Lawyers for death row inmate Richard Cooey have filed a federal lawsuit arguing that obesity, poor veins and drug resistance because of a prescribed seizure medication may make it too difficult to execute him. Cooey is 5'7" and weights 267 pounds.
The suit says that prison officials have had difficulty drawing blood from Cooey because of his weight and that his medication may make the initial anesthesia ineffective, causing "pain and suffering" during administration of the last two drugs.
Cooey's execution is scheduled for October 14. He was convicted for the rape and murder of two young women in 1981.
Prison officials and the Ohio Attorney General's Office said they hadn't seen the suit yet and could not comment.
Only nine states in the US still allow you to ride the lightning in escorting you to your official exit from your life of violent crime. They are Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and, in case their state supreme courts rule lethal injection unconstitutional, Illinois and Oklahoma. In Oklahoma you can also request a good ol' fashioned firin' squad! (again, only if the chair and lethal injection are ruled unconstitutional by their state supreme court) Talk about a backup plan.
In Cali we still have the gas chamber, but we're one of only five states that give prisoners that choice.
I think a couple still allow hangings, too...
Why, yes, I do have a morbid fascination with some subjects. Whatever makes you ask?
he could simply quit taking them. The US Supreme Court has ruled that it is unconstitutional to execute insane people. You also cannot force someone to take medications in this country (with certain rare exceptions). There was actually a case where a death row inmate was judged legally sane (knew right from wrong - as most crazy people do) but was clinically insane and therefore immune from execution though he had received the death penalty. As execution approached he refused to take his meds. Of course he was then ruled "insane" and we couldn't touch him. The DA's office was going to court to try to get an order to force the meds on him so they could kill him off. Which turned my stomach just as much as his crimes turned it, so I quit watching.
Strangely enough, the movie "The Exorcist" does not have this effect on me but the justice system can make me avert my eyes in a heartbeat.
I eventually lost track of the case. I kinda-sorta wish I knew what happened/was going on with it. Not sure I want to know, though.
I've got a great idea. Blow them up! You heard me. I don't mean like a limb or something. A big ole good fashion smash em into a fine ready mist kinda explosion. As it would take under a few miliseconds to do, it can be considered painless. Very messy and grim, yes. Humane? Maybe?
I wonder what it is about Short News that brings out all the losers with their stupid rhetoric about how to kill someone.
Is it just a bunch of psychotic kids in parents basements? Or is it just the fun of Internet anonymity?
I just don't see where people get off writing about killing people. I don't care how 'evil' a person is, getting all excited about the gory details of killing another human is an indication of a serious psychological problem.
True to an extent. Unfortunately, it seems to be human nature to be intrigued by death. Everyone wants to see it until they actually see it.
I'm not certain exactly how much pain is involved in the injection of the last two drugs, but I can't imagine it's more pain than he forced upon his victims. Anyone know why they don't just give them copious amounts of morphine or even heroin? That certainly wouldn't hurt. I'm torn on the issue of capital punishment because I fully believe that some people are too much of a threat to society to continue living. But I also know that innocent people do get convicted of crimes. Then there's the gray area of people that are convicted of crimes that they may have been involved in, but didn't take any direct action. Just like the case with Bin Laden's driver. He drove Bin Laden where he was directed to drive. He didn't come up with any plans to hurt people, he did not hurt anyone, all he did was drive. Of course he should face some punishment so that if nothing else, he learns to be more cautious who he drives for and what their actions/intents are. But IMO he should not face life in prison or the death penalty. He was simply a taxi driver on a retainer for a wealthy man. Think he'd do it again if he had the chance? I'd bet not. It's sad that animals like Bin Laden can drag innocent people in like this, but he's still allowed to run free so our government has an excuse to continue "fighting terror." I guess the point I'm trying to make is that there are too many variables to accurately determine whether one should be allowed to live or die.
“I'm not certain exactly how much pain is involved in the injection of the last two drugs, but I can't imagine it's more pain than he forced upon his victims.”
