ACLU Sues Over Montana Executions -- Medicine, Montana

The ACLU sued the state of Montana on Thursday over lethal injection, saying its procedure does not ensure that inmates are anesthetized properly before the deadly drugs begin to flow.

[AKA]

The ACLU is misleading people with the information it uses. The VIII Amendment does prohibit “cruel and unusual punishment”; however, no concession is made that punishment must be painless. The ACLU argues that condemned is not fully sedated. The amount of sodium pentothal used in the process is ten times more than used in surgical procedures. As a surgical anesthesia, a 220-pound man would receive 300 milligrams. In the lethal injection process, the same 220-pound man would receive 3 grams. The pancuronium bromide is a neuromuscular blocker and relaxes the diaphragm and chest wall muscles. The potassium chloride induces cardiac arrest not a heart attack as the ACLU claims.
It is interesting that the ACLU would use the American Veterinarian Medical Association Euthanasia guidelines from 2000. In the AVMA 2007 guidelines, it clearly states that the each report is not germane to human lethal injection. Pancuronium bromide is not mention in its guidelines, and potassium chloride should not be used on a conscious or sensitive animal.
According to re Kemmler (1890) cruel and unusual punishment is “Punishments are cruel when they involve torture or a lingering death; but the punishment of death is not cruel within the meaning of that word as used in the constitution. It implies there something inhuman and barbarous,-something more than the mere extinguishment of life.”
The goal of the ACLU is to have federal judges legislate from the bench. The 1996 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 limited the amount of habeas petitions that can be filed. The ACLU now is challenging each drug that is used to create an informal moratorium of state sanction executions and prohibits each state from conducting punishment that they see fit.

[Sammy]

I don't see what all the fuss is about. The ALCU is not proposing to stop the Death Penalty, they are only proposing a more certainly painless method be used. They've even suggested the alternative a massive dose of a barbituate, which is not only more certain to be painless, but also more certain to be effective.... and likely even cheaper.

What is your problem?

[LOL]

Just bring back the guillatine (sp) That is pretty painless no?

[Edward Teach]

WHAT!!!!!

They excecuted Hannah Montana!!!

What do I tell my ten year old????

[who care]

Sammy wrote:

I don't see what all the fuss is about. The ALCU is not proposing to stop the Death Penalty, they are only proposing a more certainly painless method be used. They've even suggested the alternative a massive dose of a barbituate, which is not only more certain to be painless, but also more certain to be effective.... and likely even cheaper.
What is your problem?

Why should the jerk who tortures and kills someone get the benefit of a painless death. Did the jerk care when he was making an innocent persons last few moments alive painful, NO, so why should we care if the jerk is in pain when he dies.

[Sammy]

Edward Teach wrote:

WHAT!!!!!
They excecuted Hannah Montana!!!
What do I tell my ten year old????

Tell her it HAD to be done to save civilization as we know it!

[Sammy]

who care wrote:

<quoted text>
Why should the jerk who tortures and kills someone get the benefit of a painless death. Did the jerk care when he was making an innocent persons last few moments alive painful, NO, so why should we care if the jerk is in pain when he dies.

For most of us, the purpose of the death penalty is to remove the individual from society as a matter of necessary self defence, not retribution.

If you need this kind of violent and cruel retribution, perhaps you should reflect upon the similarity between these sick individuals and yourself.

[who care]

Sammy wrote:

<quoted text>
For most of us, the purpose of the death penalty is to remove the individual from society as a matter of necessary self defence, not retribution.
If you need this kind of violent and cruel retribution, perhaps you should reflect upon the similarity between these sick individuals and yourself.

Considering my sister was raped, tortured and murdered I could care less if the POS has any pain when he is finally executed.

[AKA]

Sammy wrote:

I don't see what all the fuss is about. The ALCU is not proposing to stop the Death Penalty, they are only proposing a more certainly painless method be used. They've even suggested the alternative a massive dose of a barbituate, which is not only more certain to be painless, but also more certain to be effective.... and likely even cheaper.
What is your problem?

Something that a card carrying member, like yourself, should consider. The same three drugs used in lethal injection is also used in assisted suicide. Why is the ACLU mum about this? The ACLU's goals is to outlaw the death penalty. Look at the mission statement! Since habeas petitions are limited, the ACLU is challenging the individual process of lethal injection.

[Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate]

who care wrote:

<quoted text>
Why should the jerk who tortures and kills someone get the benefit of a painless death. Did the jerk care when he was making an innocent persons last few moments alive painful, NO, so why should we care if the jerk is in pain when he dies.

If it's unconstitutional, you should care.

[Eldrid Fink]

The firing sqad method is quite quick and relatively painless, designed to kill in an instant.

[AKA]

who care wrote:

<quoted text>
Why should the jerk who tortures and kills someone get the benefit of a painless death. Did the jerk care when he was making an innocent persons last few moments alive painful, NO, so why should we care if the jerk is in pain when he dies.

The Eighth Amendment makes no concession that punishment is to be painless. It only prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. The ACLU would have you believe that punishment needs to be painless. You can read re Kemmler (1890) to the Supreme Court interpretation of cruel and unusual. Check out the Criminal Legal Justice Foundation work on preserving states' right to punish criminals

[Doo Doo DeToro]

Sammy wrote:

<quoted text>
For most of us, the purpose of the death penalty is to remove the individual from society as a matter of necessary self defence, not retribution.

Speak for yourself. Who died and left you the voice of "most of us"?

[Jenny Four Eyes]

Fed up Suffolk Taxpayer wrote:

I really hate the ACLU. The federal government needs to stop funding these asshats on the taxpayers dime.
Only the ACLU (American Criminals Liberties Union) would supports rapists and murderers. They are scum.

What federal government funding could you possibly even be talking about? The only thing that could even remotely qualify (and it's a stretch) would be court awarded damages and attorney's fees. And even that doesn't amount to a lot of money. For instance, in 2004 court awarded damages and attorney fees comprised 3%(net) of ACLU Foundation funding.

And civil liberties protect EVERYONE, the innocent as well as the guilty.

[Gotta Love It]

Ok, take them out behind the prison and shoot them in the back of the head... issue solved.

[Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate]

Fed up Suffolk Taxpayer wrote:

I really hate the ACLU. The federal government needs to stop funding these asshats on the taxpayers dime.
Only the ACLU (American Criminals Liberties Union) would supports rapists and murderers. They are scum.

In what way does the government fund the ACLU?

[TOM REGAN]

I think the french had it right. Beheading WORKS BEST

[Doo Doo DeToro]

Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate wrote:

<quoted text>
If it's unconstitutional, you should care.

Not everyone agrees with the entire body of our country's rules and regulations.

[Dienne]

The Constitution only prohibits cruel AND unusual punishment - not cruel OR unusual punishment. Here's an idea, let's routinely torture people, then it won't be unusual anymore.

Sadly, I'm afraid many people won't realize the sarcasm in that statement, so to be clear, no, I'm not serious.

I'm always surprised how willing people are to give away other people's rights. Don't they realize they're giving away their own rights too? The ACLU protects you too. Turn off Fox News and do a little research about what the ACLU really does.

[Dienne]

who care wrote:

<quoted text>
Why should the jerk who tortures and kills someone get the benefit of a painless death. Did the jerk care when he was making an innocent persons last few moments alive painful, NO, so why should we care if the jerk is in pain when he dies.

Question: do you consider yourself a Christian?(If not, disregard this post.) Did you get to the part of the New Testament about loving your enemies? About leaving vengeance to God? What do you think Jesus would do with the "jerk"?