Death Penalty

Justice Department Executes First Federal Prisoner in Nearly 2 Decades

A quick scramble to end a man’s life, despite objections by attorneys and even the relatives of his victims

|

The United States government carried out its first execution in 17 years this morning, killing Daniel Davis Lee, 47, by lethal injection.

Lee was scheduled to have been executed Monday in Terre Haute, Indiana, but legal maneuvers slowed the Department of Justice's efforts. First, a judge temporarily delayed the execution because relatives of Lee's victims sued since they were afraid to travel to attend due to fears of catching COVID-19.

A panel of judges for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit lifted that injunction on Sunday, but on Monday, U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan ordered a new delay while Lee (and three other men scheduled for execution in the coming days) fought the use of pentobarbital as the sole drug for lethal injection, claiming the drug causes pain during the process of stopping the prisoner's heart.

That delay was enough to miss Monday's scheduled 4 p.m. execution. But the Department of Justice continued to fight, asking the Supreme Court to intervene, and in the early morning hours, the Court ruled in their favor, lifting the injunction. According to the Associated Press, Lee was declared dead at 8:07 a.m. this morning. His final words were "You're killing an innocent man."

Four justices—Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Sonia Sotomayor—dissented from the majority ruling lifting the injunction. In a signed dissent (the majority decision is unsigned), Sotomayor wrote, "Once again, the Court has chosen to grant an emergency application from the Government for extraordinary relief. … The dangers of that practice are particularly severe here, where the grant of the Government's emergency application inflicts the most irreparable of harms without the deliberation such an action warrants."

Ruth Friedman, Lee's attorney, wrote that as soon as the Supreme Court issued its decision, Justice Department officials immediately swung into action in the middle of the night. She writes that Lee still had multiple motions pending, and the Department of Justice rushed to execute him without informing her or letting her be present:

"It is shameful that the government saw fit to carry out this execution during a pandemic. It is shameful that the government saw fit to carry out this execution when counsel for Danny Lee could not be present with him, and when the judges in his case and even the family of his victims urged against it. And it is beyond shameful that the government, in the end, carried out this execution in haste, in the middle of the night, while the country was sleeping. We hope that upon awakening, the country will be as outraged as we are."

It's also not clear whether the Department of Justice actually had a valid execution warrant because the warrant they had obtained had expired at midnight.

Lee was convicted and sentenced to death for murdering a family of three (including an 8-year-old girl) in 1996 as part of a plan to steal money and guns from them to establish a "whites-only" nation. The surviving relatives of Lee's victims opposed Lee's execution. They wanted him to be sentenced to life in prison, matching the sentence of the man who allegedly masterminded the crime.

The federal government hasn't executed a prisoner since 2003, and the trend toward executing prisoners has been declining for the past two decades nationally. Last summer, Attorney General William Barr announced plans to resurrect federal executions, specifically targeting men on death row convicted of murdering children.

Lee is just the first. There are two others scheduled for this week. Wesley Ira Purkey is scheduled for execution tomorrow (though it is currently on hold as courts consider legal claims about the quality of Purkey's defense) and Dustin Lee Honken is scheduled to die on Friday. Another man, Keith Dwayne Nelson, is scheduled for execution in August.

Advertisement

NEXT: Sen. Josh Hawley Says He ‘Took on an Asian Trafficking Ring’ and ‘Freed a Dozen Women in Sex Slavery.’ That’s Not True.

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. And it is beyond shameful that the government, in the end, carried out this execution in haste,

    Yeah, haste. He killed that family 24 years ago. What’s the hurry?

    1. Words no longer have meaning.

      1. As in . . .

        Libertarians For Death-by-Government

        Libertarians For Tariffs

        Libertarians For Statist Womb Management

        Libertarians For Authoritarian Immigration Policies

        Libertarians For Big-Government Micromanagement Of Ladyparts Clinics

        Libertarians For Government Gay-Bashing

        Libertarians For Limitless Executive Privilege

        Libertarians For Bloated Military Spending

        1. You really shouldn’t try to assess other people’s viewpoints as you honestly don’t understand basic argumentation or logic. Stick to what you do best. low level trolling.

