An Ohio death row inmate is attempting to postpone his imminent appointment with the lethal injection gurney by claiming a possible allergy to the anaesthetic used by the state to dispatch its condemned prisoners. Darryl Durr Darryl Durr (pictured) is sentenced to die next Tuesday for the 1988 rape and murder of 16-year-old …
A bullet in the back of the head should do the trick or is that just too messy for your average septics sensibilities?
I think I'll let everything through on this thread so you can all see what you are.
Humans, Madam Bee?
Grenade, because that's the way he should be executed.
IANAL, but if you do that, I believe you could be legally liable...
IANAE but I believe the reason why a bullet is not used is that according to Constitutional law the executioner needs to have a psychological escape route - i.e. they have to be able to believe that they didn't actually kill someone. That's why typically they have 2 executioners, both of whom press a button at the same time to start the execution, but only one button is connected. With a gun it tends to be pretty clear if you killed somebody or not.
Although I still have no idea why the procedures are so darn complicated - there must be simpler ways which still allow for a psychological escape route.
Stalin because he wasn't troubled by such petty hindrances as psychological escape routes.
I doubt there is going to much shock at what we are in here...
I predict 99.9% of comments to say
and bullet or knock him out first.
Personally I will buck my own prediction and say he should be lowered, slowly, into a jumbo food mixer and featured on the next episode of "Will it blend".
> so you can all see what you are.
Since most of the tards don't have much awareness (self- or otherwise).
Raped and murdered a 16 yr old girl?
Yep, a bullet would do the trick.
That's where I stand, no issues with it what so ever.
Your choice of words seems to indicate your position on the matter, your statement works both ways.
Two guns, two people, one bullet. Solved.
IANAL either, but I can read. If you moderate comments you may be liable, but if you don't then you're just a 'service provider' and aren't liable.
Re: Pretty futile
That's why in firing squads one of the rifles was loaded with a blank, so all teh soldiers could believe they were not involved
Yup, that's how military firing squads used to get round it. It was always said that some of the guns were loaded with real ammo and some with blanks, so nobody firing could be sure whether or not they'd actually shot the condemned.
Whether it was ever true or not I can't say. Personally I call bollocks as there's a world of difference in generated recoil between a blank and a live round, so anyone with any experience should know damned well whether or not they were in on the kill.
Here Be Tards
"Raped and murdered a 16 yr old girl"
And that's a fact is it? I mean, you know that for sure. There's no way the evidence could have been misrepresented or misunderstood. No way at all. Despite countless examples of ... er ... what do they call it now .. ah yes ... a "miscarriage of justice". It's even happened enough times that we have a word(*) for it.
You're a murderous throwback, and in my court, you'ld be strung up by your woefully underdeveloped frontal lobes. All I need is 12 idiots and a few crooked coppers. Shouldn't be too hard.
(*) Grammar / Semantics Nazis, go fuck yourselves.
Re: Pretty futile → # ↑
But if you then join in the discussion, are you liable again? I think this is becoming a meta-discussion.
The way I read it, if the comments are entirely unmoderated, then the person hosting them is not held liable. However, if there is a moderator, then they are liable for what they let through, even if they are letting everything through. The tacit acknowledgement that the comments are being read by a moderator could lead to the argument that they are moderated, in a legal sense. Again, however, IANAL so what do I know?
Interesting point. I think the issue might be clouded by Ms Bee's declaration that she was going to let everything through (unless it contained some ASCII art which looked like it might depict an under-18 year old doing something naughty).
RE: Here be tards
"And that's a fact is it?"
I don't know and neither do you, I probably know as much about this case as you do which is precisely fuck all. But, I'll sure as hell take the word of a legal system that still finds a guy guilty after 22 years of appeals to the point where as a last ditch attempt to get him off the hook the lawyers argue he would be alergic to the method of execution.
Yeah, I'd take their word over your five lines of year 11 social philosophy anyday.
"12 idiots and a few crooked coppers"
Oh yes, of course how silly of me it really is that easy isn't it - Oh wait a minute, it's not, there's masses of effort spent scrutinising every piece of evidence and a whole industry created around such cases. What a stupid throwaway comment.
