Pike survived a lethal injection execution on Wednesday. She was sentenced to death for the 1995 killing of her classmate, Colleen Slemmer.
Christa Pike, the woman who survived an execution attempt in Tennessee earlier this week, is on a ventilator as she receives care in the hospital, her lawyers said in a new statement Friday.
“Christa remains critically ill and is receiving medical care for the devastating effects of Wednesday night’s events,” the lawyers’ statement said. “She is critically ill, unconscious, intubated and receiving breathing assistance through a ventilator.”
The statement said she is being treated for “the serious effects of the pentobarbital administered during the execution attempt, including significant injuries to both arms.”
Not necessarily in favour of the death penalty, but would you say that the crimes of Donald Trump qualify as having been “established in an irrefutable manner”? I certainly would, and his irrefutably proven crimes include treason, admitted rape, financial crimes in the billions of dollars, suborning genocide, and a myriad of direct war crimes. Are these sufficient to convince you that some place like the ICC in the Hague should have the death penalty as an option, since so many of the war crimes and crimes against humanity are irrefutably proven? For instance, should Benjamin Netanyahu face the death penalty, should he ever be brought to the Hague? Just genuinely curious about the implications of your take.
There’s certainly enough evidence to convict him, but I wouldn’t think it deserves the death penalty even if I wasn’t completely against the death penalty.
That answers my question, thanks! I was trying to figure out if that incontrovertibility was actually the mitigating factor, since he’s personally responsible for crimes against humanity and war crimes against hundreds and hundreds of innocents, all of which his own statements effectively admit, and is also clearly guilty of treason, which is one of the few crimes that is regularly punished with death, so I figured that would neatly delineate it, and it did. I guess, then, that it’s not because crimes can’t be fully proven that you oppose the death penalty.
It’s one factor.
I’m not going to say I’m 100% against the death penalty in any and all circumstances, but I can’t think of any cases where I would want the person put to death. Like even if you had the most open-and-shut case, like someone went up and murdered someone on the street in cold blood, with mountains of evidence and completely unrepentant, no psychosis or brain tumor or anything, I don’t see what good putting them to death would do. Put them in prison and forget about them.
So because of that it’s easier just to be against it in general rather than look for the tiny sliver of corner cases that I might agree with it.
Edit: also generally I’m against it because it can’t be taken back if it comes out we were wrong. And because it can be abused by malicious actors.