          1. I earned $5000 ultimate month by using operating online only for 5 to 8 hours on my computer and this was so smooth that i personally couldn’t accept as true with before working on this website.WSs if you too need to earn this sort of huge cash then come and be part of us. do this internet-website online..

            ===============►Home Profit System

  2. 2020 – 1996 = 24 years.
    A real quick scramble. A quarter of a century.

      1. I assume you can gain employment as Executioner if you’d like.

        1. I’m bad at phlebotomy, which seems to be the major skill required these days.

          No idea why we don’t simply go to Nitrogen asphyxiation.

          1. Me neither. Hypoxia is by far the most gentle, humane, reliable method.

          2. Finally someone repeats what I have been saying for years!
            As an anesthesiologist I object to executions having to resemble anesthetics.
            Why not just place them in an anoxic 100% nitrogen environment?
            That way they won’t even feel the temperature of an IV start.

      2. Start making cash online work easily from home.i have received a paycheck of $24K in this month by working online from home.i am a student and i just doing this job in my spare HERE► Click For Detail.

  3. Lee was convicted and sentenced to death for murdering a family of three (including an 8-year-old girl) in 1996 as part of a plan to steal money and guns from them to establish a “whites-only” nation.

    I know libertarians are supposed to be against the death penalty, but if he was, in fact, guilty then fuck him. Also, I know we’re not supposed to judge a book by its cover and all that, but I’m not gonna shed a lot of tears for someone with an SS logo tattooed on the side of their neck.

    1. Why aren’t libertarians allowed to support the death penalty? Any principled argument that initiated from the NAP would apply equally to taking away someones rights via jail time.

    2. The death penalty is one of those issues that I personally struggled with the most as I came to understand libertarianism. On the one hand, it gives extraordinary powers to the state. On the other hand, these are generally despicable people who likely deserve their fate.

      Really, though, I don’t generally have a problem with locking these people away forever as a better alternative. For me, it ultimately comes down to whether I trust government to perform sentencing and execution in a fair manner with absolutely no room for mistakes. Who here would say that the really trust prosecutors to act responsibly 100% of the time? Considering the amount of exonerations that happened when DNA testing became a thing, I’ve erred on the side of being against the death penalty just because there really is no coming back if/when the state makes a mistake.

      Our need for vengeance as a society shouldn’t outweigh our respect for rights. This to me is one of those cases where the reward doesn’t outweigh the risk in terms of magnitude, because the alternative, life in prison without parole, is a pretty horrible existence as well.

      1. In cases of people who have openly, as in this case, violated the NAP through murder (the case isn’t dependent on vague evidence) what is the issue? It is likely this guy has continued violence in Jail and would have continued violence in Jail, creating more violations of the NAP as well.

        1. For me, the main issue is that we’ve given government the ultimate power. That doesn’t sit well with someone, who like most libertarians I know, is generally skeptical of government power.

          I don’t necessarily see it as a violation of the NAP, as you seem to agree. But that doesn’t mean that I personally think it’s better than the alternative. This is a case where the old trope “if it saves just one life” is convincing to me, because we aren’t giving up rights as a society in order to avoid killing an innocent person. Justice is still served in a life sentence, even if it doesn’t fully satisfy society’s need for vengeance. The right to life for the potential innocent person far outweighs any societal need for full vengeance.

          1. I think you can make the case for the death penalty for those who murder while in prison as other prisoners are wards of the state and require state protection (especially if permanent exile is no longer an option). The state has proven incapable of protecting other prisoners while affording rights to prisoners at that point. What else can you do (unless we go back to shackling people to walls)?

            That said, executions should be an exceedingly rare event, and only when all other approaches have been exhausted.

            Certainly doesn’t apply in this case.

