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

I see where you are going with this but those MAGA types tend contradict themselves in their sleep, so you're unlikely to get a reasonable/truthful response regarding Shakira law.

Hmm that's interesting. I'll think about that.

Yeah, a couple of you made this point (well, of the replies I read) - it's definitely something to think about.

However.. I am already formulating an opinion (I reflect quickly!).. not sure I wanna share an undeveloped opinion so quickly as I don't want to trigger a backlash before I have thought it through..

I wonder if it's... presumptuous / arrogant / whatever the right word is, to decide that the lifestyle you described is acceptable for a human being?

Or maybe I have a problem with this because you're actually describing a scenario whereby she might deserve to be rehabilitated and given a proper chance at life in the real world (if that even exists). Hmmm.. I can't put my finger on what I don't like about this.

I suspect I'm still applying my own bias, comparing my own life with one in prison (like two of you said) but I also wonder why we're trying to justify a life in prison instead of the execution, when we know they're not all like a spa vacation! I dunno. Thanks for the food for thought.

I think its more presumptious and arrogant if we were to decide that the lifestyle I describe isn't fit for a human being, if that human being is telling us they'd prefer it to no life at all.
When we start deciding whether a person's life is worth living on their behalf, I think we're going down a very slippery slope. There are many people who's lives look intolerable to me and many circumstances I'd probably think worse than death, but I wouldn't project that on to people with those lives.
And no, I didn't speak about rehabilitation or what Pike deserves.
My point was only that a life long prison sentence is not an unreasonable thing to prefer over a death sentence. Because a life in prison is still a life and human beings do have a strong desire to live.

And lots of victims families don’t support the death penalty. It’s bad enough when done successfully but what’s happened here is barbaric.

@Awkwardisfunny prison was the first place Pike received treatment for her very severe bipolar and other mental illnesses. The first place she received medication and therapy, enough that she was relatively stable ... considering what she was like before.

Prison was the only place in her entire life where the same people had stayed in it and had been, and treated her, consistently.

In terms of social development, it seems to have been much better than the outside world, for her.

Mhmm.. do you agree with assisted suicide for people with incurable depression? (assume they won't fix it with ketamine or magic mushrooms). If not, is it because the argument is that we should improve the environment rather than let them give up..

So it doesn't sound like she should even be in prison. So life in prison can't be the answer. But then as someone else pointed out, we can't choose that death is better than life in prison, if they actually enjoy their life in prison.. this just sounds like a really shit scenario.

Because there are still victims to think about. If it's true she's enjoying her life.. is that fair?

I think.. on balance.. I'd rather the perpetrator suffered than the victim. If that means to carry out the execution, then so be it. But I'd like someone to convince us that they're working on a plan to prevent this shit from happening in the first place because we're all losing in this type of situation.

Once again, you are picking out and twisting what you think suits your thesis, and deliberately choosing to omit the point I was actually making. You also choose to omit the inconvenient fact that I fully acknowledged that the poster's experience was awful. It is your behaviour that is gobsmacking.

I don't think I know everything about everything, but I do know enough to be able to read what you posted. If you were just asking questions, why were they all directed at suggesting that, if bipolar played a part in what Pike did, she had exacerbated it?

It's an interesting point that, if you oppose the death penalty and vocalise that fact, you almost inevitably find yourself in the position of seeming to argue on behalf of some deeply unpleasant people, and indeed some outright evil ones. The point is, though, that that isn't the case. You may find yourself emphasising the factors that make it arguably inappropriate anyway under the relevant country's laws, as with the facts around Christa Kite's past and her mental health difficulties, but there will also be cases where there is little or nothing by way of ameliorating or mitigating factors.

However, in a way those are the cases that are the most useful test of someone's beliefs. You can justify life imprisonment instead of capital punishment for the most evil people anyway, on the basis that having to spend years paying for their crimes will cause them much more suffering than a quick death, and for some being unable to indulge their urges is an even greater punishment. It is also absolutely the case that capital punishment demonstrably is not a deterrent, and that the risk of killing innocent people must outweigh every argument in favour of it. But ultimately I think it still all comes down to the fact that it is simply wrong for the state to pronounce that homicide is a crime but to retain for itself the right to kill people in cold blood.

Keep telling yourself that.

You don't 'find yourself' arguing on behalf of unpleasant people. You are manipulated into it.
Advocacy of the death penalty is not a view based in any morality as we in a developed and civilised society know it.
Its based in a desire for vengeance, which is hard to justify if one wants to retain the moral high ground. Harder still when the justification involves defending practices that are inhumane and not fit for purpose.
So rather than argue why its a good thing, better for all concerned, which is impossible, because it isn't, people who enjoy the thought of criminals suffering must instead introduce archaic notions of 'evil' against which good people must fight, and discredit the practical arguments of others as being in support of this 'evil'.
Rather than looking at the process objectively, that is constantly sidestepped in favour of the biblical and nonsensical notion of evil forces. An argument from the dark ages to support a punishment that belongs there.