Your title is apt.
allow them to stay alive, in jail permanently, and let them test new drugs, chemicals and cosmetics instead of subjecting animals to the horrific regimes we all know happen in labs?
Tried and tested alternative
Bullet in the head?
I'm all for capital punishment when murder, rape or sexual abuse is proved beyond all reasonable doubt
RE: Tried and tested alternative
"I'm all for capital punishment when murder, rape or sexual abuse is proved beyond all reasonable doubt"
"Beyond all reasonable doubt" doesn't mean "absolutely, positively did it".
The death penalty is bad not just because eye for an eye simply doesn't work. It's bad because there will always be that one innocent person who is found guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. The risk of executing one innocent person just isn't worth executing even a thousand murderers.
At least with life imprisonment you have the chance of correcting your mistake. With the death penalty you don't (and it's the poor who can't afford decent defence lawyers who end up being most affected by this).
I agree with AC, 13:56
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
Not quite true
"The death penalty is bad not just because eye for an eye simply doesn't work."
Apparently there's a low rate of re-offending.
Gun, Bullet, Dan Ackroyd
As Dan Ackroyd said to John Cusack in Grosse Point Black, "I'm going to put a bullethole in between your eyes and fsck the brain hole". Seems the executioner can solve the alergy argument and have some pleasure at the same time!
I don't know what calibre weapon Dan Ackroyd is packing if he thinks that's going to work!
Several possibilities present themselves
1. He'll be using some kind of expanding ammo so that the exit wound is big.
2. He doesn't need a hole larger than .22.
Practical or sad - pick one.
I recall a documentary in which Michael Portillo found out that hypoxia was the most humane method of execution -- but an advocate of the death penalty in the US wouldn't hear of it because it produced euphoria and didn't cause suffering.
Perhaps the morons in Ohio should use a method of execution known to be painless instead of one they just think is probably painless for most people?
Funny how it's the very people who are pro death penalty are the ones who seem to want to make it as barbaric as possible -- which seems to detract from their cause somewhat.
i saw that documentary...
but was disappointed to find out that portillo lived.
Now if we could somehow get mandelson into one of those hypoxia chambers.......with a hungry tiger......That's the kind of television i would watch!
whats a couple more years
he's been waiting around for 22 whats another couple.
What is more cruel?
I'm from Ohio and the death penalty is arguably the best deterrent for persons contemplating killing another. I personally don't understand how someone casually decides to take another person's life, especially someone they don't know or hardly know, but the threat of having your own life taken away if you kill someone should cause some hesitance, maybe.
Life in prison seems like a free ride; Maybe you have to do some laundry or cooking, you can't go anywhere you like and you have to hang around with other prisoners who could be rough or homosexual, but that doesn't seem enough of a deterrent to me. Some murderers might like that sort of thing.
Plus the state has to pay for housing, feeding and health care for this person doing life. I think the Ohio estimate was $35,000 per year or better. Plus the repeal of the death penalty in Ohio in the 70's sent the crime rate way up.
Ohio has a Democrat, moderate liberal, albeit, religious Governor who agrees with the death penalty.
Ohio also has a museum with "Old Sparky" in it. Decommissioned in 1963, Old Sparky was at one time considered to be humanitarian. And there are a few reproduction of Old Sparky in various places in Ohio. So if the convicted rapist murderer is allergic to his lethal injection which will take 30 second or so, there are other options. ;)
A beer to Old Sparky.
Oh and by the way...
Here in the Cleveland, Ohio area, we had some guy trying to park downtown last week for a Cleveland Cavaliers basketball game who tried to park in a handicapped space, and when confronted by the lot attendant he pulled a gun out of his car trunk and murdered the attendant.
A friggin' parking space is worth someone's life?
So should this guy just do life in prison? If you murder someone so you don't miss the first quarter of a basketball game, is life in prison justice?
Re: What is more cruel?
Well said - all you have to do is compare the murder rate in the US (death penalty - great deterrent) with, say, the wimpish UK (no death penalty and a slap on the wrist if you're lucky) and you'll see how effective your 'best deterrent' is. Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate for example and it will prove your point.
re: what is more cruel
"I'm from Ohio and the death penalty is arguably the best deterrent for persons contemplating killing another. I personally don't understand how someone casually decides to take another person's life, especially someone they don't know or hardly know, but the threat of having your own life taken away if you kill someone should cause some hesitance, maybe."
