Karma: 190185

Clayton Lockett's execution. Cruel and Unusual?

Death sentence.

Answer this

+4 Views: 2872 Answers: 8 Posted: 10 years ago

The object of an execution is to deprive someone of their life, not to torture them to death. That makes us into people worse than the offender. I fully realise that was not the object of the operation.
Can anyone inform me whether the rate of homicides is lesser in the States where the death penalty exists?

Commented 10 years ago

8 Answers

Colleen

Karma: 2042400

Best answer!

I think they should have stuck with a tried and true method rather than use the new mix that did not work correctly. I do not think it can be called cruel and unusual because it was not intentional that he had to suffer for 10 minutes. But then I have to think of the teenage girl he made suffer for much longer before he finally killed her by shooting her and having her buried alive. Perhaps justice was served, just not man's justice.

(answer updated)

10 years ago. Rating: 7
Comment this answer

ROMOS

I've heard it was 43 minutes he suffered, according to witnesses of the "execution".
Your info, or your opinion may be wrong!
BTW, I agree the guy had to die!

commented 10 years ago

Colleen

I heard he was unconscious for most of that 43 minutes.

commented 10 years ago

Colleen

Lockett had been declared unconscious 10 minutes after the first of three drugs in the state’s new lethal injection combination was administered. 3 minutes later, he then had what I would call a seizure, the curtain was lowered so people could not see what was going on in the chamber and the process was halted. Lockett died of a heart attack shortly thereafter. It all may have lasted 43 minutes but I do not think he suffered a full 43 minutes. Even if he had, it would not bother me.

commented 10 years ago

ROMOS

Should bring back hanging.
More "humane"?

commented 10 years ago

Colleen

No matter what they use, there's always a chance for something to go wrong. Should make people think twice when committing a murder in a state that has the death penalty.

commented 10 years ago

nomdeplume

Is the homicide rate lower in states that have the death penalty?

commented 10 years ago

Colleen

@ Nom, I don't know and I really don't care. I am not anti-death penalty. States that have the death penalty hardly ever use it anyway, at least not to my knowledge, (note to Roy; I'm not interested in fact checking this so be my guest if you really need facts for any part of my reply to Nom). The appeals process can take up to 20 years depending on the court. The death penalty is really kind of pointless, imo since it's actually used so little. My state use to have the death penalty but between 1973 and 2012 only 1 person was executed. Because of this, the state legislators decided to repeal the law.

commented 10 years ago

Bob/PKB

Karma: 945575

This website will give you statistics for nearly 20 years, comparing the homicide rate for death penalty vs. non-death penalty states. Disturbingly, the death penalty states seem to have an overall HIGHER rate of homicides.

As to Lockett's execution, I wouldn't call it cruel and unusual because it was supposed to be a typical lethal injection, which has been accepted for many years. I am pro-death penalty where there is no doubt whatsoever of the guilt of the perpetrator, but would never want to be the hooded executioner or witness such a thing. On the other hand, my sympathies are with the victims and their loved ones.

10 years ago. Rating: 7
Comment this answer

hector5559

How far do we go down the path of wanting revenge,to the extent of wanting to see horiffic suffering,To be rightous,

commented 10 years ago

Bob/PKB

Who wants to see horrific suffering? I wouldn't call the death penalty "righteous".

commented 10 years ago

Tommyh

Karma: 609115

No! I think it's fair enough.It obviously wasn't intentional that he lingered as long as he did but there you have it.The crime he committed was "Cruel & unusual" & that's for sure.Why should we be worried whether he suffered a little longer than was intended.The crime was committed in 1999 so he had 15 years of life that he didn't deserve as far as I'm concerned.If he suffered for that 15 years so be it.He should have considered that before he did what he did to Stephanie.

10 years ago. Rating: 7
Comment this answer

lindilou

Karma: 480785

10 years ago. Rating: 7
Comment this answer

sunnyB

Karma: 390511

Is this the person who shot someone and then helped bury her alive, in that case I really don't care how much he suffered.

10 years ago. Rating: 7
Comment this answer

Colleen

"Clayton Lockett, 38, was convicted of shooting 19-year-old Stephanie Nieman with a sawed-off shotgun and watching as two accomplices buried her alive in rural Kay County in 1999."

The other story I read only mentioned his gun jamming and him laughing at her as she pleaded for her life, then shooting her after he got the gun un-jammed. It did not mention that she was buried alive. Now I feel even better that he suffered before he died.

commented 10 years ago

sunnyB

Yes sounds like he got what he deserved.

commented 10 years ago

witchway