Death Penalty

Botched Execution Timeline Raises Questions

|

Letha injection
Credit: Ken Piorkowski/wikimedia

timeline of Oklahoma's botched execution (covered yesterday) was released today by Robert Patton, director of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections. The timeline revealed that Clayton Lockett was Tasered and cut his own arm hours before he was executed. The timeline also revealed that the lethal injection IV was inserted into Lockett's groin area. The insertion area was "covered with a sheet" before the curtain was lifted to prevent witnesses from viewing his groin. Prior to inserting the IV, staff examined both of Lockett's arms, legs, feet, and his neck and concluded that "no viable point of entry" was located.

It seems highly suspicious that a man, who was described by his lawyer as being healthy and a non-drug user, would have no "viable point of entry" for the IV besides his groin.

A lot of information was left out of the timeline, which raises questions about whether or not it's fully transparent. For example, it fails to mention Lockett thrashing violently and attempting to speak, despite having been declared unconscious. It also does not include any information about what happened between 6:56 p.m., when the director of the Oklahoma DOC called off the execution, and 7:06 p.m., when Lockett was pronounced dead. Finally, little information was included about what happened after the curtain was lowered at 6:42 p.m. The timeline states that the doctor checked the IV at 6:42 p.m. (the first time it was checked since Lockett was declared unconscious at 6:33 p.m.) and found "the blood vein had collapsed, and the drugs had either absorbed into tissue, leaked out or both." However, there's no information about what happened between 6:44 p.m. and 6:56 p.m., besides details of a phone conversation between the warden and the director, in which the warden admits that not enough drugs had been administered to cause death.

In the document, Patton also recommended that the Court of Criminal Appeals issue an indefinite stay of executions in the state.

NEXT: Tech Companies Increasingly Refusing to Keep Government Searches Secret

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I would rather put my focus on innocent people who are summarily executed by cops for not following orders. This guy buried somebody alive. It’s not very high on my list.

    1. My recommendation is go back to hanging. Lethal injection has all sorts of problems.

    2. The point is more that the government can’t even do killing right without fucking up, probably covering up, and who knows what else. They shouldn’t have the ability to kill citizens like this, no only because they can’t even do it right, but if they can’t do that, who says they got the conviction right?

      It’s not about this guy specifically.

      1. How hard is it to kill someone painlessly? Couldn’t they just give him an overdose of heroin?

        Of all the things that government fucks up, you would think killing people wouldn’t be one of them.

        1. Just take them out back and shoot them. WTF is so difficult about that?

        2. Giving them heroin would send the wrong message to our children.

        3. It only fucks up killing people it intends to kill. Our government is like 10x prestige level expert on killing people who’ve done nothing to merit death.

        4. If only he was a suspected terrorist traipsing around Yemen.

      2. It’s not about this guy specifically.

        You sure about that?

        If I was executing this guy and knew what he had done i would be looking for ways to “fuck it up” so that he suffered while he died.

        1. You’d make a great cop.

      3. The problem is that execution of convicted criminals is explicitly allowed under the 5th amendment. It is an uphill battle.

        1. No, it’s not an uphill battle. Capital punishment will be abolished in most, if not all, states in the foreseeable future.

      4. There is no doubt Clayton Lockett shot an 18 year old girl and buried her alive in a ditch. He also raped her friend that night. He confessed and his accomplice implicated him as well.

        If there was ever a crime that warranted the death penalty, it was this one. I think the death penalty should only be invoked for truly heinous crimes where the guilt of the person passes some higher standard of doubt, perhaps concurrent with a confession or incontrovertible evidence.

        And there are several ways to execute someone quickly and painlessly. The state being retarded enough to use a mystery cocktail of drugs doesn’t mean capital punishment is inherently cruel and unusual.

        1. ^This.

        2. I’ve re-examined basically all of my political beliefs in the last decade, and the death penalty is one issue that I am having trouble squaring with my libertarian beliefs. I believe that there are some people that are so heinous and evil that they need to be removed from the face of the earth. I’m conflicted on who should be in charge of that.

          1. I’m conflicted on who should be in charge of that.

            The common law concept of outlawry inspires.

            1. Who has the power to declare someone an outlaw, which in practice is the same as a death sentence?

              1. Who has the power to declare someone an outlaw

                In a polycentric legal system, the leaders of the community. Back in the day of the Greek city-states, if one city-state declared you an outlaw, you could always flee to another one, provided you made it that far.

                1. You triggered the anti Pale Aborigine script lol.

                  1. I wondered why that was flagged.

                  2. Power Word: CS, I take it?

                    1. Yes, two words that flag it seem to be, ah ahem….”town-province” and the surname of a certain hated sibling duo.

                    2. What does the filter have against the Osmonds?

            2. Women were declared “waived” rather than outlawed but it was effectively the same punishment.

              Those poor young waifs.

          2. To clarify what I mean be heinous, I feel there are three types of murder (not counting negligent homicide, manslaughter, etc): crimes of passion, like shooting your cheating spouse in a fit of rage, crimes of profit, like shooting a a clerk in the process of robbing a store, and crimes motivated by malice and sadism.

            All three warrant severe punishment, but they are different because of intent. A person who kills someone just for the pleasure of watching them suffer is, in my opinion, unworthy of life.

            Someone like Clayton Lockett who committed a crime because he wanted to make that girl suffer absolutely deserves to be eliminated because it is moral outrage that human consciousness be allowed to waste on such a person.

            1. Did you read about the parolee who cut off his ankle monitor in the Central Valley? He was convicted of sodomizing 2 different infants, and yet they paroled him. I guess they needed more room to house marijuana offenders.

