Can't find a vein !

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Why is an IV necessary? Can't we come up with a lethal plan using an IM injection? Wouldn't 1 gram of morphine IM do it?
 
Broom, 52, was convicted of murdering a 14-year-old girl in Cleveland in 1984....

😱

This guy has been sitting on death row for 25 years?

Seriously, what's the friggin' point. It boggles my mind how much money we've spent warehousing this criminal for the past 25 years, and they can't even afford an ultrasound?

-copro
 
This guy has been sitting on death row for 25 years?

Seriously, what's the friggin' point. It boggles my mind how much money we've spent warehousing this criminal for the past 25 years, and they can't even afford an ultrasound?

Abolish the death penalty and put them in solitary confinement for life.

It'd be cheaper, a harsher punishment, and if [insert new evidence technology] exonerates the condemned guy in 2017, he's still alive to release and hear an apology.

And forget the ultrasound; I was serious about the intraosseous line. $6 and a good strong arm is all you need. God forbid it should sting a bit. (Wonder if they use lidocaine for the IVs?)
 
Search the inside of his skull for a vein using a high powered assault rifle. Works every time.
 
Abolish the death penalty and put them in solitary confinement for life.

It'd be cheaper, a harsher punishment, and if [insert new evidence technology] exonerates the condemned guy in 2017, he's still alive to release and hear an apology.

And forget the ultrasound; I was serious about the intraosseous line. $6 and a good strong arm is all you need. God forbid it should sting a bit. (Wonder if they use lidocaine for the IVs?)

Cheaper? Surely you jest.
 
Cheaper? Surely you jest.

The average death row inmate spends what, 10+ years waiting to be executed? This guy spent over 25. Decades of nearly endless appeals with their associated court costs are expensive.

Now if the death penalty carried no right to appeal and was just a 10 cent bullet (well, 40 cents in today's market) and was carried out behind the courthouse five minutes after sentencing, you'd be right, and it would be super cheap and efficient. But the reality is that executing prisoners is tremendously expensive in the system we've got.

DO4lifer said:
Oh, and wait til the innocent guy sues the state for wrongful imprisonment. More taxpayer dollars to pay his settlement!

So, you're saying it'd be better if the innocent guy was dead? WTF?
 
"The death penalty is much more expensive than life without parole ..."

"The additional cost of confining an inmate to death row, as compared to the maximum security prisons where those sentenced to life without possibility of parole ordinarily serve their sentences, is $90,000 per year per inmate. With California's current death row population of 670, that accounts for $63.3 million annually."

"The cost of a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty would be $11.5 million per year."

http://deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42%5


"In Texas, a death penalty case costs taxpayers an average of $2.3 million, about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years."

http://www.fnsa.org/v1n1/dieter1.html


I can't believe people don't know this.
 
Couldn't they just stick a radial aline and give the drugs there?
 
"The death penalty is much more expensive than life without parole ..."

"The additional cost of confining an inmate to death row, as compared to the maximum security prisons where those sentenced to life without possibility of parole ordinarily serve their sentences, is $90,000 per year per inmate. With California’s current death row population of 670, that accounts for $63.3 million annually."

"The cost of a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty would be $11.5 million per year."

http://deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42%5


"In Texas, a death penalty case costs taxpayers an average of $2.3 million, about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years."

http://www.fnsa.org/v1n1/dieter1.html


I can't believe people don't know this.

The problem is with the cost of the proposed treatment, not the diagnosis. And, the system worries TOO much that it made the wrong diagnosis.

To have a jurisprudence system that implements punishments that serve as an effective deterrent to others, it must meet three criteria: severity, celerity, and certainty.

In death penalty cases, the only of three of those criteria that are currently met is severity.

Therefore, the purpose of the death penalty, in our current system, is primarily punitive and retributive. And, I'm okay with that. But, we should strive to improve the system by increasing the celerity and certainty of the punishment, which - in and of itself - would substantially reduce costs as well as serve as more of an effective deterrent. We shouldn't be spending this kind of cash on these P.O.S. criminals. And, yes, that is the kind of society I want to live in.

