MSNBC story on stays of execution

[Fast Eddie B]

Today, I switched over to MSNBC in my car for a little while, via Sirius.

Not my usual fare, but sometimes listenable, though sometimes not.

In any case there was a story about two inmates scheduled for execution receiving stays. The issue was the source and quality of the drugs used for lethal injection.

I am very much on the fence about capital punishment. But I thought it odd that in the entire piece no mention was made of the crimes the two were convicted of. It seems an important part of the story, to give some perspective to the severity of the punishment.

Do you think this was an unintentional oversight, or intentionally left out? And if intentional, what might have been the motive?

 

[theprestige]

The Constitutional bar against cruel and unusual punishment doesn't take into account the severity of the crime. If the discussion is about whether the administration of the death penalty meets this standard, then talking about the crimes themselves is a derail at best, and an improper attempt to influence opinion at worst.

From your description, it sounds like MSNBC made the right choice to omit those details.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

You might be right.

In trying to sort out my feelings, I find the nature of the crime does matter, and would be part of the big picture.

While possibly beyond the scope of the actual stays, I'd like a clue as to what they did, time on death row, that sort of thing.

Anyway, I kept waiting for that and felt the story incomplete without it.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

For perspective, the first story that Google came up with did not mention the crimes either.

Second hit, ABC news, did in the second and third paragraphs:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/t/story/st...xecution-23427309?ref=https://www.google.com/

Now I know.

 

[angrysoba]

I am very much on the fence about capital punishment. But I thought it odd that in the entire piece no mention was made of the crimes the two were convicted of. It seems an important part of the story, to give some perspective to the severity of the punishment.

No, it is utterly irrelevant.

If it was discovered that some prisoners were being put to death by being slowly and painfully lowered into a vat of acid, the justness of carrying out such a form of execution will not be determined by how grisly their crimes were.

The Supreme Court presumably would not say, "Hmmm...it sounds bad but let's remember that this guy did rape and kill a baby."

 

[Fast Eddie B]

No, it is utterly irrelevant.

If it was discovered that some prisoners were being put to death by being slowly and painfully lowered into a vat of acid, the justness of carrying out such a form of execution will not be determined by how grisly their crimes were.

The Supreme Court presumably would not say, "Hmmm...it sounds bad but let's remember that this guy did rape and kill a baby."

I'll stipulate it should not affect the decision on the stay.

I will disagree that it's not part of the story.

At least I was left curious as to what they were going to die for, in the same way as if there had been no stay and the news was just about their execution.

But maybe I'm weird.

Anyway, why do you think some news outlets are reporting the crimes? Bad reporting?

 

[angrysoba]

I'll stipulate it should not affect the decision on the stay.

I will disagree that it's not part of the story.

At least I was left curious as to what they were going to die for, in the same way as if there had been no stay and the news was just about their execution.

But maybe I'm weird.

Anyway, why do you think some news outlets are reporting the crimes? Bad reporting?

It's not necessarily "bad reporting". But I don't think it has any relevance.

I remember one occasion when a soap opera star in the UK was taken to hospital after becoming sick in the night.

The Sun let us know that she went to hospital in a pink nightie. No doubt many of the readers found the information gratifying for the sake of completeness.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I'm opposed.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

I'm opposed.

To the death penalty?

I think I am too, if forced to take a position.

But it's one of those things where, if personally involved, I think I would take another position.

Did not mean for this thread to go there, but I knew from the start it was inevitable.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I'm opposed.

To the death penalty?

I think I am too, if forced to take a position.

No, to stays of execution.

 

[Mudcat]

No, to stays of execution.

Same here.

What I know, without knowing the exact details, is that execution isn't a sentence passed out lightly. So it's unlikely they were to be given the death penalty for stealing fruit from a produce vendor, for example.

 

[angrysoba]

Same here.

What I know, without knowing the exact details, is that execution isn't a sentence passed out lightly. So it's unlikely they were to be given the death penalty for stealing fruit from a produce vendor, for example.

It's not relevant what they were convicted for. The issue is about the drugs being used in the lethal injection.

 

[Polaris]

It's not relevant what they were convicted for. The issue is about the drugs being used in the lethal injection.

The issue has surfaced recently in Texas as well - in fact I thought that's what the story was about until I opened the link.

There are practical issues surrounding the use of lethal injection, beyond the moral ones WRT capital punishment itself. A doctor isn't going to administer the dose, due to his Oath, so the executioner is already less than ideal to be doing the job even if the drugs were highly reliable. When faulty drugs are factored in, the decision to stay executions on the grounds of violating the Cruel & Unusual Punishment clause makes sense to me.

Granted, I'm against the death penalty anyway (I know this probably comes as a shock to many of you).