Sorry, but you think that someone who has "casually" decided to take another's life is going to stop to consider the consequences may include being executed?
Taking it one step further, are you comfortable believing that there are people who *would* commit these crimes but are waiting for laws to slacken because they've actually done a risk/reward calculation and decided the outcome is not optimal yet?
Re: Oh and by the way...
"Here in the Cleveland, Ohio area, we had some guy trying to park downtown last week for a Cleveland Cavaliers basketball game who tried to park in a handicapped space, and when confronted by the lot attendant he pulled a gun out of his car trunk and murdered the attendant.
"A friggin' parking space is worth someone's life?"
And this is your evidence that the death penalty is an effective deterrent?!? It didn't even stop a man who was just in a hurry to get a seat!!!!
All it suggests to me is that allowing people to buy and carry guns is a Very Bad Idea.
RE: What is more cruel?
"Ohio also has a museum with "Old Sparky" in it. Decommissioned in 1963, Old Sparky was at one time considered to be humanitarian. And there are a few reproduction of Old Sparky in various places in Ohio. So if the convicted rapist murderer is allergic to his lethal injection which will take 30 second or so, there are other options. ;)"
According to the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction's web site, the electric chair was eliminated as a form of execution on Nov 15, 2001, and "Old Sparky" was decommissioned on Feb 26 2001. I believe the last time "Old Sparky' was used was in 1963.
Technically, unless the stat government makes a change, there are no other options in Ohio at the moment, as lethal injection is currently the only method authorized by law, since "old Sparky's" retirement.
I hate that meme
I'm sorry, but the idea of prison being "a free ride" or the other popular meme "like a holiday" is so wrong I can't even begin to address it.
Yeah, I'm sure spending however many years in a place filled with murderers, rapists etc is a fantastic get away from the pressures of the modern office.
The US justice system has such a terrible set up - worst of all the stupid "three strikes" rule where the majority trapped by this end up being pot smokers. Great way to ruin a persons life, put them into a place with the worst of society. And then you wonder why they're changed when they come out, not to mention how their future prospects for employment has been destroyed.
That's not even mentioning how the US penal system is increasingly being turned into slave labour for private profit - in of itself abhorrent.
Advocating the death penalty makes you just as bad as the criminal you want to use it on. Far better to leave them with the rest of their lives to contemplate their deeds while stripping them of their freedom.
To deter or to not deter
"I'm from Ohio and the death penalty is arguably the best deterrent for persons contemplating killing another."
Well, it may seem that way but does it really work?
Do you think that people sit there and weigh up the pros and cons of what the outcome of their actions is to such an extent?
"I personally don't understand how someone casually decides to take another person's life,"
Which could be why *you* think the death penalty is a good deterrent....
"especially someone they don't know or hardly know, but the threat of having your own life taken away if you kill someone should cause some hesitance, maybe."
The death penalty reduces risk of repeat offence (true) but kills the occasional innocent person.
How many innocent people are you happy to have murdered to make sure that some murderers get killed as well?
Facts...what are the facts
Not to get into a large argument here, but, a quick look at the crime statistics from the early 60s to 2008 (available here: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/ohcrime.htm ) shows that there was a jump at about 1970, but, since then, the numbers have stayed pretty steady, simply fluctuating down and up a bit. As a matter of fact, in the past five or six years there appears to be a slow but steady net DECREASE in violent and other crimes.
I do not think that the death penalty works as an overall deterrent. However, it works very well for the individual being killed. Death is a solid guarantee that individual will not be a danger to society again.
UK vs US
Can't really compare - different cultures, different mindset. Guns are easy to come by in the US and the degree of separation they give I would imagine makes killing a touch easier psychologically.
"Ohio Constitution guarantees is that he has a quick and painless execution"
well we've had no complaints so far lol
re: no complaints
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romell_Broom certainly does. Notably in Ohio as well.
Oh, for goodness sake...
"Allergic to a lethal injection", FFS???
I thought that was the whole bloody point!
