Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

AudibleNod OP t1_j5z88nc wrote

>Two of the people most responsible for overseeing Tennessee’s lethal injection drugs “incorrectly testified” under oath that they were testing the chemicals for bacterial contamination, the state attorney general’s office conceded in a court filing.

+++++

"Incorrectly testified?" You'd think there'd be a legal word for that. Something menacing sounding. Something Old French or Latin that doesn't get used except in a legal context. Oh well. I guess we're sticking with "incorrectly testified". It's the 'alternative facts' of legal words now.

334

PEVEI t1_j5zbd43 wrote

Does the word rhyme with perjury?

129

thatoneguy889 t1_j5zcndy wrote

Last month, the state fired the Inspector General that discovered these protocol breaches.

169

AudibleNod OP t1_j5zepq3 wrote

I think we need a separate "Department of the Inspectors General" at the federal and state levels. And they'd be like judges that you cannot just fire on a whim.

63

SPWuniverse t1_j6023cx wrote

It would be a short term solution until those positions become corrupt sadly

31

RSquared t1_j610lma wrote

See the DHS IG refusing to secure the text messages of secret service agents on January 6.

9

No-Reach-9173 t1_j63c1bb wrote

Seems a lot more simple to screen for people that don't want to be rich and make them wealthy enough that their pay is enough. 250k year for life with a single 4 year term add harsh penalties for fucking up like removal of the pension and put them in prison. Add lottery style assignments to make it harder to game the pool so every one would have to be on the take and you've greatly reduced your issues.

1

RTwhyNot t1_j5zozu5 wrote

“Incorrectly testifying”. What the fuck is this? Why can’t they say lying under oath or perjury?

74

PaxNova t1_j60v4av wrote

Presumably it would be if they didn't know or misspoke. Perjury only applies if they knew and willfully told the lie, as opposed to saying what they thought was true, or an honest mistake thinking of something else.

21

Fuzzyphilosopher t1_j65avkp wrote

Ah, so in this case it's only being completely misinformed and ignorant of their primary job responsibility. If you're cashier that's not good. If your job is overseeing executions it's a wee bit more egregious. Right up there with an incompetent short order cook at Waffle House. /s The threads of civilization unraveling.

3

jxj24 t1_j5zcqmj wrote

"Of course I tested for endotoxins! What's an endotoxin?"

57

orrocos t1_j6091up wrote

"I told it to tell me if it had any endotoxins and it didn't reply, so I assumed it was okay."

15

xenon54xenon54 t1_j5zvw6p wrote

I would genuinely prefer that execution was done by firing squad. At least then it would be obvious that the death penalty is barbaric and can't be sanitized with needles or clean little medical rooms and doctors.

33

Ludwigofthepotatoppl t1_j61t7y8 wrote

Just… nitrogen. You go to sleep, you suffocate painlessly, it’s done. As clean and courteous as the death penalty can be. Still won’t be reversible, so the innocent are still dead, still won’t deter the guilty.

22

Caladbolg_Prometheus t1_j61uwam wrote

It’s too clean. In my opinion the strongest proponents of the death penalty want there to be suffering, or at the very least look like the dying man is suffering.

7

Ludwigofthepotatoppl t1_j61v9q2 wrote

Those people can fuck a hat. Cruelty in punishment is unconstitutional, as if they could name which amendment states it.

22

Pugshaver t1_j62twid wrote

Pretty sure the Supreme Court ruled back in 2019 that cruel punishment is entirely constitutional, it's only punishments that are cruel AND unusual that aren't lawful. As long as it's a common way of torturing someone to death (such as lethal injection) it's totally lawful.

11

kandoras t1_j63dzsz wrote

Or since executions are not unusual in the US, it's constitutional to kill people by pretty much any method you came come up with.

2

Caladbolg_Prometheus t1_j64iunk wrote

I don’t like your wording. Perhaps you meant something different, and if you did correct me.

Going by your wording since imprisonment is a common punishment, any method of imprisonment is constitutional, even something like a pillory. I can’t see putting someone in a pillory for any long length of time as constitutional.

3

kandoras t1_j64jme0 wrote

I don't like the wording of the Supreme Courts ruling either, but it is what it is.

They decided that only punishments which were both cruel AND unusual were unconstitutional. A punishment which was only one and not the other is legally acceptable.

So yes, imprisonment is not unusual, so no matter how cruel it may be, the conservatives on the court have ruled that it is acceptable.

3

Caladbolg_Prometheus t1_j657rn4 wrote

I think we are misunderstanding each other because what you wrote here doesn’t line up with what I wrote. Not to say I agree or disagree with you, just I don’t think we are on the same page.

3

Caladbolg_Prometheus t1_j61w6to wrote

Hey reform based punishment is unpopular in the states. You got sadistic superheroes like the Punisher who go overboard on the ‘punishment.’ But how often do you hear of a popular film or book that’s all about reforming a violent offender?

Hell it’s political suicide to even look like you are ‘weak on crime.’ People crave blood much more over restitution or rehabilitation.

5

kandoras t1_j63dx6j wrote

> Cruelty in punishment is unconstitutional

Technically, per a Supreme Court ruling, the 8th Amendment treats the "and" in "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." as a boolean operator.

Punishments which are merely cruel but not unusual, or unusual but not cruel, are constitutional. It's only a problem when it's both cruel and at the same time unusual.

5

exarkann t1_j62ouu3 wrote

Nitrogen is how I want to go when the time comes.

3

xenon54xenon54 t1_j6310ca wrote

Sounds like a comfy way to die. But if somebody gets executed, I want everybody to suffer for it. I want the firing squad to look at somebody whose completely helpless and still have to gun them down. I want the jury to look at somebody who already has no chance of harming anybody anymore and to still say their continued existence is violence. I want spectators to every execution, do it in the town square for all I care, so everybody who watches knows that this is how much their fair and unbiased, enlightened liberal state really values their lives.

I do think that bloody, horrific executions are a deterrent: they're a deterrent against executions. They should be (at most) rare spectacles used to excise and obliterate those exceedingly few humans who we have agreed, perhaps on a species-basis, are an existential threat.

3

PanFriedCookies t1_j5zxufs wrote

I mean, even then it'd be better in terms of humanity. You can't fuck up blowing up someone's brainstem, but you sure as hell can mess up the paralytics so people put to death feel everything as the killing drug makes its way through their system.

4

m0le t1_j607p33 wrote

You really, really can fuck up shooting someone in the head. It semi regularly happens to people making suicide attempts. The results can be truly horrific, life alteringly bad, though I guess if your life expectancy is "until the squad can reload and fire again" that isn't as much of a concern. Really messy and unpleasant though.

20

Dangerous_Golf_7417 t1_j613uzk wrote

Suicide attempts usually end with one gunshot, and people are pretty bad at shooting themselves. Several trained marksmen would theoretical not botch their shots in the same way.

6

m0le t1_j618fco wrote

Could do - that first shot on target is going to mess with everyone's targeting.

0

Dangerous_Golf_7417 t1_j6193sv wrote

Fair point. I think traditionally it's 5+ people aiming at the heart/center mass so it's more effective than a missed headshot, but still stands the chance of being uncomfortable for a bit

4

MidLifeHalfHouse t1_j62xzxp wrote

Much easier to fuck up shooting self in head vs other.

1

m0le t1_j62z1u1 wrote

Have you met soldiers? They're the people you give your gadgets latest "idiot-proof" design to for testing and get reports back like "scope does not automatically reject crayons hammered in".

1

BlanstonShrieks t1_j60nc75 wrote

I believe that many of the so-called Christians who somehow favor the death penalty are not bothered by this. To them, it is a feature, not a bug. They'd buy tickets, then bring sandwiches and a Thermos of coffee.

4

Foe117 t1_j61s0k8 wrote

A proper hanging would be cleaner, for a open casket funeral.

4

Zebo91 t1_j6007j6 wrote

The wall in Handmaid's would please desantis in terms of barbaric brutality

1

SimplyTennessee t1_j5zcffl wrote

"But that inaccuracy in the record does not establish a real danger that Defendants will not preserve relevant evidence going forward.”

Inaccuracy is inaccurate.

25

traegeryyc t1_j5zbfbr wrote

That headline makes my eyes squint.

16

d3k3d t1_j601trh wrote

Spelled "perjury" wrong

13

IWantANewBeginning t1_j5zen5v wrote

>The independent report later found drugs were not tested for endotoxins in any execution attempts since a new three-drug protocol was implemented in 2018. That included the planned April 2022 execution of Oscar Smith, which was halted at the last minute, spurring the investigation.

Being sentenced to death seems horrific. Can't image the relieve he probably felt at the last minute. He is convicted of capital murder, but still claims hes innocent.

12

Miguel-odon t1_j61k2n7 wrote

It is kind of absurd, that the state is going to kill someone but also test the drugs for bacteria first.

10

Caladbolg_Prometheus t1_j61v82b wrote

Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. It’s up for debate whether a swift painless death fits the criteria. It’s not up for debate if torturing a man to death is cruel or unusual punishment.

6

Miguel-odon t1_j61vkc2 wrote

How would bacteria in the injection make the death penalty any more barbaric? It isn't going to kill him slower.

−1

Caladbolg_Prometheus t1_j61xqz8 wrote

It could kill slower, or even worse make the painkillers ineffective. There’s even been cases where both happened. Survivors describe the ordeal as ‘lava in the veins.’ That’s right, people survived lethal injection.

So yeah, ‘kill him slower’ is on the table. Longest ‘successful’ lethal injection was 1 hour 57 minutes. It was not pretty.

8

jetbag513 t1_j600xle wrote

So committed perjury? Why are they euphemizing this?

7

allrollingwolf t1_j60zncx wrote

Because a bunch of sociopathic monsters are responsible for our lives in government and you're gonna stop asking questions and like it.

6

blackfocal t1_j60pxow wrote

More the reason to get rid of the death penalty

3

QuantumChance t1_j6cmlx7 wrote

My theory is that the folks who want the death penalty don't want to really visualize or map the entire process - it's grizzly, sad and bleak. But you know that's what I find funny about the death penalty - the folks who want it don't understand how horrible it actually is to carry out at a systemic level until they have to go step by step through the whole process.

1