              1. He was convicted of sodomizing 2 different infants, and yet they paroled him.

                You know what I think should be done to that piece of shit.

            2. All three warrant severe punishment, but they are different because of intent. A person who kills someone just for the pleasure of watching them suffer is, in my opinion, unworthy of life.

              How does this not end up justifying hate crimes legislation?

              1. You’ll have to explain how you connect hate crimes (assuming you mean crimes motivated by racial, religious, and homophobic animosity) with a crime that is sadistic in nature.

                I feel that isn’t a proper comparison because I am referring to crimes where the perpetrator deliberately made the victim suffer as opposed to being interested in just killing them as quickly as possible.

                1. I don’t like judging things based on intent, period. No one knows the contents of someone’s inner thoughts.

                  The reason your sadistic torture/murder types get the death sentence is because they combine murder with premeditation, plus usually throw in kidnapping and rape, and often do it to multiple victims.

                  Oh, and I think an armed robber who shoots someone for the contents of a cash register is in a way more despicable then your Jeffrey Dahmer types. Mad dogs need to be put down or locked up, but someone who chooses to kill in order to steal is someone who has made a rational decision to be evil. They are the far greater threat.

                  1. I don’t like judging things based on intent, period. No one knows the contents of someone’s inner thoughts.

                    Completely agree in cases where the race or sexual origination of the victim is the only thing that would indicate a crime motivated by racial hatred or homophobia.

                    But sometimes the perpetrator makes it clear by shouting slurs during the crime or by writing a manifesto. Like the white supremacist who killed those people at the Jewish community center in Kansas City.

                    Oh, and I think an armed robber who shoots someone for the contents of a cash register is in a way more despicable then your Jeffrey Dahmer types.

                    I guess it would depend on the context. If you are rational then life in prison to reflect upon your crime is probably a worse punishment than death. You sort of fade away.

                    The Dahmers generally are not capable of that kind of reflection, which lessens the punishment of life imprisonment.

                    1. But sometimes the perpetrator makes it clear by shouting slurs during the crime or by writing a manifesto. Like the white supremacist who killed those people at the Jewish community center in Kansas City.

                      Right, but I’d argue we don’t want to dignify that kind of bullshit with official cognizance. You don’t want to send crazy old murderous racist to jail for his thoughts, you want to send him to jail for his actions. Particularly you don’t want to give any kind of credence, particularly in the JCC shooting case, of the whole “Jews pulling the strings” thing. He should get the same sentence as someone who shot people in a convenience store parking lot for no particular reason.

                      It is the act that is bad, not the motivation.

                2. Having once had a cheating spouse, you should know that had I ever walked in on that, I would have committed two of those three types of murder simultaneously. It would have been a crime of passion no doubt, but I also wouldn’t have rushed through the process and would take a rather disturbing glee in a slow, methodical, and drawn out death that would make the Bastard of Bolton shout “mercy” to the executioner.

                  And hell, if there were a few bucks lying around after all was said and done, I would’ve grabbed those and hit a steakhouse for a nice meal before being tossed in the can.

                  1. I also wouldn’t have rushed through the process and would take a rather disturbing glee in a slow, methodical, and drawn out death that would make the Bastard of Bolton shout “mercy” to the executioner.

                    So, you’re a sociopath?

                3. Hate crimes legislation was intended to take a heavier hand against violence against property or persons intended to cow minorities into not fully participating in society.

                  You’ve just stated that you’re willing to judge his actions based on intent. I can buy into Virginian’s assessment that these people are stacking premeditation, torture, etc, but the standard libertarian chorus whenever hate crimes come up is that the violent act is same whether they did it for the sheer joy of the violent act, or because they “hated” the person.

                  So I don’t see how your logic doesn’t lead to a crime meant to terrorize a community into behaving couldn’t be ranked as worse than one of arbitrary violence.

                  1. You’ve just stated that you’re willing to judge his actions based on intent. I can buy into Virginian’s assessment that these people are stacking premeditation, torture, etc, but the standard libertarian chorus whenever hate crimes come up is that the violent act is same whether they did it for the sheer joy of the violent act, or because they “hated” the person.

                    I don’t think I’ve ever opposed hate crime legislation on the grounds that we should not consider intent in deciding punishment so much as it does two things:

                    1. It can be tacked on even in cases where the intent of the crime is not obvious and thus requires thought reading.

                    2. It removes discretion from the judge, which is problematic like with all mandatory minimums.

                    And again, I am advocating the removal of people that are incapable of empathy or remorse for their actions, as evident by the cruelty and sadism of their crime. For other homicides life imprisonment is probably a more just punishment because the convicted is given the rest of their life to reflect.

                    1. Hmmm, neither of you two has been drinking, I see.

                    2. 1. It can be tacked on even in cases where the intent of the crime is not obvious and thus requires thought reading.

                      This is mostly what makes me uncomfortable with the laws. I can generally understand why people think they’re a good thing, but they almost immediately become arbitrary sentence enhancers.

                      You have the case with the Menonites assaulting each other for an intra-church battle and it was a Federal hate crime, but the black kid gets beaten by a Jewish gang because he’s not one of them and is walking through their neighborhood and there’d been a bunch of car thefts and it’s found not to be a hate crime. The application is just wacky.

                      Your last sentence is oddly reminiscent of 18th Century prison reformers.

          3. If you are a libertarian then it should be fairly easy for you to imagine government getting it wrong, as in, killing innocent people. It has happened, it continues to happen and it will happen in the future until capital punishment is finally abolished. At least those who are sentenced to life in prison unjustly have some possibility of that injustice one day being corrected. The executed do not.

            Also, as a libertarian, you should be concerned that the cost of killing someone far exceeds the cost of keeping them in prison for life. And you should really not want, as a libertarian, to make capital punishment cheap, fast and easy for the government.

            Do you need other reasons?

          4. I’ve re-examined basically all of my political beliefs in the last decade, and the death penalty is one issue that I am having trouble squaring with my libertarian beliefs. I believe that there are some people that are so heinous and evil that they need to be removed from the face of the earth. I’m conflicted on who should be in charge of that.

            I get it. I really do. If I came home to find someone raping my daughter, I’d kill him with my bare hands, castrate his corpse, and put the corpse on a pike outside my house as a warning to future intruders.

            This in no way means I trust the government to administer capital punishment.

          5. “I believe that there are some people that are so heinous and evil that they need to be removed from the face of the earth. I’m conflicted on who should be in charge of that.”

            A jury.

        3. I hear what you’re saying, but my belief in the incompetence and venality of the state is so high that even in cases like this I can see a prosecutor withholding exculpatory evidence or doing anything they have to to get a conviction because the crime is so heinous.

          Since that’s why I am opposed to the death penalty, I don’t give up my opposition if the crime is more terrible. The more terrible the crime, the more reason and opportunity for the state to lie/fuck up/frame someone.

          1. Right, and for this reason I think the death penalty should only be used sparingly.

            But what are you going to do with someone as evil as, say, Jeffrey Dahmer? A basement full of dismembered corpses is pretty damning evidence.

            The majority of the time that isn’t the case, but when it happens there ought to be that option on the table.

            1. Again, I don’t believe in “damning evidence” in this way. I guarantee you there have been people in history who have been framed bigtime and it probably included a lot of “damning evidence”. I’m not saying that no one can ever be convicted or anything (I’m only applying this to the death penalty); it’s just that killing someone is final. Since we know that people have been framed with “damning evidence” before, or that cops or labs have been massively incompetent, killing anyone in this way seems wrong.

              Remember that I’m merely arguing from within the framework of a system I don’t even believe in, because that’s the system we live in. My personal belief is that everyone is going to do what they’re going to do, and if somebody killed Dahmer because he murdered someone they cared about, whether they got it right is on them. I don’t really care one way or the other since I’m not responsible.

              1. Preach!

                1. Great, look who just ruined the thread…you know, nicole, you’re like the A-bomb, everyone’s laughing having a good time and you show up BOOM! Everything’s dead!

        4. I’m not against capital punishment *in theory*. I have no problem with the idea that some people *need* to be killed.

          But this underscores my opposition to CP *in practice*.

          Not only can I not trust the judiciary to ensure that the people on death row actually should be there, then they go and do a fuck up like this.

          But all this comes from not wanting to offend the sensibilities of the public.

          There exist multiple ways of killing a person that are reasonably quick and painless but the guy doesn’t ‘just go to sleep’.

          Hanging
          Electrocution
          Small caliber round to the back of the head
          Hell, a sedative, plastic bag, and a roll of duct tape.

          1. Yes. I am also not opposed to the concept of killing in retribution, but I don’t trust the government to do any part of it. If someone kills the man who raped and killed his daughter, that’s an individual performing an action and taking responsibility for it. When the state kills, no one takes responsibility, which is why they fuck up so much.

            1. Should the man who kills to avenge his daughter be held criminally accountable?

              1. I’d go case by case and let a jury nullify if he was justified.

              2. You do remember you’re talking to an individualist anarchist, right? I don’t give two fucks about criminally liable. You look at the rules that surround you and decide if what you want to do is worth it to you.

                1. Personally, I would do it. But I’m patient, disciplined, and knowledgeable enough to get away with it.

                  If not, I can afford a good lawyer.

                  1. Then that makes you, at heart, an individualist anarchist. Just like all humans whether they admit it to themselves or not.

                    “I will accept any rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.”

                    1. Does that mean I need to go smash Starbuck’s windows in Seattle at the next WTO meeting?

                  2. Do you need my Silk Road username just in case the circumstance ever arises where that need is present?

                    1. To hire a murderer? I’m an explosives expert. I’ll do it myself.

              3. YES!

            2. If someone kills the man who raped and killed his daughter, that’s an individual performing an action and taking responsibility for it.

              What about punishing someone who makes his pronoun antecedents so ambiguous? Lashing with a yardstick?

              1. I do it to make you think. About what I have no idea.

        5. Hangin’s too good for that MFer.

          1. Hanging can be fucked up too.

            John Wood, the hangman at Nuremburg, did not properly calculate the weight ratios and rope necessary for a quick neck-snap when the gallows gave. Himmler saluted Seig Heil for 22 minutes while he strangled to death.

            John Wood never hung another man.

            1. You think it was accidental? I don’t

            2. Himmler saluted Seig Heil for 22 minutes while he strangled to death.

              Himmler committed suicide at an interrogation camp near L?neburg.

        6. I think the death penalty should only be invoked for truly heinous crimes where the guilt of the person passes some higher standard of doubt, perhaps concurrent with a confession or incontrovertible evidence.

          1) I think that’s a great way to never get another confession.

          2) “Incontrovertible” seems like one of those words that would never get abused, but it would. If you’re going to draw a line that says “Only crimes worse than this get the death penalty,” you have to remember that the people drawing that line are the same people who went into Iraq on faulty intel, the same people who think that vaping is an unsafe alternative to smoking, the same people who lock nonviolent drug uses in jail, etc.

