Guest mrsjamiesouth Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 A death row inmate who was scheduled for execution slashed his wrists and was taken to the hospital to be treated and saved. They delayed his execution from Tuesday to Friday so he could heal. It is a death by lethal injection, why wouldn't they bandage him up a little and still inject as planned 2 hours later? :confused::confused: Why on earth would you pay tax dollars to heal somone you were just going to kill?? He is on death row for killing a father and 2 children while trying to burgular their house. A previous case happened where a death row inmate took an overdose of drugs was in a coma and in the hospital, but a week later when he was recovered they executed him them. Isn't it more cruel to save and heal them before executing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Impish Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 People would freak out if the prisoner was allowed to die. What I don't get is why they sterilize the site before the injection. :confused: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aunty Social Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 It does seem rather senseless. The only reasons I can think of are that the victims are allowed to be at the execution, so maybe they don't want to take that closure away? Also, maybe something about not being able to escape justice? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lisamarie Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 Kinda like in the "Princess Bride" where they beat Wesley up, then heal him, just so they can fully torture him. Ya, I don't get that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daisy Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 I don't know. Maybe it has something to do with our humanity. That it is one thing to apply the death penalty reluctantly but out of justice and something entirely different to ignore someone in physical distress. It is hard for me to explain. I'm not sure what I think of the death penalty anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Sherry Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 A death row inmate who was scheduled for execution slashed his wrists and was taken to the hospital to be treated and saved. They delayed his execution from Tuesday to Friday so he could heal. It is a death by lethal injection, why wouldn't they bandage him up a little and still inject as planned 2 hours later? :confused::confused: Why on earth would you pay tax dollars to heal somone you were just going to kill?? He is on death row for killing a father and 2 children while trying to burgular their house. A previous case happened where a death row inmate took an overdose of drugs was in a coma and in the hospital, but a week later when he was recovered they executed him them. Isn't it more cruel to save and heal them before executing? I think the application to some of our laws just come out strange sometimes. But I think there is something to the idea of not letting the convicted murderer get out of the punishment by taking their own life and making them still face the consequences. Also, I think when a person is receiving care in a hospital setting, the staff does not differentiate between whether the person they are treating is a criminal or just a regular citizen when treatment is given, they just treat period. "Isn't it more cruel to save and heal them before executing?" As Daisy said "Maybe it has something to do with our humanity. That it is one thing to apply the death penalty reluctantly but out of justice and something entirely different to ignore someone in physical distress." Who of us would want to be the one to deny treatment to an injured patient ? I think it is about us as a society. The death penalty itself is a whole other issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Sherry Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 (edited) What I don't get is why they sterilize the site before the injection. :confused: That does seem silly.How do you know they sterilize the site before the injection ? I wonder if they want it to be sterile just in case the prisoner survives the injection so they won't get an infection. But what if they, against all odds, do survive the injection ? Do they just administer another injection or would they say that receiving the injection, whether it worked or not, constituted the fulfillment of them receiving the death penalty, even though they were not dead ? I think they would still kill them. Edited September 24, 2010 by Miss Sherry spelling Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MissKNG Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 Sounds like some Law & Order episodes I've seen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NanceXToo Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 They should have just let him bleed to death. That would have been cheapest! :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2cents Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 I think it is more of a case of legal procedure. If he was allowed to die from neglect of care from his suicide attempt then the prison authorities would be guilty of neglect or murder etc. The prisoner's sentence was to be put to death at the hands of state and not because of neglect of care. Personally, in the interest of efficiency I think they should let him go but legally that isn't what the sentence mandated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
misidawnrn Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 They should have just let him bleed to death. That would have been cheapest! :P :iagree: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OregonNative Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 I don't know. Maybe it has something to do with our humanity. That it is one thing to apply the death penalty reluctantly but out of justice and something entirely different to ignore someone in physical distress. It is hard for me to explain. I'm not sure what I think of the death penalty anyway. :iagree: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
readwithem Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 I don't get why the soon-to-be-executed gets a last meal - what a waste of tax dollars.:001_huh: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clarkacademy Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 I think it is more of a case of legal procedure. If he was allowed to die from neglect of care from his suicide attempt then the prison authorities would be guilty of neglect or murder etc. The prisoner's sentence was to be put to death at the hands of state and not because of neglect of care. Personally, in the interest of efficiency I think they should let him go but legally that isn't what the sentence mandated. Yes legally they have to give him medical care. The family or whoever could sue if they denied medical care. Silly but true Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.