Christa Pikes is awake and ‘talking’

[wouldntyouwanthelp]

She’s out of the coma and talking to her lawyers. Aibu to think the state of Tennessee can’t possibly try to do the lethal injection again ? Surely not? People on Reddit are suggesting she might need an amputation of one of her arms because of how caustic pentobarbital is.

Christa Pike 'conscious and speaking at hospital' after failed execution in US
https://news.sky.com/share/13595950

Play nice on the execution thread.

Yes I would be interested to know how her case would have been handled in Norway. Of course, in Norway it might never have got that far as she may well have received help and therapy way before she was so damaged.

They've got buckets of fentanyl in the states, but they prefer to keep it on the streets poisoning the excess population.

What's that supposed to mean?

All.those who support the death penalty - i just dont get it. Why? I mean this is a bad woman. No doubt about it her crimes are horrendous. But why kill her? If killing is bad why would we endorse it?
And she has been tortured. That cabt be right surely? Under any circumstances.
How can it be wrong for her to torture and kill (im nkt arguing this point!!) But ok for someone to do that to her?
And what about the executioner? Who the fuck takes that job? Why do you not think that maybe someone who wants to do a job like that is the same type of person? Maybe just one with a bit more cunning to have come up with a way they can do it without rhe risk of punishment themselves?
And wrongful convictions? What happens there?
God. The whole thing is so evil.

Rasputin wasn't executed - he was murdered by a group of civilians who had no training and probably lied about what happened too.
Christa Pike was supposed to be put to death by professionals as a result of legal decision - without causing undue suffering.

"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room!"

No, and there was no intent to torture her. Torture is prohibited under the 8th amendment, so it is explicitly established as not being right.

The issue is far more nuanced than you’re presenting it to be, and I don’t think erasing that nuance helps advance any argument either for or against. All murder is killing, but not all killing is murder, and there are circumstances in which society deems it an appropriate course of action. See also: war.

Someone performing the role of lawful executioner is not the same as a murderer. The former operates a pro social role within the established boundaries of their society. The latter is anti social and operates entirely outside of them.

I personally don’t feel particularly strongly about the death penalty, but I do lean against it. I don’t however think “all killing is bad” and “it’s evil” are well thought out and/or compelling arguments.

I do think it is evil, but I don't think that is the only argument against the death penalty. There are plenty of other reasons to be against it. The main ones are that it is ineffective as a deterrent, expensive, and often poorly carried out by untrained staff, leading to unnecessary and prolonged suffering.

Secondary to that, the impact on the mental health of the victim's family, the criminal's family, the executioner, and the staff involved cannot be healthy.

It has no place in a civilised society. It literally benefits no one.

Someone performing the role of lawful executioner is not the same as a murderer.

Semantics.

‘It’s evil’ is as ineffective an appeal to emotion as ‘just look at what she did’ is. If your anti death penalty stance isn’t swayed by the latter, then why would you expect someone pro the death penalty to be swayed by the former?

I also don’t think it ‘bad for the victim’s family’ does anything but piss off the very people you want to persuade. The victim’s family, especially in this case, are able to speak for themselves, and do. Trying to speak for them as if you know best is only going to be perceived as patronizing, and frankly insulting.

Tbh, Christa Pike is someone anti death penalty campaigners have struggled and will struggle to use to rally people. Especially in Tennessee, where the odds are already stacked in favour of the death penalty. Tennessee being utterly incompetent at carrying it out, and as a result costing the taxpayer a lot of money, is the argument more likely to make headway.

Not at all. It’s the most significant distinction.

Why though? Either killing is wrong or it isnt?

May Martinez has spoken at length about how the lengthy appeals process and news coverage surrounding it have affected her mental health. I am aware she wants to see the sentence carried out and believes it will bring Colleen peace, but you cannot deny that the process has hurt her mental health.

She's be lawyering up no doubt (I would).

Hope the restraints are off her now, at least.

Since when has that been the case? The statement falls apart with the most cursory of examinations.

This isn’t, and never has been, a world that exists in binary. There are circumstances in which society considers killing to be a valid and necessary course of action.

The main reason to oppose the death penalty is the still too many miscarriages of justice. There is no way to put it right if a person wrongly convicted has been executed.

I doubt they've taken the restraints off. Tennessee isn't the home of logic and mercy, it's the home of righteous vengeance and god-fearing blood lust.

We're talking about a state that doesn't even allow abortion in cases where antenatal depression is so severe that the woman is suicidal. Civilization has yet to reach them.

Of course. Her mental health has been suffering since 1995 when her daughter was murdered. I agree it would have been better if the death penalty wasn’t a legal option in Tennessee at all, and a life without parole sentence would have given her at least a legal finality.

However, the death penalty was imposed, and she’s waited for 31 years to see it carried out, and wants to see it carried out. No one here can say, or should say, whether or not it would benefit or further hurt her mental health.

Laws cannot be flexed to suit the wishes of victims families on a case by case basis. They need to be set after consideration of all the costs and consequences (including what we understand about the impact on victims families from wide scale research) and applied consistently.
Research shows that for every victims family that support the death penalty, you will find another that opposes it, either on ethical grounds, or because they believe it allows the perpetrator to escape justice through death.
This is the objective information that should be weighed in the decision making, not that of one family in one specific case, so I agree no one should be speaking for them, but neither should they be using their words to justify the death penalty.
I also agree that the cost and the demonstration its not fit for purpose are the most persuasive arguments here. No one who supports the death penalty is going to be moved to a change of heart because a murderer has suffered. That's what they want from it.

It's only a distinction if you accept the premise. "Lawful" is a madey uppey thing.

Man madey uppey too, generally.

It's like trying to say a ghost is the spirit of a dead person.

Well, no. Not if you put any amount of thought into it.

What about an active shooter? Is it wrong to kill them?

What about killing in self defense after someone attacks you?

Personally, I am not for the death penalty. I think the chances of executing someone innocent is too great. However, I don't think all killing is wrong.

If we could somehow 100% guarantee that no one innocent would be wrongfully executed, then I would be all for the death penalty. I would be very happy for all child molesters, murderers and rapists to be executed. Obviously that's not possible though.

We do it for the same reason we drop bombs on people when we decide they're 'bad'. It's about power, state authority and vengance.

Sometimes it's necessary to kill someone to directly prevent them killing others, like in a shooter or hijacking situation. But that's essentially an act of defense of others. Once the bad guy is in prison, killing them does nothing for the victims, or to prevent others from doing the same. The only thing it does is giving the victim (or their families) the ultimate power over their lives, plus a bit of vengance. Some people think that's justified. Others don't think we should give the state that sort of power as it gets misused or even abused, and execution does not prevent murders.

Of course law is made up. The premise exists in practice whether you accept it or not. It isn’t simply or solely a philosophical concept, it is materially true.

You can obviously disagree with something being the case, but that doesn’t negate the fact that it is the case.

Research has also shown that families who have seen "justice" carried out via the DP report that it didn't give them the closure they expected, and the process itself caused more harm than good.

I'm not so sure we should "respect the wishes" of the victims' families, whatever they may be, even if they are proven to be more harmful than good. I'm sure May Martinez does believe it will help her. I'm also sure it won't. Sometimes, caring for someone's well-being and supporting them through trauma means you have to go against their wishes for their own benefit.