- It’s irrelevant really. We don’t operate society, and neither should we, on an eye for an eye principle of days gone by. Otherwise if we got in a vehicular accident and someone got a spine injury, we’d take the person who caused the accident and damage their spine. If someone cooked a meal that caused fatal food poisoning, we’d poison them to death.
Justice has moved beyond eye for an eye, so it is irrelevant how things would have been dealt with in medieval times.
“Anyone know why they don't just give them copious amounts of morphine or even heroin? That certainly wouldn't hurt.”
- Who knows. Although I do know that American is but a handful of civilized countries in the world that still kills people.
“I'm torn on the issue of capital punishment because I fully believe that some people are too much of a threat to society to continue living. But I also know that innocent people do get convicted of crimes.”
- And therein lies just one of the problems. On the one hand guilty people will die, on the other hand statistically, it is almost a certainty that some innocent people will be erroneously killed by the government.
It’s not much of a factor until it is your spouse, or child being killed for a crime they did not commit.
“Then there's the gray area of people that are convicted of crimes that they may have been involved in, but didn't take any direct action. Just like the case with Bin Laden's driver. He drove Bin Laden where he was directed to drive. He didn't come up with any plans to hurt people, he did not hurt anyone, all he did was drive. Of course he should face some punishment so that if nothing else, he learns to be more cautious who he drives for and what their actions/intents are. But IMO he should not face life in prison or the death penalty.”
- I am going to be honest here. I am aware of this news story, but have not followed it. I have been a negligent citizen, and am ignorant of what exactly went down with this individual. But taking your example at face value without the benefit of having researched the situation, my initial reaction is that this guys punishment is nothing more than creating a scapegoat.
It’s always easy to argue that some random person could have come forward and saved lives by blowing the whistle, but I doubt that this guy could have done so and lived. You don’t just decide to testify against an international terrorist without facing some pretty crazy (deadly) consequences.
“I guess the point I'm trying to make is that there are too many variables to accurately determine whether one should be allowed to live or die.”
- An until they develop a fool proof system, we should air on the side of caution. But let’s consider this. Among our civilized world leading friends, NONE of them have the death penalty. And NONE of them have the same problem we do with homicides. So maybe they have some ideas we could learn from.
"It’s irrelevant really. We don’t operate society, and neither should we, on an eye for an eye principle of days gone by. Otherwise if we got in a vehicular accident and someone got a spine injury, we’d take the person who caused the accident and damage their spine. If someone cooked a meal that caused fatal food poisoning, we’d poison them to death."
True, and I don't really believe in eye for an eye. But in his case, whether or not we continue to use the death penalty is irrelevant because they are going to put him to death. But assuming that he is guilty (obviously I don't know the whole story) I don't think they should stay his execution JUST because of the pain that he may endure. Perhaps a better way to state this is: I am against the death penalty because I know that innocent people do get put to death, and I know that it costs more to kill someone than it does to house them until they die of more natural causes. I would be for it in cases like the guy in Canada that decapitated the poor kid on the bus. Many people and officers SAW him committing the act. Obviously he can be set off at any time and offers no value to society. I think he should be put to death immediately. Which is also what he claims he wants. Let him die. Over population is a huge issue as well. Not that one man's death would solve that problem. But lawyers would fight on his behalf to keep him alive anyway. And since you can't deny someone an appeal, it will end up costing a great deal either way. In conclusion, I've determined that if I had to choose one side or the other (which I do because I don't really feel humans are capable of using such power responsibly) I would say I am against it. However prior to this communication, if you would have asked me for or against, I probably would have said for since I AM for it IF it could be done right. Since I've made all the points I care to right now, I'm going to say we'll have to agree to... wait....... we agree. :)
will always garner varied opinions and thats why we can't simply put a f'ing criminal down. I'm sorry, but if there is irrefutable proof that you've committed a crime, particularly a heinous crime such as rape, or murder. Your ass should fry, or get blown up, or whatever your imagination can imagine. We don't stop to recant very oft when a bovine is slaughtered, why then is an animal in the form of a human guise being considered human. If you can't abide by the simple law of not KILLING your fellow man I don't believe you engender any of those rights associated w/ both society and humanity in general. The true humanists will say otherwise, but let them be affronted in the same manner and I bet that tune will change. Lesser crimes don't neccessarily evoke such a punishment, but anyone who feels a rapist, or murderer should be treated "humane." Is an idiot, who simply won't allow us ( the human race) to speed along evolution. :-P
I guess your opinion is nothing new here on ShortNews. The typical knee jerk kill 'em by whatever grotesque manner one can imagine attitude. Treat them like an animal.
