If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Sodium chloride is salt. Potassium chloride is also a salt, but in aqueous solution, it is used as part of the lethal injection as it can stop the heart with lethal dosage. It can also help stomach upset.
Sodium thiopental is used as a short term anaesthetic, pancuronium bromide paralysis the skeletal muscle, and finally potassium chloride stops the heart. I think that's still how it works in most states.
I see, wasnt that method banned in animals in the US because it was cruel?
You dont seem to understand how law works, I'm strong, I tell you that this is the law, you cant do anything about it so thats how it works.
I'm not sure. I can't be arsed to read through it now, but the FDA has produced quite an extensive search on KCL.
Bring on the Culture of Life!
I think we can now assume he will one day be released, proberly by the time my generations daughters are his victims age. Yet another reason to wipe the smirk from his face.
And near the end of the article it states he has become "a hate figure in Wakefield prison" - Even all the other prisoners want him dead.
"He has been sent a hangman's noose by inmates and has had a £100,000 price put on his head." - They even want him hanged!
Really?!?!? Let us look at this "harsh" regime (to quote Wakefield prison's website) he has to endure then:
As stated in the official link above:
"The Regime: Includes full-time, part-time and evening classes in education, workshops, training courses, a works department, kitchen, and farms and gardens. There are also offending behaviour courses e.g. a sex offender treatment programme, cognitive self change programme, enhanced thinking skills group, and a learning difficulties group. Drugs rehabilitation programme and alcohol education courses are available and a listener scheme is in operation."
A sex offender treatment programme I see, what is this exactly? Sexy women in nurses’ uniforms teaching him how to masturbate?
How much does the twenty years of appeals cost, to make sure that you are killing the right man?
The average stay on death row in the US is about 14 years, I believe. That's a long time.
It's a proven fact that it is cheaper to confer life imprisonment than it is to confer the death sentence.
I think we can safely assume that he won't.
Hindley, Brady, Sutcliffe, Bronson and West aren't and weren't.
I have no time for people who say that prison is "easy", because it isn't. If prison was such a doss about, why are so many lifers (without any possibility of parole) trying to kill themselves? Brady's been trying to do it for 15 years, for God's sake.
Damn right we should!
Fuck the innocents who will be murdered for something they didn't do, lets speed the process up to make sure its cheap!
Why have any trial at all, in fact? Just execute them in the street. Very cost-effective, and the loss of innocent life doesn't matter as long as it's not MY innocent life!
Sure, Ian Huntley and some terrorists take away life, but it doesn't make us any better for deciding that Huntley/terrorists don't deserve the right to live.
I don't support the death penalty, in fact I think it's horrible. Executing somebody is not going to change the past, what's happened...
It only proves that people who support the death penalty have the same seed of evil in them that murderers, rapists and terrorists do. A want to end somebody's life... Who the hell is anybody to judge? At the end of the day, the prison system is not there for revenge, but to keep the public safe and to teach the criminal a lesson.
If that is the case then why reply to my post and how is it that convicted child rapist, Jonathan King left prison on probation declaring it the "most enlightening, enjoyable and fascinating experience. Like boarding school without the sex.”?
Not only was he allowed to post messages to fans on his website (in-between downloading child porn and the latest pop music I imagine), witch I find absurd to the point of hilarious, but that he was sent down for seven years yet gets released after three.
Bravado?
It's called good behaviour. Without it there would be no means of controlling inmates. I think you should talk to Rolly about this because clearly you have no concept...
Okay - let’s just face the facts here: guilty beyond a reasonable doubt! I'm not talking about murdering innocent people; I'm talking about punishing those CONVICTED of heinous murder! If I were the judge - I would not sentence anyone to capital punishment unless in was absolutely certain that they were GUILTY! (You know - the victim's blood was all over the suspect’s clothes, the victim had the suspects DNA under their finger nails). You had better believe that if anyone ever killed someone in MY family I would go after the death penalty for sure!
Which can actually be the same thing.
We have had two "celebrated" cases over here where a number oe people were convicted of terrorism, planting bombs which killed a number of innocents. It took years but eventually they were cleared on appeal.
Had we retained the death penalty, there is little doubt that they would already have been dead.
Now, if you believe that the death of a single innocent person is a price worth paying then IMHO you have no moral argument to fall back on.
Good thing that isn't an option then, isn't it.
Justice isn't about revenge. Or at least it shouldn't be.
You can't dig up the innocent.
You can let them out.
And it might be me or you in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I'd like to know how much you actually know about the laws and how much you just make up as you go along.
you make yourself look very stupid with comments like that
Now, to my mind, being locked up somewhere with several hundred people who want to kill you would be somewhat harsh.
Mostly legal. In fact even if the war was illegal the acts of the soldiers would be legal as long as they were within the bounds of military law, because they are following the orders of properly constituted authority.
I seem to recall something about American law dictating that a person who is executed must be sane enough to comprehend the punishment, i.e. must be able to a) understand that the act he/she committed was a crime and is not acceptable in this society, b) understand that he/she is to be executed, and to understand all that this entails.
Correct me if i'm wrong.
Also, on the subject of the death penalty, many states that use lethal injection keep other execution methods in reserve, firing squad or electrocution, if lethal injection is ever held to be unconstitutional. I presume this means that if lethal injection is ever held to be contrary to the Eighth Amendment to the US Consitution, cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted. Surely general worldwide consensus would agree that lethal injection is possibly the most humane method of execution, if you can ever call execution humane. If lethal injection is ever held to be a cruel and unusual punishment - what about electrocution? That's just brutal and disgusting.
It's the case that in ANY american court the defendant must understand the cause and nature of the charge for it to proceed. In ANY criminal case.
Of course if you say you don't understand they label you insane and it's off to droolsville with you. (As some tax protestors found out in vegas a few years back.)
Yes, but only because people dont understand the cocktail of drugs used, instead of using the obvious massive OD of barbs or similar they use a wierd mix of drugs which seems designed to be horrific.
This was the defence of some the Serbs now standing trail in The Hague for war crimes.
I also seem to remember the Nazi's favourite defence was "just following orders".
The Nurembourg Trials dismissed this defence.
No - I was being very specific. Most of the killings were legal acts of war. However I used the term 'mostly' because there are some killings which were illegal, for example there seem to be some cases where the prisoners were shot or the killing of people who were hors d'combat
No - the Nuremburg Trials dismissed this defence for people who participated in crime in war (ie something which goes against the laws and customs of conflict), eg shooting of prisoners, reprisals against the civilian population.
Modern International Relations is heavily based on the thoughts of medieval jurists and how they defined 'just' wars (though it has updated). Virtually all thought on war makes a difference between the king/leader and that of his followers. The king/leader can be judged for taking part in unjust war, the followers can't.
The soldier/follower has no choice in whether the war takes place or not. For him to make a choice on whether to go to war or not is neither often possible (he may lack the information or be constrained by fear of punishment) or desirable (it would involve him breaking an oath and more importantly the soldier is the servant of the state, not someone who can stand above it). The soldier can only be responsible for his conduct and that of the soldiers under him.
Individual killings are either legal or illegal on their own merits, irrespective of whether the war itself is legal or illegal. For example the shootings of captured members of the Norfolks by the SS in 1940 was illegal - even though the German invasion of France was legal (as the two countries were at war). And legal killings can take place even if the war is illegal, for example the German stukas bombing Polish artillery positions.
yes thats true...all i can say is that England's borders haven't changed since 1066...making it the oldest country in the world...officially anyway...