    3. Yeah. The state fucking up an execution of a justly condemned man (but still resulting in the desired outcome without too much fuss) ain’t great, but it’s not anywhere near my list of priorities for government.

  2. It’s a hell of a thing, killing a man. Take away all he’s got, and all he’s ever gonna have.

    1. +1forgiven

    2. I guess he should have armed himself then

    3. In the Icelandic Commwealth, the punishment for high outlawry was confiscation of all property and ostracism. However, if you could prove that you killed 3 other outlaws you were allowed back into the community.

      This was rather ingenious. First, it prevented outlaws from forming gangs, and second, it relieved the burden of the death penalty from the community.

      Things used to be so simple.

      1. However, if you could prove that you killed 3 other outlaws you were allowed back into the community.

        That would make for an epic, er, epic.

      2. That’s a bit utilitarian, isn’t it?

        I’ll admit that it demonstrates a good understanding of incentives, though.

  3. It seems highly suspicious that a man, who was described by his lawyer as being healthy and a non-drug user, would have no “viable point of entry” for the IV besides his groin.

    Not necessarily – I’m healthy and a non-drug user but also a bit chunky and have had difficulty with finding a vein for blood-draws.

    1. If you take diuretics or are dehydrated, it can be very hard to find and hit a vein.

      My Father in Law learned how to do IVs in med school from a heroin addict. The guy was known as a “hitter”, somebody who had the ability to find a vein in anyone, and he would get high for free for providing the service.

  4. So if I’m foursquare against government being allowed to kill as punishment, yet I still can’t work up much outrage because this guy’s needle made an owwie, does that make me a statist thug?

    1. Yes – because your letting personal feelings about this one guy blind you to the problems the state is encountering in doing this properly.

      Its not about them fucking up *this* guy’s execution. That’s just a screen deflecting attention from the laws enforcing secrecy around how they do this.

      1. I dunno, I think I can simultaneously prefer the guy had spent the rest of his life in prison instead of being executed, yet at the same time not be able to work up much sympathy over execution itself, botched though it may have been. In other words, opposing the death penalty doesn’t necessarily have to entail sympathy for the condemned.

    2. it makes you a human being, one who cannot fathom how a person can harm a child, let alone kill her in such a horrid fashion. Is it emotional? Sure, but that’s part of the human makeup.

      This bastard deserves no one’s sympathy. That the state struggled to carry out something so seemingly simple merely indicts its incompetence.

      1. It has nothing at all to do with what you think about the executee, just the standard to which we hold the executioner.

        1. It’s the state so my expectations are low. That this guy’s execution got fucked up is not going to bother me. But then I’m okay with the worst of the worst dying in the same manner as their victims.

      2. This bastard deserves no one’s sympathy. That the state struggled to carry out something so seemingly simple merely indicts its incompetence.

        So to recap, I can simultaneously shake my fist at the sky at the injustice of state-sponsored killing and wish they’d “accidentally” swapped out his execution drugs for bleach . . . is that about right?

    1. So now it’s the late-night links?

      1. You’ve done enough for Thursday.

        1. “Enough?” You sound like my crack dealer.

          1. “You’ve had enough crack”
            “Let the others get a chance”
            “Even Mayor Ford would have quit by this point”

            1. No joke, I saw a junkie a couple weeks ago at Pershing Square who was dressed almost identically to Chappel’s Tyrone Biggums character.

              1. And yet you bash the westside.

    2. Great. I was never going to go there anyway, but this is just going to reinforce my wife’s fears.

      She has refused to go to Dubai or the Maldives. Apparently, their Jew-detecting technologies are cutting edge.

      1. I’ll say it again, compared to the Gulf, Islamic South and Southeast Asia is becoming more Saudi Arabian than Saudi Arabia. It’s nuts. Baharain’s ambassador to the United States is a Jewish woman and in Malaysia they’re screaming for the blood of the Yahud. The probability that your average Malay has even met a Jew? Infinitesimal.

          1. The Maldives are gorgeous, but the good thing is now that Sri Lanka is over her troubles, there are just as beautiful places over there to visit.

          2. There’s always Tora Bora, right?

            1. Bora Bora?

              1. That too. Although once the troubles are over I’m sure Tora Bora will have its charms.

                1. Not unless you’re into spelunking.

    3. In fairness, stoning seems like a difficult procedure to fuck up all that badly.

      Shit, they taught us how back in middle school.

      1. I thought that was going to be a link about dodgeball.

  5. There sure are a lot of reactionaries that call themselves libertarians. You want to give the power of life and death to the government but then bitch and moan and bitch and moan and bitch and moan about Obama raising taxes 2% on rich assholes?

    1. Obama raising taxes 2% on rich assholes

      Obama raised taxes? I was told this was a Teathuglican lie.

      1. Yes, pity it wasn’t more. Libertarians bitch about 15% rate that rich people pay on their capital gains and then debate which style of execution is better in a death penalty process that costs the taxpayer millions of dollars.

        The problem with commenters on this page is that they are willing to have the government intrude on personal liberty where they want the government to intrude– and that isn’t libertarianism. I don’t want the government deciding what is kosher in my personal life at all and I certainly don’t want them to have the power to put people to death.

        1. they are willing to have the government intrude on personal liberty where they want the government to intrude– and that isn’t libertarianism

          Citation needed.

            1. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You had to go back to 2003 for a citation, and the citation doesn’t even prove what you were trying to claim.

              That article is masturbatory bullshit on Bailey’s part, but at no point does he say anything that is opposed to individual liberty. Unless you think his argument about training soldiers to overthrow tyrannies is somehow an affront to individual freedom.