          2. In cases that are clear cut I disagree. This case is not one of controversy built on circumstantial evidence and hearsay.

            I would agree that in cases that are built off of circumstantial evidence that I am more against the death penalty. But you are mistaking one claim:

            “we’ve given government the ultimate power”

            This isn’t true. We have given the populace said power as Juries are involved in both the determination of evidence as well as (I believe in all states) the determination of evidence up to the level of a death penalty. They are often included in determination post conviction of appropriateness for death. This isn’t a government action but a jury of peers.

            Outside of military courts, the government is not the arbiter of that power, the jury is.

            1. The populace is the government; “We the people.” Juries are agents of the government. It’s a distinction without a difference.

              There is some gray area between “beyond a reasonable doubt” and “cases that are clear cut.” If there were a legal way to define the latter more stringently than the former in terms of jury instruction, then perhaps your argument would have more merit. But until then the data suggests that we wrongly convict people at a rate that is too high to trust to ending someone’s life.

              1. I think one of those people who have been wrongly convicted is David Westerfield, who was convicted of kidnapping and killing Danielle van Dam in San Diego in 2002. Two crime scenes, and no evidence he was at either. In fact, strong evidence he wasn’t! The prosecution’s kidnapping scenario is so implausible that nobody can believe it. The small amount of evidence consistent with guilt is easily innocently explained by them being close neighbors. The prosecution had to use emotion and a frightened and angry community to secure a conviction. And even then, the jury took an extraordinarily long time to reach a verdict, so weak was the actual case.

      2. I think that traditional opposition to the death penalty arises more from a traditional Judeo-Christian viewpoint than anything. It places an emphasis on forgiveness that is basically more extreme than any other.

        There seems to be a more modern movement though that is based around both the idea of later exoneration, as you mentioned, and also just a certain squeamishness. We’re also so rich that holding people forever in a cell isn’t as big of a deal as it was 100 years ago.

        In general though, I think I fall against the death penalty increasingly from the Christian viewpoint of things. I don’t think I have the bravery to be a Quaker, or any other absolute pacifist philosophy, but I respect and understand it.

        1. I think the squeamishness thing might be why we have the rise in lethal injection, which is just a barbaric way to kill someone. Bring back the guillotine or something, most traditional methods of swift execution are preferable.

        2. BUCS, good to see you commenting.

          Maybe against your point, but I’d say that typical Judeo-Christian political groups are some of the most pro-death penalty groups out there. The Christian right certainly are, anyway. I’m not a religious person, but I would be interested in understanding what Jesus’s position might be. An eye for an eye vs let he who is without sin cast the first stone…

          The idea of forgiveness would imply that the alternative would be a sentence which includes a chance for parole. But even that concession isn’t necessary to have a system which can be corrected in the face of errors.

          1. You’d be surprised at the diversity of opinion on the subject among Christians… even the “Christian right.”

            It’s not even just a simple matter of forgiveness. A fundamental Christian belief is that all people fall short of the glory and righteousness of God, but Jesus Christ afforded the opportunity of salvation to all believers. So by cutting short a person’s life, an opportunity to expand the kingdom of God and save a mortal soul is denied.

            All that said… the death penalty is an issue of which I find myself conflicted. I think the best practical argument against the death penalty is the inevitability of executing innocent people and the irreversibility of the sentence.

            1. “I think the best practical argument against the death penalty is the inevitability of executing innocent people and the irreversibility of the sentence.”

              Granted. I’m sure it’s happened, though not with many of the cases commonly mentioned, e.g., Cameron Willingham. Now put on the other side of the scale, all of the formerly condemned who got out, mostly post-Furman, and killed again. The victims list is not a short one.

              Life without parole is bullshit—they often don’t serve the full sentence. Usually because the prison system (versus other state institutions—it’s not like these guys are wealthy) doesn’t want to pay for the inmate’s medical care. And then there’s the COVID, get em out of jail, hysteria going on now. I’d be interested in the percentage of LWOP sentences that end with the inmate dying in custody.

