this state really sucks.

Sometimes this state really sucks.

Re: Sometimes this state really sucks.

Re: Sometimes this state really sucks.

Re: Sometimes this state really sucks.

Re: Sometimes this state really sucks.

Re: Sometimes this state really sucks.

Re: Sometimes this state really sucks.

Re: Sometimes this state really sucks.

Re: Sometimes this state really sucks.

Re: Sometimes this state really sucks.

Re: Sometimes this state really sucks.

Re: Sometimes this state really sucks.