I notice you suggested that murderers should die, and then you just slide in rape as well. I'm sure child molestation is next on your list as well.
Perhaps you don't remember the incident of the 'Satanic Cult' in Bakersfield. The guy was thrown in jail for molesting children who swam in his pool. Years later the children came forward and admitted that they had been coerced into testifying and that in fact no abuse had taken place.
In your world this evil man would be dead. Shot, hanged, blown up etc. But he was innocent. Victim of some crazy prosecutor looking for Satanic Cults, and when he couldn't find one, he just made one up.
When you devalue human life, and compare humans to bovine and swine, we as a human race all lose something. You talk about evolution. How about we as a society evolve beyond state sanctioned murder?
Consider too just which countries around the world still execute criminals as frequently as we do. It's not a nice list. In fact the list represents some of the more repressive and backwards societies. Interestingly the countries that don't execute people have lower homicide rates than we do. The same can be said within the US. The states that execute tend to have a higher murder rate. Perhaps you should do some research.
Don't blunder into an argument like this passing it off as common sense or claiming that anyone who doesn't think like you is an idiot. As with most major issues, there is generally a lot more to it than a surface thinker might imagine.
"When you devalue human life, and compare humans to bovine and swine, we as a human race all lose something. You talk about evolution. How about we as a society evolve beyond state sanctioned murder?"
so its ok for you to leave someone in a cell for years, but not to kill him ?
i call this hypocrisy
i think its more human to kill a man in the instant instead than letting him die slowly in a crappy prison cell.
i'm all for killing murderers, rapists, and child molesters.
BUT i find deeply wrong to blame a man of child molestation without any proofs at all. in my opinion you could only give the death sentence to a man when it had been established with concrete proofs that he is guilty.
In the case I cited as an example, the jury determined beyond a reasonable doubt that the man in question was guilty. Several children described in detail how he molested them. It was pretty open and shut.
It wasn't until years later that the kids grew up, thought about what they had done, and got to talking to each other, and realized that social workers had coerced them.
The guy was innocent all along, and under your 'justice' he would be dead.
As for your argument about what is more humane? Who cares? I was never arguing for being nice to the criminals. I just want to ensure they are not a danger to society, which they are not in prison.
I might be more pro death penalty if it was proven to work. But all the evidence I have read is that the death penalty is more expensive, inhumane, and does not lower instances of murder. And of course, it is irreversible.
So apart from satisfying sadistic people's need for revenge, I don't see what it achieves.
this is exactly what i'm talking about, how can you sentence a man to death without any proofs, just because some kids said so ? if there is no proofs at all, you have no right to sentence a man to death.
but for the people who were found guilty because of hard evidences, i don't see why we should keep them alive in a cell until they die anyway.
How can you get much better than several children all telling the same story with graphic details of how they were molested? That's generally good enough evidence to convict, as it was in this case.
But the specifics of this case are irrelevant. The point is innocent people do end up in jail, and when the death penalty is an option innocent people get killed. You can let someone out of jail, but you can't bring them back to life after you execute them.
this is why the death penalty should only be considered when there is hard evidences of a crime. (serial killers, multiple offenders..ect )
3 kids telling the same thing is not hard evidences to me.. i could do exactly the same with some friends and get someone killed just because i want to. this is ridiculous.
but i do agree, lot of innocent people are sent to jail and maybe will be executed, but who is to blame ? the jury ? or an inneficient judiciary system that allow the jury to sentence someone to death, only based on allegations ?