        2. Trolling evaluation: Continued willful misreading of the thread conversation in an attempt to justify troll’s riding of ideological hobby-horse.

          Grade F

          1. CAn I grade your shitty website now? The #1 site in providing unicorn stickers to a world that surely must be demanding them high and low. And people say I have a low opinion of what the free market provides. Is that you in the 3rd picture? You look like a fucking lowlife dweeb.

            1. Hi Mary!

            2. Holy shit, this is hilarious.

              1. I blame all you motherfuckers who bitched me into changing my link to cornify when you complained that my gravatar was screwing up the thread.

            3. Are you fucking kidding me?

            4. You’re babbling AGAIN…it seems it’s all you are capable. As a troll like HM posted you are an epic fail.

        3. Libertarians bitch about 15% rate that rich people pay on their capital gains and then debate which style of execution is better in a death penalty process that costs the taxpayer millions of dollars.

          I also bitch about the hyper-regressive sales tax which, strangely enough, is always far higher in left-wing cities.

          You leftists are so caring! If it weren’t for you taking money out of the pockets of poor people with 10% sales taxes, they might spend it on crack or something.

          Truly, it is the white progressive’s burden.

        4. I don’t want the government deciding what is kosher in my personal life at all

          So… you want the liberty to choose how you’ll be executed? How does this criticism relate to a single thing said in these comments?

          1. Nope… Do libertarians read? I don’t want the government to have the power to put people to death. For Christ’s fucking sake… Don’t leave it up to a socialist to lecture “libertarians” on the proper extent of government power.

        5. The problem with commenters on this page is that they are willing to have the government intrude on personal liberty where they want the government to intrude

          Yeah, like, say, trying people for crimes in courts and then meting out punishment for the crimes if they are convicted on the terms offered by the courts.

          Stick with ROADZ!!!!! it’s a lot closer to coherent.

          1. “Yeah, like, say, trying people for crimes in courts and then meting out punishment for the crimes if they are convicted on the terms offered by the courts.”

            Fine by me. I luv it a lot when libertarians make “Rule of Law” arguments on things they want the government to do. Was I suggesting something otherwise? You “libertarians” sound exactly like a bitchy queen Republican on steroids.

    2. Newsletter?

    3. Trolling evaluation: Willful misreading of forum conversation too transparent. Obama reference too gratuitous and expected. Comment not attached to any OP’s post causing defensive reaction.

      Grade: C-

      1. so you’re grading on a curve. That seems awful generous for such a weak effort.

      2. “willful misreading of forum conversation”

        I’m curious where you think I’m misreading comments like this…

        “It’s not about this guy specifically.

        You sure about that?

        If I was executing this guy and knew what he had done i would be looking for ways to “fuck it up” so that he suffered while he died.”

        Or the 20 other comments along the same line?

        1. You should totally invite all of the people on death row to your socialist paradise.

        2. If I was executing this guy and knew what he had done i would be looking for ways to “fuck it up” so that he suffered while he died.”

          That’s weird. I saw no comments in any way similar to this one. I saw comments from people saying they don’t like the death penalty but that they can’t get too upset about this guy because he committed such a vile and disgusting crime. Of course, that’s in no way similar to saying you would have willfully tortured the man if given the opportunity.

          Is there some sort of second Reason website that our trolls read that’s filled with reactionary neo-cons?

          1. reactionary neo-cons

            There’s no such thing. There are reactionaries, and there are neo-cons, but there are no reactionary neocons.

          2. Nope… Just this one. Where did I mention neocons?

            “Mr Whipple|5.1.14 @ 8:43PM|#

            Just take them out back and shoot them. WTF is so difficult about that?”

            1. Just take them out back and shoot them. WTF is so difficult about that?

              Sounds like an admirably socialist sentiment to me, no doubt said by millions of soldiers wearing red flags of socialist solidarity in the presence of their victims.

        3. I’m starting to realize that English is not your first language. However, you must, surely you must, have enough reading comprehension to realize that the phrase “It’s not about this guy specifically.” was from Epi’s post stating his opposition to the death penalty under all circumstances.

          And then you lied.

          1. Only read the threads here once in a while. Is this AmerSoc simply trying to rile you guys? His posts provocoke an interesting dillema: Is it possible to be arguing in bad faith if you don’t know you are arguing in bad faith?

            1. And why the hell can’t you edit your posts? “Rile up” and “provoke”. Sorry.

            2. You tell me. Maybe you should tell that to the libertarians above who debate which brutal style of execution is appropriate for this despicable offender.

  6. What a nut punching Thursday. In good news, I just confirmed that I get all of Memorial Day weekend off, and I have nothing on my calendar.

    Mammoth Mountain currently has just over 6 feet of snow right now, and nice hotels there are practically giving away pre-paid rooms. Book, or is it too risky?

    1. Further: The road to Yosemite (closed in winter) opens tomorrow, So the hotel will be in driving distance of Yosemite.

      1. Do it.

        If there is no snow, you can always call Yosemite.

        Of course, I can always find snow*

        *ya, now its overkill

        1. 5 days credit for good behavior. Make it 6 for the Silk Road reference. You’ve earned some time off.

  7. Really, I’m just waiting for Texas to really stick it to the EU by systematically switching its protocol to cycle through each and every chemical it can find that’s made in the EU and not the US, thus encouraging chemical producers companies to relocate from the EU to Texas so they can sell worldwide.

