California death row inmate Albert Brown, 56, faced execution by lethal injection on Thursday night as his lawyers made the usual legal challenges to his execution. But the best argument – hardly a legal one - was made by California prison officials themselves.
“We need to execute Mr. Brown on Thursday,” the budget conscious prison officials said as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was considering a stay, “because our last of batch of sodium thiopental” – the drugs used in the three drug cocktail that is suppose to numb you before the lethal drugs set in- “is due to expire on Friday.”
The Ninth Circuit was less than pleased with this rationale. “It is incredible to think that the deliberative process might be driven by the expiration date of the execution drug,” the Ninth Circuit said in ordering the trial judge to reconsider his denial of a stay of execution request.
Those clever prison officials, in their zeal to see that no lethal execution drugs are wasted, had somehow failed to mention this fact to the trial judge when they had opposed the stay of execution request in court.
The judge canceled the execution so Mr. Brown gets to sit on death row, at least until California buys some new sodium thiopental with a longer execution –I’m sorry- expiration date. Of course, California prison officials had been scolded before that their drug execution process was flawed and needed significant review, but they never really changed anything.
This one ranks right up there with the Five O Clock Judge. The callowness of some public officials entrusted with making the final decision about a man’s life is sometimes beyond belief.
-- Modified on 9/29/2010 8:42:51 PM
Two key mistakes made. First, as noted in your post they flat out didn't look at the expiration date. California Corrections is pretty stupid. Second, they didn't think of alternatives. No, I'm not talking about a gunshot to the head, hanging, or your favorite stoning to death (lol).
What the public official(s) should have thought about is, where can I get this drug on short notice? How about another state? How about a state that has a track record and volume in executions? How about using Fedex or UPS and get overnight delivery? Don't use the U.S. Postal Service or the damn drug will get lost. How about calling Texas?
All I did was Google lethal injections, and saw this article. Sometimes you have to have a private sector mentality to get things done on time and within budget. But California Corrections is run by a union. This is what you get.
http://itemonline.com/local/x1535830988/Texas-well-stocked-with-lethal-injection-drugs
of many many positions such as informational technology, vehicle fleet, and others what you mentioned. It's why I will be voting for Whitman.
will win. The unions are out in force to ensure their candidates get elected. Now if by some chance Whitman gets elected, I'll volunteer my services by helping her identify areas for possible outsourcing (lol).
How about those Bruins doing a little Texas two-step on the Longhorns? I didn't see that coming.
-- Modified on 9/29/2010 8:44:08 PM
the last reduction-in-force i.e. layoffs that occurred in State government was back in the 1970's under the Brown adminstration. The last two years the State budget has been augmented by Federal Stimulus money. The next session of the US Congress will be unlikely to vote for a new stimulus financial package. The public and me the voter simply do not have the stomach for more bailouts be that banks, auto companies or mismanaged state governments.
Thus my prediction is no matter who wins the governorship in California in November, public sector layoffs will happen. You either increase revenues by increasing taxes or reduce expenditures by cutting public sector jobs to balance the budget.
I like Whitman because she will be sensible in her approach in reducing expenditures. Whereas Brown will follow the archaic and inefficient process of layoffs by using the senority method. Which means keeping older, fat and happy state workers and laying off younger hungry lower paid workers. Whitman wants to eliminate programs that are redundant and reduce the size of middle management. State government is so burdened by too many chiefs and so few Indians who actually do work it's amazing anything gets done.
Brown will be a disaster. Be sure to vote for Lt. Governor. At 72, Brown may croak in office.
-- Modified on 9/29/2010 11:38:10 PM
just got involved in the race. Talk about timing in support of Jerry Brown and unions. Think this was engineered by the left?
Brown just needs to retire. He's been in California politics for over 40 years. That's enough. He gets termed out in one position, and magically appears in another govt position. If Brown croaks in office, maybe he can do it on top of Linda Ronstandt.
with Linda on top.lol. She really let herself go. I would fantasize about her. Heart like Wheel is my favorite album by Linda.
What the hell happened to Linda Ronstandt? Did she go on a Krispy Kreme diet? This might be bad parenting on my part, but I did tell my son once that before you get serious with a girl, take a good look at her mother, because that might be your future.
OK, back to Meg Whitman and the drive-by being orchestrated by the infamous attorney Gloria Allred, and potentially the Jerry Brown campaign. Check out this audio interview between Mark Levin and Gloria Allred. There are a lot of holes in this case, but the funny part of the interview is when Mark Levin asked Gloria Allred, "12 million undocumented aliens in this country and you found this one?"
http://www.marklevinshow.com/Article.asp?id=1970739&spid=32364
That's always been a meme that I've questioned. I mean, if I was a tort lawyer, why would I chase an ambulance? If you need to be where the ambulances are, why not just hang out at the hospital?
Not much of choices here for anything...
public officials are stocking up on the good stuff.
Hard to believe that your suggestion never occurred to these guys. Btw, to their credit, the one US company that makes that drug objects to it being used for executions.
comment. You can debate the pros and cons of a private company commenting on various social issues, most of which are polarizing issues. Their job is to generate revenue, otherwise companies like Altria would be out of business.
I sell outsourcing. I tend to keep my mouth shout at most cocktail parties. There will be those individuals with a preconceived view and do not want to listen to the possible merits. Plus having a glass of a good Cabernet tossed at you is a bitch to get out of an expensive white shirt. What am I thinking, liberals only drink Chardonnay (lol).
the company that sells drugs used to execute people, even though their drug is an anesthetic used in surgeries.
Can you imagine the CEO being interviewed by Maria Bartiroma and she suddenly asks,"isn't it true that your product is used to execute people?"
Altria is invulnerable to public opinion as long as they keep paying that 6.2 dividend. They hit a 52 week high today. Do I own it? No, too busy buying Bank of America for my penny a share dividend.
oops different discussion board. My bad.
Thiopental sodium a/k/a sodium pentothal is used for certain forms of dental anesthesia. Not to mention being used in sub-anesthesia doses as "truth serum."
It could be obtained from practically any hospital pharmacy.
All that having been said, for some reason death by lethal injection seems more nasty to me than hanging or electrocution. Unlike these latter methods, it inspires a very visceral repulsion in me.
What is it about it?
Is it that it seeks to disguise the brutality of killing by making it appear that the person has simply gone to sleep?
Is it the application of compounds and technology used to save life for its opposite purpose?
Or is it the concept of a person rendered utterly helpless while the lethal drugs flow into his veins, paralyze him, put him to sleep, and finally induce heart block? It seems so ... calculated, so far removed from self-defense.
I'm not sure.
All I know is something like hanging or the electric chair seems more honest.
This is what you stated earlier this week on a different post. So if I understand you correctly; it's ok to commit murder against innocent people but not ok for the State to protect innocent people from murderers by putting them to death. Is that right?
Yes, you have the natural right to commit murder. You also have the right to stand on a soap box and claim that the Holocaust never happened. That doesn't make it a good idea.
The State has no rights. They only have privileges that we grant it. One of those privileges is to administer justice, and extend that to the death penalty. That, IMHO, is sick, and foolish.
There's a reason why we prohibit cruel and unusual punishment in our Constitution. It's a device to prevent tyrannical gov't. When gov't has the ability to kill it's citizens, then that leash is far too loose.
hear correctly?
our own U.S. Government employee.
He never fails to amaze with his bizarre posts.
...would you find me essentially quoting one of our Founding Fathers and conservatives would call this "head-shaking" comments.
Post that quote where the Founding Fathers said we have a right to murder when it is not in the interest of protecting life or property .Just because there is a right to life does not mean there is an opposite
federalist 84, starting from the 8th paragraph.
-- Modified on 10/1/2010 2:02:38 PM
Tim, talking to you is like trying to teach a labador how speak the Queen's English. Since you need it spelled out, I'll humor you.
To quote Hamilton in Federalist 84:
"It has been several times truly remarked that bills of rights are, in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgements of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was MAGNA CHARTA, obtained by the barons, sword in hand, from King John. Such were the subsequent confirmations of that charter by succeeding princes. Such was the Petition of Right assented to by Charles I., in the beginning of his reign. Such, also, was the Declaration of Right presented by the Lords and Commons to the Prince of Orange in 1688, and afterwards thrown into the form of an act of parliament called the Bill of Rights. It is evident, therefore, that, according to their primitive signification, they have NO APPLICATION to constitutions professedly founded upon THE POWER OF THE PEOPLE, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants..."