              Ultimately, like the rest of the penal system’s actions, the state kills criminals to deter the citizenry from taking the task on themselves.

              1. “Now put on the other side of the scale, all of the formerly condemned who got out, mostly post-Furman, and killed again. The victims list is not a short one.”

                Granted. But what about all those who got out, and led good, productive lives afterwards? Prisons are supposed to be correctional institutions. Doesn’t that ever work? Should all sentences be for life without parole, irrespective of the offense, or just for murder?

          2. “Maybe against your point, but I’d say that typical Judeo-Christian political groups are some of the most pro-death penalty groups out there. The Christian right certainly are, anyway. I’m not a religious person, but I would be interested in understanding what Jesus’s position might be. An eye for an eye vs let he who is without sin cast the first stone…”

            Guilt vs innocence is the lynchpin.

            Let he who is without sin does not mean one cannot judge. It means you should expect a return judgment as well.

        3. Some years ago, in a Christian newspaper, I read that all but 10% of prisoners express repentance prior to their execution. (Like the “good thief” on the cross.) Or at least, I think I read that. Because, a few months later, I searched for that article and couldn’t find it. So I’ve now searched the internet and saw a study which found that “Nearly 30% of all executed inmates express religious thoughts. In most instances, they ask for repentance, forgiveness, and acceptance into heaven.”

      3. >>it gives extraordinary powers to the state

        strict no return policy if errant.

      4. For me, it ultimately comes down to whether I trust government to perform sentencing and execution in a fair manner with absolutely no room for mistakes.

        That’s a fair point, and despite my “internet tuff gai” posturing from earlier I don’t entirely disagree. As others may point out, how can someone who doesn’t trust the government to competently run schools or collect taxes trust them to make decisions about who should live or die, especially given corruption in the criminal justice system? That’s a fair cop, and admittedly an area where I fail the libertarian purity test.

        It’s a tough issue, particularly when you consider that a murderer violated the NAP when they killed someone, and in this particular case killed an entire family. Is the state violating the NAP in order to kill him back justified? I think so in this case, provided there was no prosecutorial misconduct and the evidence of his guilt is iron-clad. Admittedly I don’t know all the details of the trial and what evidence there was – perhaps I should have researched that before jumping to conclusions but that can take a lot of time I don’t have right now.

        Truth be told, if I had my druthers the death penalty would only be on the table where it’s an absolute 100% certainty that the convicted was guilty. IOW, some level of proof above even “beyond a reasonable doubt” would be required, given that “mistakes have been made” and people have been exonerated and prosecutors are not perfect angels who always follow the rules.

      5. it gives extraordinary powers to the state.

        The jury decides if the prisoner dies.

        Not the state.

        This point is so incredibly important it is no wonder that it is so forcefully ignored.

        1. >>The jury decides if the prisoner dies.

          they’d be at the beach if not summoned by L’Etat.

      6. Even locked up some violent criminals pose a threat to society. Because of prison reforms that allow contact with the outside, and because of their contact with inmates who are not locked up for life, these predators can create fear and teach their madness to other equally unstable people.

        Unless you want to isolate them 100%, the risk to society is not worth the moral relief people like you may feel by housing them for life. They should be executed as quickly and humanely as possible, a task that should be approached with the same emotional detachment as a person would feel by taking out the trash.

      7. I may support the idea of declaring the person dead, but not following through. Give him (her?) the bare essentials and nothing — absolutely nothing — more, including human contact. Soon he would be pleading for execution, but would have to do it himself. Cheap!