  8. Who knew this would become the evening chatterbox cafe? I’m going to repost the note below here, as I pretty much added this to another thread just as everyone left. I’m hoping you all have some thoughts:
    _______________________________

    I just got some good news. I found out I have to be in Las Vegas on business in July. The business ends late afternoon on July 9, so I will have a paid hotel room for that night. One hour after my business ends, just down the street, the libertarian extravaganza Freedom Fest begins! So I can stay an extra day or so on my own dime, but essentially I’m getting airfare, connections and half the lodging covered for me to attend the World’s Largest Gathering of Free Minds.

    Anyone else going or has ever attended? I’d like to know what you think. I’m going to try and finally meet PJ O’Rourke, and will give Stossel a hug for FdA. Maybe even Julie Borowski will tell me I don’t look so bad for my age.(Julie and I are much closer in age than D. Sterling and his paramour — I’m using that as a barometer from now on.)

    1. Thoughts? Do it.

    2. Don’t miss http://machinegunsvegas.com/ when you’re there. And note that while they show everything in packages, I simply asked and got 50 rounds with the Thompson for $70. And about 35 of them actually hit the target. A total blast.

      The Yelp reviews are often funny. Along the lines of “I’m a liberal Democrat lesbian feminist vegan from Berkeley, so I wasn’t sure about this, but OMG it was fun!”

      1. The Yelp reviews are often funny. Along the lines of “I’m a liberal Democrat lesbian feminist vegan from Berkeley, so I wasn’t sure about this, but OMG it was fun!”

        Which is why we’re winning. What do gun grabbers do for fun to get people with their politics? Go to antigun shows? Go to a range and scowl at all the grinning people?

        1. The fraction of 1% that are attractive can withhold sex, but that’s about all they have.

          1. I’m trying to think of attractive antigun people. I’m sure Hollywood has a few.

            1. It’s a small fraction.

        2. The problem is that for a lot of people, self-righteous moral indignation is a lot of fun.

    3. I’m glad your vacation question is getting responses. Do you like sitting out by the pool, or are you some sort of dermatologist?

      I used to go to Vegas with my wife all the time before we had kids, usually in the summer. Cheap rooms, pool weather, and great food.

      They didn’t have topless pools back then. A shame.

      1. And the golf is cheaper! (since no one much enjoys baking under 115 degree sun)

        1. I like golf courses. I live on one. But I have better things to do with my time than hitting a ball with a stick and chasing it all day.

  9. Since it is apparently a nutpuch Thursday, what are the chances of a person who had their firearms confiscated during a heavily armed police raid of getting them back?

    Asking because my dad was just asked to be a character witness for the son of his best friend that got arrested for failing to surrender his firearms. This being after his bipolar sister (falsely, to my knowledge) accused him of striking her and filed a restraining order against him.

    Is it really that easy to screw someone over?

    1. It can be. A good lawyer will help.

      1. Without a lawyer, I don’t know how much chance he’d have of getting his stuff back. With a lawyer, who knows?

    2. *ahem*

      WAR ON WOMEN

      VAWA

    3. Very complicated. With a TRO, you have to surrender, and then you get them back. An emergency TRO is very limited in duration, hence the “T” for temporary, and there is a hearing to determine if the order should be extended. If you comply with the TRO, the guns are returned automatically if the emergency TRO is not extended. If you fail to comply, there are all sorts of legal hoops to jump through. The arrest further complicates the matter.

      1. The smart thing to do if you are served with a TRO is to sign your guns (that are registered) over to a trusted family member or friend.

  10. The death penalty is warranted in many cases, but I absolutely do not trust the government with the power. I am solidly against the death penalty.

    Also, I hope Clayton Lockett suffered horribly.

    1. Am I alone in being ambivalent about his suffering? The man’s dead now. Any psychic reward for his pains prior to death has dissipated into the ether or wherever else the soul goes when it’s gone (as an atheist, the entire preceding sentence is just mealymouthed word-mush). At least with life imprisonment, or civil penalties, there’s a tangible sentence meted out. There’s a punishment for a still-living transgressor. But vengeance isn’t a proper role for the courts. The courts take criminals out of civil society. They’re not tasked with being bloodletters. I’m sure HM knows a better term for it.

      1. *In best George W Bush voice*
        “Some people need killin’!”

        1. I honestly miss watching the Commander in Chief slow-read his way through the SotU. I didn’t think I would until Professor Telegenic proved me wrong.

  11. “(Reuters) – A 26-year-old worker at a fortune cookie factor died of multiple blunt trauma injuries after falling into a dough-mixing machine at a factory in Houston over the weekend, a medical examiner’s office said on Thursday.”

    http://www.reuters.com/article…..mesticNews

    1. It’s interesting that you post this, because it’s the kind of story that progs point to and say “See! we have to get rid of capitalism because bad things sometimes happen in companies” but libertarian opponents of the death penalty often make the same kind of argument.

      1. I like where you are going with this, but I would look out for spitballs and rotten vegetables.

      2. I figured he posted it hoping for a thread of fortune cookie jokes.

        “You’ll soon find a large pile of dough”

        “Now is the time to try something new” (raw dough)

        1. That’s probably true, here’s the funniest fortune cookie related thing I know of

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9m22L1XllRg

    2. “You learn from your mistakes, you will learn a lot today.”

    3. “You will soon find your name in the papers.”

    4. “Elegant surroundings will soon be yours.”

    5. “There is a prospect of a thrilling time ahead for you.”

      1. “Man who fall into dough get blunt trauma blow!”

  12. I think that if we are going to be a-ok with a convicted murderer/rapist dying of a heart attach for over 40 minutes, we should seriously consider eliminating the “Cruel and Unusual Punishment” clause of the constitution.