Listen up Tim. The important part is coming up.
"Here, in strictness, the people surrender NOTHING; and as they retain EVERY THING they have no need of particular reservations."
That's right, Tim. Our Constitution is founded upon the principle that the People have the right to do EVERYTHING. Since murder is a thing, we have the right to murder. We have the right to steal, pillage, rape, and burn shit down. We also have the right to eat a ham and cheese sandwish at 3 am while standing out on the street wearing a clown outfit.
Ever noticed that the Constitution doesn't say that you have the right to use the restroom? Or the right to own a home? Does this mean you don't have those rights? No. THE PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO EVERYTHING. It's even stated in the US Constitution.
The 9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights [such as free speech, freedom of the press, etc], shall not be construed to deny or disparage others [rights] retained by the people."
Now, is there any part of this rather simple concept that you don't understand?
To quote Hamilton in Federalist 84:
"It has been several times truly remarked that bills of rights are, in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgements of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was MAGNA CHARTA, obtained by the barons, sword in hand, from King John. Such were the subsequent confirmations of that charter by succeeding princes. Such was the Petition of Right assented to by Charles I., in the beginning of his reign. Such, also, was the Declaration of Right presented by the Lords and Commons to the Prince of Orange in 1688, and afterwards thrown into the form of an act of parliament called the Bill of Rights. It is evident, therefore, that, according to their primitive signification, they have NO APPLICATION to constitutions professedly founded upon THE POWER OF THE PEOPLE, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants..."
Listen up Tim. The important part is coming up.
"Here, in strictness, the people surrender NOTHING; and as they retain EVERY THING they have no need of particular reservations."
That's right, Tim. Our Constitution is founded upon the principle that the People have the right to do EVERYTHING. Since murder is a thing, we have the right to murder. We have the right to steal, pillage, rape, and burn shit down. We also have the right to eat a ham and cheese sandwish at 3 am while standing out on the street wearing a clown outfit.
Ever noticed that the Constitution doesn't say that you have the right to use the restroom? Or the right to own a home? Does this mean you don't have those rights? No. THE PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO EVERYTHING. It's even stated in the US Constitution.
The 9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights [such as free speech, freedom of the press, etc], shall not be construed to deny or disparage others [rights] retained by the people."
Now, is there any part of this rather simple concept that you don't understand?
To quote Hamilton in Federalist 84:
"It has been several times truly remarked that bills of rights are, in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgements of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was MAGNA CHARTA, obtained by the barons, sword in hand, from King John. Such were the subsequent confirmations of that charter by succeeding princes. Such was the Petition of Right assented to by Charles I., in the beginning of his reign. Such, also, was the Declaration of Right presented by the Lords and Commons to the Prince of Orange in 1688, and afterwards thrown into the form of an act of parliament called the Bill of Rights. It is evident, therefore, that, according to their primitive signification, they have NO APPLICATION to constitutions professedly founded upon THE POWER OF THE PEOPLE, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants..."
Listen up Tim. The important part is coming up.
"Here, in strictness, the people surrender NOTHING; and as they retain EVERY THING they have no need of particular reservations."
That's right, Tim. Our Constitution is founded upon the principle that the People have the right to do EVERYTHING. Since murder is a thing, we have the right to murder. We have the right to steal, pillage, rape, and burn shit down. We also have the right to eat a ham and cheese sandwish at 3 am while standing out on the street wearing a clown outfit.
Ever noticed that the Constitution doesn't say that you have the right to use the restroom? Or the right to own a home? Does this mean you don't have those rights? No. THE PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO EVERYTHING. It's even stated in the US Constitution.
The 9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights [such as free speech, freedom of the press, etc], shall not be construed to deny or disparage others [rights] retained by the people."
Now, is there any part of this rather simple concept that you don't understand?
I'm still waiting for a single person here to concede the point. I don't think a single conservative on this board ever has, despite that I regularly make most of them look stupid.