Should have added that Christa Pike’s life has been horrific. I don’t agree with the death penalty and having read the psychological report I think a secure hospital would be more appropriate than Death Row. But your response to that poster was still awful.

I believe that in a well run country (and the US does not count) assisted suicide should be allowed for adults that over the long term show they consistently want to die, yes. I realise that's controversial but I think that adults' clearly stated and long standing wishes should be respected. Anything else is overriding another adult's will.

Personally I don't think she enjoyed prison - there's a leap between saying it was the one place she had people treating her consistently and she received treatment at last, and saying it was an 'enjoyable' place. A big leap. US prisons aren't really known for the enjoyment-factor!

I think she should have gone to a secure psychiatric facility for the extremely long term - life.

But the key to your post is in the last sentence and with that, I couldn't agree more.

It's not happening though. So the US will carry on making sure that unwanted people are born, not giving a toss what hell they grow up in, but killing the person when the extreme behaviour that sometimes is a consequence of their childhood breaks out in murder. Very hard to escape the conclusion that some people like Hegseth actually enjoy the whole thing.

The one and only time I believe the death penalty is justified is when a society is so small that it doesn't have the resources to keep a prisoner alive. Which is just not the case in any Western nation.

Agree with all of that.

It's an interesting point that, if you oppose the death penalty and vocalise that fact, you almost inevitably find yourself in the position of seeming to argue on behalf of some deeply unpleasant people, and indeed some outright evil ones.

Only if you chose to speak to stupid people who can only think that 2 is one plus one, and there is no other possible combination of numbers that could also add up to 2. (0+2, 0.1+1.9,0.2+1.8 ..... you get the idea).

Although I have a sneaking suspicion some people like to pretend they can't see the nuances, because that means thinking for themselves. Much easier to parrot something they heard once, as if it's the only game in town.

It's quite illuminating that for all the supposed hang 'em high voters here no party has ever felt there is electoral gold in punting capital punishment.

There is also the little-discussed fact that in order to deliver capital verdicts US courts have to stack the juries beforehand. Which does rather raise the question why bother with a jury in the first place ?

Yep I watched some shitty is courtroom drama recently which touched on this.

they can question jurors before hand and veto any they don’t want - Voir Dire

if the death penalty is on the table you reject any that have firm views, so anyone saying no death penalty under any circumstances can be removed from the jury. More subtle things as well like male vs female, maga voters vs democrats….

another issue with having an inexperienced or not great lawyer, you could end up with the jury stacked the wrong way if the other side is better at it.

i don’t think that’s a thing here? Jurors are selected randomly, and aren’t questioned at all?

Untrue.

There is also the little-discussed fact that in order to deliver capital verdicts US courts have to stack the juries beforehand. Which does rather raise the question why bother with a jury in the first place ?

When we had the death penalty in this country, juries would occasionally acquit people despite strong evidence against them precisely because they couldn't stomach the thought of the accused being hanged. Alternatively, they would try to find them guilty of manslaughter instead, or to find that they were suffering from diminished responsibility or unable to form the required intent for other reasons. So, far from being the ultimate punishment, the existence of the death penalty actually led to murderers being released more and/or earlier than is the case now.

It raises the question of what if a juror is a massive fan of the death penalty when voir-dire'd. But as the trial progresses, they have an epiphany and suddenly realise that in conscience they could not convict if it results in an execution ?

There is also the far deeper and fundamental question about how far societies are willing to allow the pursuit of conscience. I mean the US never shuts up about it's blessed supposed "free speech". However history and practice clearly shows this is a crock of the first order.

It is worrying how many people hold their consciences so cheap, to borrow a metaphor. It's also faintly insulting to our forbears who gave their lives rather than their consciences.

It really pisses me off when Americans harp on about free speech and how in the UK we don’t because we “put people in prison for hurty words on the internet”.

well big news US, so do you. A simple fact check would tell you that…

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/18/facebook-comments-arrest-prosecution

The juries go through a multi stage vetting process. They don’t want jurors opposed to the death penalty on principle, and nor do they want jurors that actively want to impose it. A juror being prepared to pass the death sentence doesn’t mean that they will pass the death sentence. The vast majority of juries in capital cases have in fact not passed it.

If a juror changes their mind on the death sentence mid process then they can ask to be removed from the jury. If they keep quiet about it then they can just vote against the death penalty and it won’t be passed. Death sentences require unanimous agreement.

I know all of that. (DB has lectured me enough times).

However if you need to stack the jury in order to deliver "the law" then maybe you should be asking if the law needs changing ?

I made no apologies for repeating myself in this debate. I would vote as my conscience tells me, and not to satisfy other peoples consciences.

One of the most scary things in the world is someone who is saying "I don't want to kill you and your family, but it's the law".

As a quote goes: the people who hid Anne Frank were criminals. The people who sent her to her death were obeying the law.