    3. “but if he was, in fact, guilty”

      I believe this is where the libertarian opposition to the death penalty stems from (or at least where my own opposition does)

      I’m not saying this guy was innocent, but I certainly don’t trust the state to get that right 100% of the time. At least if the person is in jail, and found to be innocent, they can be released and compensated in some form. Execution, however, is a one-way street

      1. I’m not saying this guy was innocent, but I certainly don’t trust the state to get that right 100% of the time.

        Yep, others have pointed that out as well, and it’s a fair point given that prosecutors do sometimes lie and make up evidence and/or hide potentially exculpatory evidence or they just plain get things wrong sometimes and many people have been exonerated in recent years thanks to DNA evidence, etc.

        I guess from a practical policy perspective my preference would be for the death penalty to be rare, only used in extreme cases (I’d say taking out an entire family qualifies), and only when the evidence is so overwhelming that there’s really no doubt that the convicted is guilty, and absolutely no chance of prosecutorial misconduct. That last one would be tough to prove, and is also the number one argument against the death penalty – I’m sure there have been lots of prosecutors who have broken the rules and gotten away with it.

    4. I don’t know if libertarians are supposed to be for the death penalty. I think there are definitely sound libertarian arguments for and against the death penalty. I might agree that there are MORE sound arguments against if we were to weigh them in the balance. But I don’t think there’s a slam-dunk position for libertarians.

      1. I think there are definitely sound libertarian arguments for and against the death penalty.

        It’s probably an issue similar to abortion in that way. The LP platform is anti-death penalty, and I think most libertarians are against it due to the number of convictions that have been overturned either due to new evidence such as DNA or because of misconduct on the prosecutor’s part, which is a pretty compelling argument I’ll admit as it has real world examples to back it up, not just hypotheticals.

  4. This execution will save lives by deterring future murders. As the Associated Press noted in 2007, “Each execution deters an average of 18 murders, according to a 2003 nationwide study by professors at Emory University. (Other studies have estimated the deterred murders per execution at three, five and 14).”

    His execution is justice — long overdue justice. People who kill and torture children, and wipe out families, deserve the death penalty.

    1. Maybe they do, but the other guy who actually did the killing got a life sentence. That’s how it works, plus he was sitting on death row for nearly 25 years. There are places where “justice” is much swifter, like Iran, China, and Saudi Arabia. If we moved as quickly as they did to execute, more innocent people would be killed. I find it odd that people who do not trust the government with their taxes or anything else, trust it to make decisions on taking human lives.

      1. Maybe they do, but the other guy who actually did the killing got a life sentence.

        Did the other guy actually do the killings though? The article said he was the “mastermind” but that could just mean that he planned it but sent this Lee guy to do the actual killing. I don’t know, some more information would be nice.

      2. “the other guy who actually did the killing got a life sentence. ”

        Isn’t this backwards? The guy who order the killing got life, Lee, who did the killing was executed.

        Also noted some oddities in the other article…

        On Friday, a federal judge in Indiana issued a temporary injunction stopping Lee’s execution. She was responding to a lawsuit filed by relatives of Lee’s victims, who said they wanted to attend the execution but were afraid to travel due to fears of COVID-19 infection. They asked the court to delay the event, arguing that under the law they’re entitled to attend and that if it’s too dangerous for them to make the trip to Terre Haute, Indiana, where Lee is incarcerated, execution should be delayed.

        versus

        In Lee’s case, though, the family of the victims do not, in fact, want Lee executed and have been very vocal about trying to get it stopped.

        So was the whole “we’re scared to travel” a part of the tactics being used to delay the execution, or are there two different groups of relatives: ones who want to see the execution so much that it needed to be delayed so they can make the tri; and ones who want to not kill him at all?

        1. The victim’s family is not entitled to a legal opinion. It was the United States vs Lee not the victim’s family vs Lee. Personally I can’t imagine why the court allows these endless heart wrenching victim statements at sentencing, again absent any legal opinion.

    2. A clear scientific consensus that the death penalty does not deter crime.

      This makes logical sense. Most homicides are not premeditated. Rather, they are impulse decisions by people with high time preference.

      1. “In fact, the authors report that 88.2% of respondents do not think that the death penalty deters murder—a level of consensus comparable to the agreement among scientists regarding global climate change.”