One thing I don't get is this convoluted 3-chemical method. Just render the SOB unconscious (like hospitals have managed for decades with ease), and if an operating theatre can remove half a person's innards without the patient knowing anything about it, why don't they simply use the same anaesthetic, then, once unconscious, give him a hell-of-a-lot more of it? Painless.
Or, am I missing something?
Next appeal against being State-Stiffed will be a claim that it breaks 'elf and safty' rules. That of the condemned, natch.
True, but executioners aren't doctors
which is the whole root of the problem. Hospitals can put people to sleep most of the time without problems, but that's because they have trained anaesthesiologists who've taken the Hippocratic Oath (i.e. sworn to preserve life, not take it). Executions aren't performed by doctors/anaesthesiologists as a rule because they'd be violating their oath.
Which means prisons are dependent on staff who may or may not have followed IV 101, but are in any case not medical professionals.
Hand grenade because that would do the trick.
I think you're missing something.
> "Allergic to a lethal injection", FFS???
> I thought that was the whole bloody point!"
Err no. Lethal injections are not designed to kill via an allergic reaction, otherwise you would have to spend ages finding the specific allergens for each condemned criminal.
> Just render the SOB unconscious (like hospitals have managed for decades with ease)
Hospitals use a general anaesthetic. That's what he's claiming to be allergic to, not lethal injections per se.
> Next appeal against being State-Stiffed will be a claim that it breaks 'elf and safty'
If he was a smoker he was probably forced to kick his habit on the grounds it was bad for his health. If the state of Ohio had given him 60 a day for the past 20-odd years, he could have slowly self-administered a lethal dose.
Now what's your poison?
A couple of other things I don't get...
Firstly, why are the majority of the condemned held in a facility often labelled "Correction facility"? That's some helluva correction...Sure, (s)he won't do it again...but, like 199 years-to-life, it's just a joke. How can anyone take a judiciary seriously when they come out with that bollox?
Why are they held for - maybe half their lives - before their sentence of execution is carried out?
Why does the case close shut (evidence destroyed) after the 'perp' has been executed? Are the Government afraid an innocent person's death may come to light?
If you haven't worked it out yet, the McCoatover is totally against the death sentence. Unless, Science* can make it reversible. (And will someone explain how to use those three sea-shells...)
* Actually, possibly Scientology might have the answer. "Tom Cruise, come out of the closet!! We need Your Thetan'kin advice!!"
Not to kill people
same as learning to drive if the outcome doesnt matter just teach somebody how to press the accelerator, it works but the outcome is kinda obvious !
"Now, what's your poison"
Same as yours, judging by the Icon ;-)
Everyone is allergic to arsenic, same as all cats are allergic to aspirin, as guinea-pigs are allergic to penicillin (luckily Florey chose mice for testing).
As peanuts do for some people, Death Cap mushroom has a 90 percent chance the allergy won't just give you a bit of hay-fever. (Nasty way to go, BTW)
The allergy is rather extreme, depending on the dose, naturally. We've arsenic in our bodies as a requirement for nervous system fuctionality.
The 'allergy' can kill very swiftly.
I think your argument is like me saying 'I'm allergic to bullets' as in a bullet won't do me any good. Or, possibly better, a small dose of a lethal injection might give me a bit of a snuffle.
Chuck a fucking gallon in the perp, see how allergic that makes him. He won't have time to even sneeze.
Andus - Dead against the death sentence, BTW.
For gods sake.
The guy is clearly clinging on to life for as long as possible. Either kill him like the Ohio law dictates, or don't and let him serve a life sentence.
I'm pretty sure he didn't give to much concern over what his actions did to his victim. Why should the executioner care about him?
Hope he gets raped in hell for eternity.
I'm allergic to all lethal injections, I could DIE if I were exposed. Bet you don't want that on your hands.
- Nuke plants to rely on PDP-11 code UNTIL 2050!
- Spin doctors brazenly fiddle with tiny bits in front of the neighbours
- Game Theory Out with a bang: The Last of Us lets PS3 exit with head held high
- That Microsoft-Nokia merger you've been predicting? It's no go
- Microsoft breaks bug-bounty virginity in $100,000 contest