SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Ohio will adopt a new (classic) execution protocol and resume executions on Jan. 12, 2017:
The state of Ohio plans to resume executions in 2017 with a new three-drug combination. The state will use the drugs midazolam, rocuronium bromide and potassium chloride. To make the switch the state is expected to adopt [a] new execution protocol by the end of the week. The state hasn't executed anyone since January 2014.
The new drug mix is really a return to one the state used for 10 years. "The department used a similar combination from 1999 to 2009, and last year, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the use of this specific three-drug combination," said JoEllen Smith, a spokeswoman for the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction.
Ohio has had trouble getting drugs to use for lethal injections in part because pharmaceutical companies don't want their medical products used for killing people. Two years ago European pharmaceutical companies blocked further sales on moral and legal grounds. Ohio has looked for other options, but all have obstacles.
For background, Wikipedia offers: Midazolam, rocuronium bromide, and potassium chloride.
(Score: 2) by art guerrilla on Tuesday October 04 2016, @01:18PM
a non cow :
"... because nothing says "we're a nation built on Christian values" like killing people..."
i am always curious what the overlap is between the cohort who is utterly opposed to any/all abortions (on account of the 'sanctity of life', *snort* as if...), and those who are knee-jerk proponents of the death penalty...
um, how do they explain that dichotomy to themselves ? ? ?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @04:06PM
So-called "pro-life" people are always anti-social safety nets, anti-refugee, and pro-execution. How exactly is that "pro-life" when you're actively working to kill other people and supporting positions that result in many deaths? A clump of fucking cells is not a human, but then if it was they'd be actively condemning it, like they do with actual humans.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @07:06PM
A clump of fucking cells is not a human
Why is this a common pro-choice argument? I take it, then, that you would be in favor of the government forcing women to remain pregnant once that clump of cells appears to be human? Should the woman be able to terminate the pregnancy arbitrarily after the seven month mark? If not, then you're not really pro-choice from my standpoint. If so, then you should choose your words better, because it seems like you're making the 'viability' argument.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 05 2016, @04:44AM
Absolutely not. If we're going full-on for respecting self-sovereignty, then abortions must be permitted up until the moment the woman goes into labor, but as a concession most people, even pro-choice, agree that once the fetus becomes "viable" - that is, developed enough to survive if it were to be born or removed at that moment - then its developed enough that the pregnancy should continue, because by that point if the woman hasn't already aborted it then she's decided she's going to keep it or at least birth it and maybe give it up for adoption or whatever, and because of the irrational appeal to emotion that it "feels" "enough like a person" or whatever even to hardcore pro-choicers.
Personally I think abortions should be permitted up until the 80th trimester.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday October 04 2016, @05:35PM
That "dichotomy" you mention is really very simple. The aborted baby is innocent of all wrongdoing. The guy on death row had been judged, and found guilty. Guilt. That's it in a nutshell.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @07:09PM
Being found guilty and actually being guilty are two very different things. Also, there's nothing inherently significant about guilt, so it's just another pathetic excuse to justify killing someone you've already captured.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @09:22PM
Judged? Judged by whom, the Christians whom their Savior told, "Judge not lest you be judged!"?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday October 05 2016, @02:40AM
Judged by a jury of his peers. Don't you know ANYTHING about the constitution or the law?
(Score: 2) by art guerrilla on Friday October 07 2016, @12:20AM
1. don't be so sure about a baby being innocent: in these neo-eugenics times, are we not getting closer to having people screened with their DNA, body chemistry, etc to determine 'pre-crimes' before they happen... and, so, yeah, if the DNA/bio-chemical 'evidence' points to your child having a 99.99% chance of being a serial killer, surely it is in the state's best interests to terminate that baby (or adult), NOW ? ? ?
(besides, my point still obtains: the uber-moral right-to-life types will INSIST THEY have control over YOUR body, and what happens to it... not to mention, when you do have the kid and struggle to make ends meet, they will be there to vote against any and all social welfare to help struggling families out...)
2. um, GIVEN the horrendous track record of 'our' (sic) justice system in convicting innocents for capital crimes, i simply don't have the confidence in the outcome of most jurisdictions and the application of fair and proportional laws and punishments... Simply. Don't. Trust. The. System.
3. not to get all touchy-feely, but -as an atheist- i still believe in basic human morality and some of the generic aphorisms of religions, such as 'judge not lest ye be judged'... further, IF you are in fact a xtian of some type, it seems to me, the death penalty is a judgment your god should make, not you stupid, fallible, vengeful nekkid apes...