        … which makes the consensus paper saying the death penalty does not deter crime less credible, not more.

      2. Many years ago, I watched a discussion on TV, during which one of the participants stated that, when Britain had the death penalty, a group of people going out to commit a crime, would search each other to ensure that none of them were carrying a weapon, as they didn’t want to be executed if someone got killed during their crime.

        So I believe the death penalty CAN be a deterrent.

    3. It certainly deters Lee from committing any more murders.

      1. Which is not relevant because a ‘life without parole’ sentence does the same.

        1. No it doesn’t. He could murder people with whom he was incarcerated. He could murder guards or other staff. He could escape and murder more. And, despite a “no parole” sentence, could be paroled anyway (maybe due or COVID or judges forcing prisons to depopulate), and then murder more people.

          1. “…And, despite a “no parole” sentence, could be paroled anyway (maybe due or COVID or judges forcing prisons to depopulate), and then murder more people.”

            Which is exactly what happened in many states, post-Furman. Kenneth McDuff being one of the more notorious examples: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_McDuff

            Reformers’ ‘mercy’ led to the deaths of six more people in McDuff’s case.

    4. That study’s been pretty thoroughly refuted. Pretty much everyone else finds data showing that executions have little to no deterrent effect. For example, cross-jurisdictions surveys comparing crime rates in places with and without the death penalty shows no statistically significant effect. Likewise, longitudinal studies of jurisdictions that have and stop or that didn’t have and start executions shows no statistically significant effect.

  5. His last words, “I’ll keep an eye out for you”.

    1. If we wanted an eye for an eye, well, we got the short end of the deal on this guy.

      1. And that picture doesn’t tell the whole story, but looking at him, I fear a tooth for a tooth may be a non-starter as well.

        1. Take his ears! He’s got plenty!

  6. “causes pain” isn’t the standard

    1. No, but if the SOB Lee suffered intense and agonizing pain as he died, I view that as an especially nice bonus.

      1. He probably did, if this was under the old protocol. From accounts of witnesses to successful executions using potassium chloride by itself (Nazi era), as well as people who’ve survived overdose injections of the compound, it is supposed to be extremely painful, with a burning sensation. As it is administered last, in the classic three drug cocktail method, witnesses don’t see any signs of pain. The barbiturate and skeletal muscle paralytic prevent the condemned from displaying any reaction. Ideally…

        As we all know, the state fucks up. A lot. Especially when doctors are, IIRC, prohibited from participating by their state medical associations. Though pronouncing the guy dead is, I guess, OK. Anyway, it’s easy to imagine—and IIRC, there are plenty of cases in the literature—where the first two drugs don’t work, and the condemned starts screaming about burning, etc… OTOH, I can also imagine the condemned being coached to yell this out too. Convicts lie, and there are a lot of True Believers on both sides of the process.

        Go to a nitrogen asphyxiation process. Easy to administer, nontoxic, and hypoxia shuts the lights off damn near instantly.

        1. My ass. I’ve had numerous pets euthanized and they scarcely blink. Any “pain” or “discomfort” felt would be in a comatose state begrudging any definition of pain or discomfort.

          1. Why do you think the same drug your pet received, was the same one these condemned did, under the old protocol? It wasn’t. My pet went away near instantaneously too. It doesn’t always happen that way with people.

            The vet tech inserting the IV was also a medical professional, who was used to putting those in. Again, also not the same as the prison employee inserting the IV or, God forbid, central line on the condemned.

            There are significant differences between the two situations. Not least of which is the vet’s office screwups don’t make the news.

            1. Then endorse the use of a horse medic to administer the juice and refrain from pitching out the brat with the bath water. You admit yourself it CAN be done.

      2. Oddly enough, death penalty cases that make it to the supreme court rarely involve sympathetic plaintiffs.

        Luckily we seem to have a “kill ’em and let God sort it out” majority.