-copro
 
death penalty cases, the only of three of those criteria that are currently met is severity.

It's still 2nd best - 40 years of isolation in a 6x10 box 23 hours/day (no TV, etc) is a far harsher punishment than death. Even if retribution and punishment is the primary objective (and I have no problem with that), the death penalty is inferior.

Unless maybe if you believe that eternal damnation and torture by devils with pointy sticks is waiting, and the death penalty hastens the guy's divine judgment. But I don't believe that - and I'd guess most of the condemned don't either. A swift painless death is simply escape.

The duration and cost of a capital trial will always be far more than one in which the death penalty isn't on the table, partly because of the separate proceedings to determine guilt and punishment, and the expense of a trial and defense (both state-funded) in which the evidence must be even further above reproach than normal. Reducing either the duration or cost would require major changes to the system that are extremely unlikely to happen for a number of reasons.

So - I still oppose the death penalty because the death penalty we have is effectively a costlier, less punitive, and irreversible boondoggle. You won't see me holding a candle and crying with the prison lights momentarily go dim at midnight, but dumb and inefficient is dumb and inefficient.
 
It's still 2nd best - 40 years of isolation in a 6x10 box 23 hours/day (no TV, etc) is a far harsher punishment than death. Even if retribution and punishment is the primary objective (and I have no problem with that), the death penalty is inferior.

Unless maybe if you believe that eternal damnation and torture by devils with pointy sticks is waiting, and the death penalty hastens the guy's divine judgment. But I don't believe that - and I'd guess most of the condemned don't either. A swift painless death is simply escape.

The duration and cost of a capital trial will always be far more than one in which the death penalty isn't on the table, partly because of the separate proceedings to determine guilt and punishment, and the expense of a trial and defense (both state-funded) in which the evidence must be even further above reproach than normal. Reducing either the duration or cost would require major changes to the system that are extremely unlikely to happen for a number of reasons.

So - I still oppose the death penalty because the death penalty we have is effectively a costlier, less punitive, and irreversible boondoggle. You won't see me holding a candle and crying with the prison lights momentarily go dim at midnight, but dumb and inefficient is dumb and inefficient.

I do not disagree with anything you've said here.

I think it's important to frame a discussion about the death penalty in larger terms of benefit to society. If one focuses primarily on the cost, then your argument wins hands down.

Again, I would say that this isn't a problem with diagnosis, despite the few very well-published cases of people later being exonerated via DNA evidence. Fact is, most of those condemned to death are guilty of the crime that led to that conviction beyond a shadow of doubt.

What inevitably ensues, though, is an excessive and expensive appeals process that involves years of additional court costs and procedural delays that, without a doubt, delay the "therapy" (in this case carrying out the sentence).

This is the part of this process that needs fixing. Otherwise, the death penalty will never serve as a deterrent, which - I feel - should be the primary purpose for having it - not just as the ultimate punishment (despite that I don't have a problem with that aspect either).

What this does beyond adding additional cost to the taxpayer is it plays into the "I can beat it" mentality I've talked about before, and it undermines the principle of certainty.

The fact that it takes, on average, 8-10 years from time of conviction until ultimately carrying out the sentence undermines the principle of celerity.

If otherwise rational people who are considering committing a crime understood, on a visceral level, that, if they were caught in the perpetration of a capital crime, they would be tried, convicted, sentenced, and dead by the state within 3 months, I assure you that this would serve as an effective deterrent.

Problem is that this system has a "zero-risk" bias. We simply do not, as a society, accept any false positives.

-copro
 
If otherwise rational people who are considering committing a crime understood, on a visceral level, that, if they were caught in the perpetration of a capital crime, they would be tried, convicted, sentenced, and dead by the state within 3 months, I assure you that this would serve as an effective deterrent.

I wonder if the kind of mind that allows a person to commit a capital crime in the first place is really deterred by anything. You can deter shoplifters, speeders, and public urinators, but the guy who'd kidnap, rape, and kill a child ... I doubt the kind of cost/benefit analysis he does is anything like the rest of us. Is a person who's reached the point where he'll premeditate a murder going to dwell on what a court might do?

I don't know, maybe he does, but I think it's far more likely that he simply doesn't think he's going to get caught in the first place. These people have a narcissism, arrogance, and lack of perspective that normal people can't relate to.

Problem is that this system has a "zero-risk" bias. We simply do not, as a society, accept any false positives.

I don't see that changing.
 
I wonder if the kind of mind that allows a person to commit a capital crime in the first place is really deterred by anything. You can deter shoplifters, speeders, and public urinators, but the guy who'd kidnap, rape, and kill a child ... I doubt the kind of cost/benefit analysis he does is anything like the rest of us. Is a person who's reached the point where he'll premeditate a murder going to dwell on what a court might do?

I don't know, maybe he does, but I think it's far more likely that he simply doesn't think he's going to get caught in the first place. These people have a narcissism, arrogance, and lack of perspective that normal people can't relate to.

All the more reason to speed-up the process.

I don't see that changing.

Not with all the bible-thumping candle-wavers it won't.

-copro
 
If otherwise rational people who are considering committing a crime understood, on a visceral level, that, if they were caught in the perpetration of a capital crime, they would be tried, convicted, sentenced, and dead by the state within 3 months, I assure you that this would serve as an effective deterrent.

This is nonsense. Criminals don't put much thought into the repercussions of their activities.
 
This is nonsense. Criminals don't put much thought into the repercussions of their activities.

I have a minor in Sociology. Suffice it to say that this point has been argued heatedly and ad nauseum throughout decades of criminal theory, and the majority of sociologist and psychological theorist experts feel that the reason this is the case is due, in no small part, to the reasons I elucidate above.

I suggest you get a little more educated on the subject matter before you callously posit such a narrow, throw-away, soundbite-esque type statement.

-copro
 
What's the cost of executing an innocent person?

Only the loss of what they otherwise would've contributed to society.

Which brings up another interesting point...

Why didn't Bernie Madoff get the death penalty? If you want to make this argument about financial repercussions, however those are manifested, clearly this man did more harm to society than someone who held-up a liquor store and shot the clerk in the process. Maybe the specter of the death penalty for serious financial fraud would be an effective deterrent to people considering bilking investors for hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars.

-copro
 
Not with all the bible-thumping candle-wavers it won't.

Wait, I thought the bible-thumpers were for swift execution to hasten delivery to the little red devils with pointy sticks? You're making it hard for me to pigeonhole people here.


coprolalia said:
proman said:
What's the cost of executing an innocent person?
Only the loss of what they otherwise would've contributed to society.

🙁 More than that. I'm worth more than what I contribute to society, and so are you.

I'd rather see a dozen guilty people go free than one innocent person convicted, and I'd rather see 100 confessed murderers spend life in prison than execute one innocent person.

This isn't an either-or, zero-sum proposition. Refusing to risk executing innocent people doesn't mean you have to let the guilty go free. You do have the option of that 6x10 windowless concrete box.

The death penalty is like desflurane ... doesn't really do anything well, but people still use it because it's easy.
 
I think part of the problem, as you've nicely discussed, pgg, is that we necessarily need to include the discussion about cost - financial cost - to society.

So, you can't have it both ways.

If you are going to talk about cost, then you need to look at what value each individual provides to society. In my opinion, there is no value to arresting and putting someone in jail for having, say, a pot plant in their house grown for their own personal use that's perhaps found incidentally when the police respond to a report of a burglary at that home.

That person may be a tax-paying, highly-functioning member of society and the "cost" to society of prosecuting them and potentially sticking them in jail, not just the court and legal costs as well as what it costs to put and keep them in jail, should be added to removing someone from a productive, contributing, tax-paying life in society for what is tantamount to a victimless crime.

On the other hand, there are what Karl Marx called the "lumpenproletariat". Because Marxist theory couldn't adequately account for and explain away this cohort of society - nor motivate them to meaningfully contribute to it, this became a large part of the reason why Marxism - and widely implemented Socialism - was deemed unable to ever work. These people provide no benefit to society - and incur tremendous cost to the same.

I once overheard a trauma surgeon say angrily to a cop in the trauma bay one time, "Next time finish the job!" At the time, I was horrified.

It took me years to finally understand what he meant. It was after I took care of a patient, a drunk ex-convict running from the police on his bicycle, who'd been struck by a police car and subsequently smacking his head on the windshield.

The patient had a moderate amount of intraparenchymal brain bleeding, a pneumothorax, and a broken wrist. He was in his early 40's, and had spent his entire life in and out of prison, for things ranging from petty crimes to actual felony assault on a woman.

He was in our ICU (where I was in residency), and cussed and swore the entire time he was there. He spit on nurses. He constantly was trying to get out of bed. He had fulminant, full-blown delirium tremens (which was treated), he was intubated and extubated twice, and had a chest-tube reinserted after it was pulled out.

In total, he spent about 17 days in the hospital, telling staff on each floor he went to how he was either going to kill them or sue them, before finally leaving AMA.

I would estimate, in total - including two trips to the OR, that he probably racked-up between $85,000-$95,000 in charges while he was there. Forget about the fact that he robbed us of resources and the potential for another patient to get a bed.

What did I want to do?

I wanted to find the cop that ran into this guy and give him a little lecture. The substance of this lecture would have been the following...

"Look, I understand that you were probably, in the heat of the moment, pretty pissed off at this guy. He probably, I dunno, flipped you the bird or something, and then started running away on his bike. And, on some level, I bet it felt really good - and you felt justified by the law and whatever else going through your mind at the time - to run him over. What you actually accomplished, however, was the ultimate 'f*ck you' to scores of doctors, nurses, and technicians in the hospital who had to clean-up your misplaced and ineffective little 'behavioral modification' exercise. So, next time, why don't you let this P.O.S. go on his merry way, or put your foot all the way down on the accelerator and finish the job."

We, as a society, have been paying - on so many different levels - for this kind of shenanigans for far too long.

-copro
 
I think part of the problem, as you've nicely discussed, pgg, is that we necessarily need to include the discussion about cost - financial cost - to society.

So, you can't have it both ways.

If you are going to talk about cost, then you need to look at what value each individual provides to society. In my opinion, there is no value to arresting and putting someone in jail for having, say, a pot plant in their house grown for their own personal use that's perhaps found incidentally when the police respond to a report of a burglary at that home.

That person may be a tax-paying, highly-functioning member of society and the "cost" to society of prosecuting them and potentially sticking them in jail, not just the court and legal costs as well as what it costs to put and keep them in jail, should be added to removing someone from a productive, contributing, tax-paying life in society for what is tantamount to a victimless crime.

On the other hand, there are what Karl Marx called the "lumpenproletariat". Because Marxist theory couldn't adequately account for and explain away this cohort of society - nor motivate them to meaningfully contribute to it, this became a large part of the reason why Marxism - and widely implemented Socialism - was deemed unable to ever work. These people provide no benefit to society - and incur tremendous cost to the same.

I once overheard a trauma surgeon say angrily to a cop in the trauma bay one time, "Next time finish the job!" At the time, I was horrified.

It took me years to finally understand what he meant. It was after I took care of a patient, a drunk ex-convict running from the police on his bicycle, who'd been struck by a police car and subsequently smacking his head on the windshield.

The patient had a moderate amount of intraparenchymal brain bleeding, a pneumothorax, and a broken wrist. He was in his early 40's, and had spent his entire life in and out of prison, for things ranging from petty crimes to actual felony assault on a woman.

He was in our ICU (where I was in residency), and cussed and swore the entire time he was there. He spit on nurses. He constantly was trying to get out of bed. He had fulminant, full-blown delirium tremens (which was treated), he was intubated and extubated twice, and had a chest-tube reinserted after it was pulled out.

In total, he spent about 17 days in the hospital, telling staff on each floor he went to how he was either going to kill them or sue them, before finally leaving AMA.

I would estimate, in total - including two trips to the OR, that he probably racked-up between $85,000-$95,000 in charges while he was there. Forget about the fact that he robbed us of resources and the potential for another patient to get a bed.

What did I want to do?

I wanted to find the cop that ran into this guy and give him a little lecture. The substance of this lecture would have been the following...

"Look, I understand that you were probably, in the heat of the moment, pretty pissed off at this guy. He probably, I dunno, flipped you the bird or something, and then started running away on his bike. And, on some level, I bet it felt really good - and you felt justified by the law and whatever else going through your mind at the time - to run him over. What you actually accomplished, however, was the ultimate 'f*ck you' to scores of doctors, nurses, and technicians in the hospital who had to clean-up your misplaced and ineffective little 'behavioral modification' exercise. So, next time, why don't you let this P.O.S. go on his merry way, or put your foot all the way down on the accelerator and finish the job."

We, as a society, have been paying - on so many different levels - for this kind of shenanigans for far too long.

-copro
pretty cynical view....

but i like it
 
Only the loss of what they otherwise would've contributed to society.

-copro

I agree with pgg that the cost is far more than 1 person's life. It weakens the fabric of society when our society's vengeance kills someone. We probably have executed innocent men (though there's never been a documented case). Our justice system is fallible. I think this is best argument against the death penalty. At least with life imprisonment there is always the possibility of rectifying an erroneous decision.
 
I have a minor in Sociology. Suffice it to say that this point has been argued heatedly and ad nauseum throughout decades of criminal theory, and the majority of sociologist and psychological theorist experts feel that the reason this is the case is due, in no small part, to the reasons I elucidate above.

I suggest you get a little more educated on the subject matter before you callously posit such a narrow, throw-away, soundbite-esque type statement.

-copro

lol :laugh:

You have a minor in sociology? BIG WHOOP. Who cares? What you have posted is your OPINION, and nothing else. We all know the saying about opinions.


There is plenty of evidence/opinion/studies out there that show that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent. States without the death penalty have consistently lower murder rates.

From http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf :

According to a survey of the former and present presidents of the
country's top academic criminological societies, 88% of these
experts rejected the notion that the death penalty acts as a
deterrent to murder. (Radelet & Akers, 2009)

A 1995 Hart Research Poll of police chiefs in the US found that
the majority of the chiefs do not believe that the death penalty is
an effective law enforcement tool.

Fact - There have been over 130 death row exonerations. This won't change some folks mind about the death penalty, but it sure does make me wonder how many innocent persons have been executed. IMO, one is too many.

Best wishes🙂
 
one more thing before I return to lurking:

Check out this article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2966790.stm

An excerpt:

Saudi Arabia's leading executioner says he is "very proud to do God's work" and does not lose sleep over beheading several people in one day.
In a rare interview, Muhammad Saad al-Beshi, 42, told the Saudi daily Arab News that he had executed numerous women, as well as men.
"Despite the fact that I hate violence against women, when it comes to God's will, I have to carry it out." He expressed indifference about the number of beheadings he was required to carry out. "It doesn't matter to me: two, four, 10 - as long as I'm doing God's will, it doesn't matter how many people I execute".

This is COLD-BLOODED. Now for all I know, every person whose head or leg or finger he chopped off was guilty as sin. I would imagine that this guy would be the ultimate deterrnet, since the executions are public. But the swift and brutal justice he delivers apparently is not that strong of a deterrent because it seems as if he has no shortage of business.
 
You have a minor in sociology? BIG WHOOP. Who cares? What you have posted is your OPINION, and nothing else. We all know the saying about opinions.

Yeah, BIG WHOOP is right. You said, and I quote...

This is nonsense. Criminals don't put much thought into the repercussions of their activities.

So, who's throwing unsubstantiated and uneducated opinions around? Furthermore, I tell you that my opinion, garnered from actually studying this matter at the University level, therefore trumps your, and you give me something about knowing "the saying about opinions."

Among the reasons, frequently debated, as to why punishment for a variety of crimes, and not just the death penalty, don't serve as a deterrent is because the punishment, despite being severe, isn't swift or certain. If a person thinking about committing a crime knew in advance that they would pay dire consequences for those actions, there are many who would think twice about doing it.

Most just simply don't think they're going to get caught or, if they do get caught, they will get some relatively minor slap on the wrist and be back on the street in no-time-flat.

That is a huge problem with our current jurisprudence system, despite what you wish to ignorantly continue to believe.

As far as your "carrying out God's will stuff" subsequently posted... I have just absolutely nothing to say about that because that is a straw man that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. This has nothing to do with some arbitrary religious tribunal determining that someone violated God's law and then being sentenced with no chance for appeal, and with the sentences often carried out the same day as the conviction. We do have a "due process" system in this country lacking in those religious nut-job countries, and no one - not the least of whom, me - is talking about doing away with that.

The problem with our system is the appeal process takes WAY too long, costs WAY too much money, and leaves people with the belief that, even after being caught, they can still use legal maneuvering to "beat the rap".

If people believe that they will get caught and they will suffer swift, certain, and severe penalty for their crime, many will be deterred. Would you like me to quote you some peer-reviewed articles?

There's pretty much nothing you can do about heat-of-passion crimes, unfortunately, except punish them swiftly, severely, and with certainty.

-copro
 
As far as your "carrying out God's will stuff" subsequently posted... I have just absolutely nothing to say about that because that is a straw man that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. This has nothing to do with some arbitrary religious tribunal determining that someone violated God's law and then being sentenced with no chance for appeal, and with the sentences often carried out the same day as the conviction. We do have a "due process" system in this country lacking in those religious nut-job countries, and no one - not the least of whom, me - is talking about doing away with that.

I will say this... whether right or wrong or whatever you believe...

You don't ever see an Iranian woman walk out into the street without covering her head, do you? Do you know why?

Freedom, in the U.S., comes with responsibility. I'm for legislation and enforcement of laws that protect people from committing crimes against other free-choosing people. Nothing more. But, if you break those laws, justice should come swiftly, and the worst of those crimes is murder of another individual in society, especially wanton, premeditated murder - and I believe you lose your right to participate in this society when you commit such a crime... or, we could just send those people to Australia.

-copro
 
I gotta make another point...

People are talking about the "social fabric of society" and not "killing" people who are "innocent".

I gotta tell you, guilt and innocence are legal terms. Once you have been convicted in a court of law, that is - or should be - the final say. But, it isn't. You have an appeals process that is the "check and balance" in the system. And, this can go all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary.

What tears at the fabric of society is the view that our court system is a joke, that it can be "beaten" by slick trial attorneys with silvery tongues twisting the facts to fit whichever argument they want to make. What tears at the fabric of society is the belief that you can stall the courts with motions and maneuvering seemingly indefinitely.

My feeling is that you deserve your day in court, and you deserve the right to face your accusers. You get this now... and much more. My problem is that the verdict is perceived as not being final - the principle of certainty and that the system is set-up for people to feel that they are cheated.

I hear all of your arguments about the fault of the system. And, I have an analogy...

When I was in medical school, I rotated at a hospital that banned subclavian line placements. Why? Because sometime back, by a series of a few different people over a period of several months, they had a bunch of pneumothoraxes during line placement. Finally, one of those ended-up in a lawsuit.

So, what was the response of the administrators? No more subclavian lines.

This is the same principle here. Instead of trying to improve the system and figure out better ways to deliver swift, certain, and severe punishment, people want to ban the most severe form of punishment altogether - despite the fact that our system, our legal jurisprudence system as imperfect as it may be - has adjudicated that case and determined the best course of action.

Fear. That's what this comes down to. Fear of making a mistake, so the "zero-risk" bias says don't do anything.

In other words...

Don't figure out how to do it better; just don't do it at all. Inaction solves the problem.

I hate this particularly bizarre and puzzling facet of human nature.

-copro
 
Last edited:
Top