    Next time, we can just hand the guy over to the KKK so they can do an old fashion nigger lynching.

    “Jesus wasn’t there”

    1. Just because the punishment fits the crime, does not mean that it is appropriate as a society to institutionalize it as a general punishment, or to place its administration in the hands of the state.

      This applies equally to cruel and unusual punishment as it does to the death penalty, IMHO.

      1. Look. This guy killed ONE woman.

        Terry Nichols murdered 161 people in the Oklahoma bombing.

        If you are not going to give Terry Nichols the Death Penalty, Get rid of that ridiculous SLOT MACHINE.

        1. derp derp derp derp derp

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Nichols

          He was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole because the jury deadlocked on the death penalty.[6]

          Do your fucking research. You’re an IT guy right? Google some shit before you spout off.

          1. Still, VA, it doesn’t detract from his point about the arbitrariness of sentencing in capital cases. If it’s possible that murdering 161 can cause a jury to deadlock, but another jury can mete out swift justice for a murderer of 1…that’s kinda fucked up, imo.

            1. Federal law used to allow death sentences *unless* the jury unanimously gave the defendant life.

              Now it’s changed so a single juror can veto the death penalty.

              One bad side-effect is that it lets people blame jurors.

            2. If it’s possible that murdering 161 can cause a jury to deadlock, but another jury can mete out swift justice for a murderer of 1…that’s kinda fucked up, imo.

              The fact that different juries can reach different conclusions is true of literally all laws. By your logic, we should just eliminate trial by jury.

              I am 100% opposed to the death penalty, but this doesn’t strike me as a compelling reason.

              1. By your logic, we should just eliminate trial by jury.

                Not necessarily. Juries have guidelines they must follow when sentencing, no? I’m just saying make the guidelines less arbitrary.

            3. Still, VA, it doesn’t detract from his point about the arbitrariness of sentencing in capital cases. If it’s possible that murdering 161 can cause a jury to deadlock, but another jury can mete out swift justice for a murderer of 1…that’s kinda fucked up, imo.

              The cases presented are different. Nichols, if I recall correctly, was an accessory and accomplice, and I probably would have demurred on the death penalty myself because I do think it possible, I repeat possible, that he was the victim of a government railroading looking for as many possible boogeymen following the OKC bombing.

              But from what I’ve seen, the shithead from the other day raped and killed a woman in front of witnesses, and then confessed to it.

              A fair comparison would be to compare McVeigh to Lockett. Which, you know, kind of proves the point.

              1. I see where you’re coming from.

          2. Alice is a guy? WTF, I need to better troll research.

        2. You do have a point there.

          1. You do have a point there.

            He/she really doesn’t. I don’t want the state empowered to overrule juries. I do think that if there’s going to be a death penalty, the power to hand out that sentence should be in the hands of a jury, not a judge. Preferably a grand jury, requiring unanimous consent.

            1. I do think that if there’s going to be a death penalty, the power to hand out that sentence should be in the hands of a jury, not a judge.

              Disagree. The power to hand out a death sentence should be in the hands of the person who will receive the sentence (though I agree that jury *greater than* judge in rank of who is a more appropriate authority to hand out that sentence).

            2. I agree, but remember the sentencing guidelines should take into account the offense and criminal history. I believe a judge has a role to play in assisting the jury to hand down a sentence that fits the crime.

        3. You’re arguing with the wrong person here — I don’t think anyone should get the death penalty who doesn’t want it.

          That said:

          This guy killed ONE woman.

          Is perfectly wrong. This guy raped, *murdered*, and killed a woman basically for shits and giggles, raped her friend, and threatened all of the witnesses with murder if word got out. This is very different from politically-motivated murder (which is also wrong but not evidence of an irredeemable mindset). There are obvious examples of successful recidivism of political murderers; not so much in the case of these sorts of psychotic killers. That is not to say that these justly convicted murderers are undeserving of death, but the practical ability of a society to let them live amongst them if they are ever released is quite different.

        4. There are good arguments against having a death penalty.

          “Sometimes jurors are too lenient” is not among them.

  13. PM Links version of revenge porn statute:

    to intentionally disclose, display, distribute, publish, advertise or offer a photograph, videotape, film or digital recording of another person if the person knows or should have known that the depicted person has not consented to the disclosure.

    Arizona State Legislature website:

    IT IS UNLAWFUL TO KNOWINGLY DISCLOSE, DISPLAY, DISTRIBUTE, PUBLISH, ADVERTISE OR OFFER A PHOTOGRAPH, VIDEOTAPE, FILM OR DIGITAL RECORDING OR OTHER REPRODUCTION OF ANOTHER PERSON IN A STATE OF NUDITY OR ENGAGED IN A SEXUAL ACT WITHOUT OBTAINING THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE DEPICTED PERSON.

    Have we been misled!?

    1. Yeah that’s kind of a big difference.

      1. There’s no sugarcoating it.

      2. In all fairness to Zenon he copied straight from the Reuters article which also fails to mention that bit.

        1. Lest we also forget that in the Rule 34 era, everything is a sexual act.

  14. “It’s as if 51 percent of the population cried out in pain, and was suddenly silenced.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..inions_pop

      1. You are now post-doc in youtube links.

        1. Should I be putting this shit on my CV?

          1. You don’t want my advice.

      2. Yeah I would have loved a Thrawn movie.

        1. Thrawn would have sucked because Thrawn sucks.

          A Marty-Stu of the first order.

