Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
State of Executions
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Leesagunns" data-source="post: 1402492" data-attributes="member: 16002"><p>As I am sure most of you have seen in the news lately the great state we live in has made the news internationally for using a drug that is normally used to on animals to euthanize to execute a man on death row. Here is a link to the story for those who haven't yet heard about this or haven't heard much:</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6BG0IM20101217" target="_blank">http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6BG0IM20101217</a></p><p></p><p></p><p>Just for the sake of a interesting discussion, is this a proper alternative? Shoud the execution have been stayed until the drug that is normally used been obtained? Could this give others on death row a way to fight and/or prolong their execution? Would opinion of the use of this drug been different had it not worked the way it did or was supposed and in turn caused undue suffering? Would the family of the inmate then have legal recourse with the state for using this drug and causing undue suffering? Not that you have to really answer any of these questions, as they are just the ones that popped into my head when I saw the story. Just wondering really what everyone else thought as well.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Leesagunns, post: 1402492, member: 16002"] As I am sure most of you have seen in the news lately the great state we live in has made the news internationally for using a drug that is normally used to on animals to euthanize to execute a man on death row. Here is a link to the story for those who haven't yet heard about this or haven't heard much: [url]http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6BG0IM20101217[/url] Just for the sake of a interesting discussion, is this a proper alternative? Shoud the execution have been stayed until the drug that is normally used been obtained? Could this give others on death row a way to fight and/or prolong their execution? Would opinion of the use of this drug been different had it not worked the way it did or was supposed and in turn caused undue suffering? Would the family of the inmate then have legal recourse with the state for using this drug and causing undue suffering? Not that you have to really answer any of these questions, as they are just the ones that popped into my head when I saw the story. Just wondering really what everyone else thought as well. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
State of Executions
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom