NONE OF THIS MAKES ANY SENSE....
What is the benefit to delaying the injection of the other 2 drugs after the sedative, when the edative happens to be an 'ultra-short-acting barbiturate'?
Is there any indication whatsoever, that the execution team in Angel Diaz's execution somehow failed to take their orders from the warden, and that this had an adverse impact (besides, what special qualifications does the warden have in this narrow context?)
There was an FDLE observer for the Diaz execution, who claimed to have been able to clearly see Diaz -- the problem was that he wasn't there for the mixing of the chemicals - so this recommendation does nothing to address that particular problem.
Labeling the syringes: The syringes are placed in LABELED slots on the wooden stands.
Was there any particular problem with the Diaz execution that is supposedly being addressed by this recommendation of redundancy? Wasn't the fact that they skipped the sedative in the second round explained as a deliberate consensus to 'speed up the process,' as Judge Morris implied?
As for not moving the inmate after insertion of the IV:
In the current protocol, the IVs are not inserted (point 12 k) until such time as the inmate has been placed and secured on the gurney (points 12 h & i.)
So this recommendation likewise addresses no existing problem, nor does it provide anything remotely relevant or helpful.
Closed-circuit monitoring: As Dr. Groner points out, part of the problem is the long IV lines allowing the executioners to remain in a separate room. This solution positively works toward ensuring that the problem will remain (along with the fact that it's, y'know, FUCKING USELESS.)
Please, someone explain this to me:
"Consider limiting appointment of execution team members who are responsible for the routine care of the condemned inmate." WHAT is that about -- is the point to know as little as possible about the medical status of the wo/man they're killing?
Have someone present who speaks the native language of the inmate?
That'll be fun: "Hello - we're calling on behalf of the FL DOC, and we're planning to kill your fellow country-man -- and, uh, we would appreciate if you'd translate... So, for instance, when s/he asks 'what's happening?' and we respond that we just tore up his/her veins with a needle and will shortly be injecting lethal chemicals that will work with a 20-minute delay while causing chemical burns & excruciating pain into his/her soft tissue, you simply convey this in your native tongue, as per the guidelines listed in our protocol.
How's next Thursday?"
What is the benefit to delaying the injection of the other 2 drugs after the sedative, when the edative happens to be an 'ultra-short-acting barbiturate'?
Is there any indication whatsoever, that the execution team in Angel Diaz's execution somehow failed to take their orders from the warden, and that this had an adverse impact (besides, what special qualifications does the warden have in this narrow context?)
There was an FDLE observer for the Diaz execution, who claimed to have been able to clearly see Diaz -- the problem was that he wasn't there for the mixing of the chemicals - so this recommendation does nothing to address that particular problem.
Labeling the syringes: The syringes are placed in LABELED slots on the wooden stands.
Was there any particular problem with the Diaz execution that is supposedly being addressed by this recommendation of redundancy? Wasn't the fact that they skipped the sedative in the second round explained as a deliberate consensus to 'speed up the process,' as Judge Morris implied?
As for not moving the inmate after insertion of the IV:
In the current protocol, the IVs are not inserted (point 12 k) until such time as the inmate has been placed and secured on the gurney (points 12 h & i.)
So this recommendation likewise addresses no existing problem, nor does it provide anything remotely relevant or helpful.
Closed-circuit monitoring: As Dr. Groner points out, part of the problem is the long IV lines allowing the executioners to remain in a separate room. This solution positively works toward ensuring that the problem will remain (along with the fact that it's, y'know, FUCKING USELESS.)
Please, someone explain this to me:
"Consider limiting appointment of execution team members who are responsible for the routine care of the condemned inmate." WHAT is that about -- is the point to know as little as possible about the medical status of the wo/man they're killing?
Have someone present who speaks the native language of the inmate?
That'll be fun: "Hello - we're calling on behalf of the FL DOC, and we're planning to kill your fellow country-man -- and, uh, we would appreciate if you'd translate... So, for instance, when s/he asks 'what's happening?' and we respond that we just tore up his/her veins with a needle and will shortly be injecting lethal chemicals that will work with a 20-minute delay while causing chemical burns & excruciating pain into his/her soft tissue, you simply convey this in your native tongue, as per the guidelines listed in our protocol.
How's next Thursday?"
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment