Post by Guest on May 2, 2008 23:12:01 GMT -5
Women Killed in Cruel and Unusual Manner
By Dee, published Apr 22, 2008
The ruling of The Supreme Court that the method used to execute in our Nation, lethal injection is not cruel and unusual doesn't surprise me. Actually that was what I expected to hear. The vote was 7-2 against it being cruel and unusual, and I imagine they questioned all aspects of it. And in a very timely manner, since the decision came in in April, 2 months earlier than anticipated. Probably just before an endless stream of more litigation.
But just for one moment let us imagine. Imagine a young woman being abducted. Her perpetrator straps her to a table and tells her she is going to die. Imagine the horror of just knowing that alone. He leaves her there for a while, so she can ponder on that.
Soon he returns, with a set of syringes. Because he is not a medical technician, and untrained after much effort he locates a vein that is suitable to inject and does so. She falls into a anestisured state. While she is in that state of unconsciousness he locates another vein and injects her with a muscle relaxer, that will soon paralyze her. While this takes effect, the first drug wears off, and she is paralyzed, unable to move or speak out but very much conscious of what is going on. The mental torture alone is cruel, never mind what is to come next.
And finally he injects the third drug into her, this one feels like fire going through her veins. It causes her heart to explode and causes excruciating pain, until she is finally dead.
The next day the papers read "Woman Killed In Cruel And Unusual Manner." The perpetrator is said to have committed a "heinous crime." Because after all this was a cruel and unusual death.
www.associatedcontent.com/article/728261/women_killed_in_cruel_and_unusual_manner.html
By Dee, published Apr 22, 2008
The ruling of The Supreme Court that the method used to execute in our Nation, lethal injection is not cruel and unusual doesn't surprise me. Actually that was what I expected to hear. The vote was 7-2 against it being cruel and unusual, and I imagine they questioned all aspects of it. And in a very timely manner, since the decision came in in April, 2 months earlier than anticipated. Probably just before an endless stream of more litigation.
But just for one moment let us imagine. Imagine a young woman being abducted. Her perpetrator straps her to a table and tells her she is going to die. Imagine the horror of just knowing that alone. He leaves her there for a while, so she can ponder on that.
Soon he returns, with a set of syringes. Because he is not a medical technician, and untrained after much effort he locates a vein that is suitable to inject and does so. She falls into a anestisured state. While she is in that state of unconsciousness he locates another vein and injects her with a muscle relaxer, that will soon paralyze her. While this takes effect, the first drug wears off, and she is paralyzed, unable to move or speak out but very much conscious of what is going on. The mental torture alone is cruel, never mind what is to come next.
And finally he injects the third drug into her, this one feels like fire going through her veins. It causes her heart to explode and causes excruciating pain, until she is finally dead.
The next day the papers read "Woman Killed In Cruel And Unusual Manner." The perpetrator is said to have committed a "heinous crime." Because after all this was a cruel and unusual death.
www.associatedcontent.com/article/728261/women_killed_in_cruel_and_unusual_manner.html