  15. http://www.workforcefreedom.co…..Review.pdf

    Playa posted that in the PM links thread. I’m reading it now. I am shocked and horrified. I knew unions got special treatment in court, but I always thought it was based on individual judges and cops looking the other way. I had no idea there was both statue and precedent allowing union members to violate the rights of other people so long as they are doing it in pursuit of the union’s goals.

    How the fuck is this legal?

    1. Because there is statute and precedent declaring this legal?

      Or maybe you mean how is this *moral*?

      1. Or maybe you mean how is this *moral*?

        Because it aids the working man in his eternal combat with the heartless capitalist, you idiotic libertardian.

    2. There was a major supermarket strike here many years ago. I couldn’t figure out why all of the fat, out of shape strikers were so aggressive and cocky. I crossed the picket line to get groceries, and one guy followed me all the way to my car and blocked me in. After about 5 minutes, I got out, choked him out, and moved him out of my way. It took 20 minutes of debate with the police before I went on my way.

      I have since moved, but I still go to that grocery store on occasion. I love smiling at that worker while he looks at his shoes.

      1. My uncle is a tradesmen. One time the union guys hassled him because he was in “their” neighborhood on a job. Made comments along the lines of “gee your tires look real worn down there. And that windshield looks like it could break for no reason whatsoever.”

        But they’re not just a gang. No, not at all.

  16. I don’t see a compelling reason to have the death penalty as the only option for serving justice, for precisely the reasons stated by Epi. OTOH, knowing myself and others I can say that I would never want to serve a solitary life sentence without the possibility of parole. I would leave the death penalty as an opt-out, for exactly the same reason I would want suicide to be legal — ultimately, the individual should be allowed the opportunity to end his own life at his own discretion, and so long as it is not a miscarriage of justice everybody wins to the degree such is possible in the case of a crime warranting the death penalty/life without parole.

  17. I must admit I’m ambiguous about the death penalty, but the media’s reaction to this case makes me sympathetic to capital punishment.

    The concern-trolling about lethal injection could be resolved by adopting another execution method, or securing a reliable supply of execution drugs so executioners don’t have to sneak around like undergraduates looking for beer.

    Now, fifteen years after committing a brutal crime, the killer is executed, and it takes a bit longer than expected to kill him. So now the Proves the Death Penalty Is Unworkable? You want him to have a quicker death, shoot him or hang him. Problem solved.

    But yeah, it’s worrisome that the government has trouble carrying out the one function it’s supposed to be good at.

    1. This strikes me as relatively foolproof:

      http://estaticos04.cache.el-mu…..os_1_0.jpg

      1. Except when the blade gets stuck.

        1. How often would it get stuck half-way through someone’s neck? If it gets stuck half way down the slide, you just get a do-over.

          1. I think it became more of a problem when they were doing a bunch of them in a row. If it doesn’t have enough force and hits a vertebrae it gets stuck.

            I’m sure it’s fine if it’s well maintained and you aren’t mass executing people.

            1. they were doing a bunch of them in a row.

              Hehe you would know.

              1. SLUT SHAMING!

                /Jezebel commenter.

                1. I saw it more as “slut affirming”, but what do I know?

                  1. I saw it more as “slut affirming”, but what do I know?

                    Oh, I saw it as a textual high-five. I just like writing SLUT SHAMING in all caps and don’t have that many good reasons to do it.

            2. What’s a proper public execution unless you’re rounding up all the rentiers for disposal?

        2. Plus the man who passes the sentence should swing the sword, if we’re going to do it with blades again.

          1. Ned Stark taught you well.

      2. Yes, as long as the blade is properly maintained. Back in the good old days of the Reign of Terror there would be mass public executions where prisoners would literally wait in line to be beheaded.

        By the end of the line the blade would often become so dulled that the last victims would often require two drops to sever the head.

        1. I wasn’t anticipating mass executions. Although…

      3. It is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known.

        1. I have realized that he was the ultimate beta male. He didn’t get the girl, so he figures the least he can do is die to rescue the guy she wants instead.

          Which is noble and Christian, of course, but more realistically, he’d be like, “well, I tried to make the switch, but they were watching us all the time. So sorry to have to tell you this, but he’s a head shorter now…there, there, honey, you can cry on my shoulder…let’s go someplace private and grieve together…”

          1. I think his readers would have his head for that. The world wasn’t ready for the Palahniuk anti-hero.

            1. The readers were Victorian women who fantasized that the guys they decided not to marry will get all depressed and die.

              1. Sorry, this sounds a bit cynical. I was actually moved by that scene.

              2. My, how times have changed.

                Except now, as I understand it, they’re fantasizing about bondage-themed light pornography.

                I wonder whether high schoolers a hunnerd-schfifty years from now will be studying Schfifty Schmades of Schmay for class.

        2. Young. I feel…young.

      4. But when we colonize the moon and fill it with criminals and libertarians will airlocking be an acceptable form of capital punishment?

        1. +1 Harsh Mistress

  18. The problem with the death penalty is Keith Fucking Alexander should be getting it before anyone else is even considered for killing.

    1. You know what’s worse? He’s an inner-party member. He’ll have a life of privilege and security unknown to any of us commenting here. You’re looking at a member of an elite for whom we day-laborers are untouchables. This is a man who will never need to concern himself with the inconveniences of a workaday life, let alone worry about whether he can get his cavities filled cheaply or his bank draft fees refunded.

  19. A short drop and a sudden stop would fix all this crap

    1. I can’t stop. I really do try though

      1. That was sudden!

  20. What about execution by drone strike? The administration doesn’t seem to have any moral qualms about that, and they seem to be quite effective at carrying it out.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.