Idaho halted the execution of serial killer Thomas Eugene Creech on Wednesday after medical team members repeatedly failed to find a vein where they could establish an intravenous line to carry out the lethal injection. Creech, 73, has been in prison half a century, convicted of five murders in three states and suspected of several more. Creech, one of the longest-serving death row inmates in the U.S., was wheeled into the execution chamber at the Idaho Maximum Security Institution on a gurney a
Dear Supreme Court Originalists:
The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
I want them to explain exactly why this isn’t cruel.
The supreme Court ruled that due to the wording, the punishment must be both cruel and unusual. This is for sure cruel, but it’s not weird enough
Literally nothing is unusual if u do it enough times.
That was my argument but after three attempts she told me we had to turn off The Muppets Take Manhattan.
Ugh prudes
And the way they determine “unusual” is by doing this absolutely ahistoric, arbitrary polling of current policy. They cherry pick whatever statistics serve the politics of the person writing the decision.
e.g., when ruling whether it was “unusual” to execute people with cogitative disabilities (Atkins v. Virginia), they did a tally of how many states allowed execution in these cases vs did not but deliberately omitted how many states do not allow ANY executions. Then concluded that slightly more states allow executions of the mentally unfit than don’t even though it was absolutely incontestable fact that the vast majority of states did not allow this kind of execution.
Ignore that the ruling technically banned those executions… because it factually didn’t, since it left it up to states to define cognitive disability however they pleased and the behavior of the kill-happy states was not affected by the ruling.
Holy shit is this true?
Here’s what the segregationist William Rehnquist wrote, joined by Scalia and Thomas.
This was 2002. Do the math. Why is it, you suppose, that 18 + 19 didn’t equal 50? Because the other 13 states do not allow the death penalty. So according to Scalia, the fact that 18 states have laws against execution convicts who are not mentally fit to stand trial and an additional 13 do not allow execution period is not enough to prove that the current “standard of decency” is not to execute in these cases. It’s fucking asinine.
He also implies that the fact that the majority cited amicus briefs from European lawmakers, religious institutions, and scientific public opinion polls is somehow a demerit to their decision and not a valid way to determine what the current public sentiment is towards the issue.
It’s a perfect case study in how the conservatives on the court operate. Have always operated. Will always operate. They just lie, cheat, steal, and do whatever they want. They sort of failed in this case, but if they could’ve gotten the votes they absolutely would’ve pushed this forward as part of the case law. It was an attempt to flatly fabricate
Couldn’t agree more. That is so messed up.
The irony is, that quote is from the guy who was… doing exactly that.
Every accusation a confession.
Yeah the irony definitely isn’t lost on me
When I was really sick and needed regular blood tests, I’d have some nurses take at least a half-dozen stabs at me before getting a usable vein. We’re talking both arms and then moving to the top of the hand.
It happens. I wouldn’t call it cruel or a form of punishment, as they weren’t purposely trying to make my life miserable.
It’s mildly annoying as the patient, and I’m sure a little embarrassing for the person with the needle.
Did you know it was going to kill you if it worked? Because that would be the cruel part. Imagine knowing, for days, maybe even months after your last appeal that you were going to die. You know the exact date and time. You know nothing you can do will stop it.
How is that not cruel?
Having known that capital punishment by lethal injection would be the consequence of his actions, he decided his own fate.
Even prison could be considered cruel, or compassionate, depending on your perspective.
Really, though, this man murdered six people. I think you’re giving his feelings far too much consideration.
How did he know that would be the consequences of his actions when plenty of people have been sentenced to life in prison for similar actions? How did he know he wouldn’t be dealing with a hung jury? Unless he was able to predict the future, which he could not, suggesting he knew that ‘capital punishment by lethal injection’ would be the consequences of his actions is ridiculous. On top of that, he may literally not know the difference between right and wrong, something that is entirely possible. In which case, again, he would not have known the consequences of his actions.
And it’s not about his feelings. The law shouldn’t be sidestepped just because a crime is very bad. Otherwise, why not just let police kill people like him and avoid trial completely?
I’m not saying that I agree with capital punishment, but you should really read up on this guy. He’s confessed to over 40 murders.
But to answer your question, he asked to be executed by lethal injection.
I’m not sure why you think this specific case should be an exception when it comes to whether or not a law is ethical or even legal based on the U.S. Constitution. Even if this specific guy wanted to die, many very clearly did not. Including the innocent people that have been executed.
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/innocence/executed-but-possibly-innocent
Should whether or not something is legal be decided on a case-by-case basis or should the law apply equally for everyone? Because I would certainly say the latter.
Friend, I’m not saying I support capital punishment. No doubt that there have been innocent people put to death (often people of colour), and that would be a failing of the justice system. Even the idea of capital punishment makes me sick.
But in the context we find ourselves in, the way Creech has been treated couldn’t possibly have been more humane or compassionate. He’s already tried to kill himself, saying he does not want to be stuck in prison for the rest of his life.
How would you go about making this situation better for this murderer? Or the family of his victims?
Well, sentencing is done on a case-by-case basis. Which is why some people who commit especially brutal types of violent murders are given a harsher penalty vs someone who may have killed in the heat of the moment. This is probably as fair as you can get, since some crimes obviously shouldn’t get the same heavy had as others.
Sentencing is done within the limit of the law and, again this is not about him specifically.
You can’t sentence someone to die by a thousand cuts because that is cruel. Which violates the Constitution. Why is this not cruel? Because it’s faster?
Reasons aside, they were killing this man. Sounds pretty cruel when you add that little caveat.
They’re not torturing him. Just trying to curtail his existence. It’s incredibly reasonable.
The stakes were a little different.
“I can’t define it, but I know it when i see it.”
Follow up ruling:
“I cant see it.”