        1. strangely worried about other prisoners being murdered by the murderer

  7. Daniel Davis Lee
    Dustin Lee Honken

    This article continues again to reaffirm my theory about the criminality of men with ‘Lee’ in their name.

    1. John Lee Hooker stole the stage everywhere he played.

    2. How about women? Leelee Sobieski, a woman so wicked they lee’d her twice.

    3. Ang Lee has always struck me as a person with rage issues.

      1. I see what you did there.

    4. Not to mention three names:

      Lee Harvey Oswald (there’s Lee again)
      John Wilkes Boothe
      James Earl Ray
      Mark David Chapman
      John Wayne Gacy
      Jared Lee Loughner (again, another “Lee”)

      And so on.

      1. Actually, the three names thing is something of a canard.

        John Wilkes Booth was not just famous as Lincoln’s assassin he was a well known and popular actor and was already widely known by his three given names as a stage name just as his father Junius Brutus Booth and a couple of his brothers were. His equally popular brother, Edwin Booth, however, used only the two.

        The reason we now know the man that everyone who knew him at the time knew as “Lee Oswald” as “Lee Harvey Oswald”, is because the Dallas police reported the name verbatim from the driver’s license that they had found on his dead body to the press and they ran with it. Most likely the others you mention were similarly reported to the media by the police from arrest records that used all three names.

  8. Who was it who made the crack about Reason covering the Libertarian Party candidate when Jo Jorgensen endorsed Biden?

    We just got closer to that reality.

    1. I believe it was the good Unicorn Abattoir.

      Considering last time, I’ve set the bar low this time around…

  9. I was a supporter of the death penalty for years. Then, many people on death row were found innocent thru DNA. There was many instances of government legal violations also. Since it’s a penalty that can never be reversed I am now against it due to the fact it can never be 100% certain. Also, in the last several years, let’s say starting in 2001 and thru how this ‘virus crisis’ is handled , I have lost all faith in the competence and honesty of government.

  10. I basically earn Easily at home 10,000$ par month .just do work few hours . last 3 year i was free but now i am happy with this website so i advise u………………………
    CLICK HERE.

  11. Not a big fan of the death penalty for all the reasons posted above but I don’t have a problem with it if the convicted party doesn’t object to the penalty being applied.

  12. to establish a “whites-only” nation.

    Maybe they were in such a rush because they didn’t want John to find out that rightwingers sometimes commit violence too.

    1. What are babbling about now, fool.

  13. Who does the execution for the Feds?
    Why, the vaunted US Marshalls.

  14. Start making cash online work easily from home.i have received a paycheck of $24K in this month by working online from home.i am a student and i just doing this job in my spare HERE► Click Here For Full Detail.

  15. I don’t care for the death penalty. Too many overturned convictions. It would be better off removed.

    However, I also don’t care for the legal maneuverings and nonsensical shenanigans that people do to stop convicted criminals from lawful punishments. “Oh, it’s a pandemic, Some people can’t watch”. BOO HOO. “It’s one of the most horrific ways to die”. QUIT LYING. It’s a quick death under anesthesia. Even if someone does feel pain, it’s over quick.

    Also, if it’s horrible, then please allow the government to use any of hundreds of deadly overdoses. Simply inject them with an absurd overdose of morphine and let them die peacefully in their sleep. The drugs used in execution have been deliberately restricted and then prohibited as a means of creating a back door ban on executions.

    If you want to government to stop putting people to death, put together legislation or a constitutional amendment. I would support either. However, making up nonsense and throwing the courts into shambles by stirring of mountains of useless dust does nothing except breed contempt for the law.

  16. “His final words were ‘You’re killing an innocent man.’”

    I thought the evidence against him was strong, but if his dying declaration was one of innocence, I would want to look really closely at that evidence.

    1. No you don’t. You would never get it and it does not matter anymore.

      You know I shot a man in Reno… you know the rest of the song.

  17. So proud of our country today.

    We have mastered the art of state execution.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.