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.”
Maybe don’t execute people then.
If it was wrong for her to do it then it’s wrong for the state to do it.
Yeah like, if she recovers what are they going to do, kill her again?
I’m against capital punishment and the way they do it in the US is barbaric. But at this point it would be more humane to pull the plug or hit her with a hammer or something
She literally asked to be executed by firing squad. This all was foreseeable and has happened many times before.
In medieval times this would have been considered a sign from god and they would have set her free
I doubt she will recover fully. Her liver, kidneys and other organs will be fried. It’s very possible she might still die from this, just over a long period of time.
I think she will likely win a legal appeal for clemency and the state is unlikely to really fight over it because the family could claim damages for the unnecessary harm.
This case is going to be in textbooks and history books on the subject of capital punishment in the future.
You really have to ask yourself what was the point? The crime she did is beyond words, but what is gained by killing her now? She’s been on death row for over 30 years. If she was on a 25 year sentence she might have been up for parole. Is she really a danger to society? Ok, refuse her parole and move on.
Do you really think the 18 year old who did the horrendous crime gave a shit that the punishment was the death penalty? Will it stop the next 18 year old from killing? It doesn’t prevent crime at all, it’s just retribution. Is that really something necessary for the public good?
Establishing the premise that killing someone is ok if it’s because they did something wrong might be dangerous if your entire society is armed and has strong moral opinions.
The only time I can agree with the death sentence is if the subject of it has proven to be 1, incorrigible and guaranteed to repeat offend 2, have an offence so vile that they cannot be risked a release into the public, either intentionally or accidentally 3, whose guilt has been established in irrefutable manner.
Think absolute menace serial killer psychos. Child rapists.
This comment implies the motivation is to protect the public from particularly dangerous offenders.
Life in prison without the possibility of parole is similarly protective.
No it isn’t - see “accidental” (unintentional) release.
So the incompetence of prisons is what makes you in favor of executing people?
No. The possibility of a murderer, who tortures and kills people for fun, escaping and torturing and murdering even more people makes me to consider it for the worst of the worst.
99.999% of all incarcerated can be rehabilitated - sure, some might never understand why it was wrong to kill, but at the very least you can get to a point where they won’t do it again - given the appropriate treatment and effort.
It’s the remaining 0.001% - the once a decade psychopaths, the Dahmers, the Lecters, and so on - whom are not rehabilitable, whom cannot even be in a regular prison, who require isolation and constant watch, who cannot be allowed even the chance of escaping.
Why? Because I value the multitudes of lives of the potential victims over the singular life of someone who clearly doesn’t care about others’.
So you say ‘no’, but you explain ‘yes’.
The rest of your fiction doesn’t hold water either. You will never be able to separate the 99.999% from the 0.001% with a 100% of certainty. I for one think a girl that committed a gruesome murder at the age of 18 has at least a non-zero percent chance of rehabilitation.
Your reading comprehension is lacking, and it’s showing.
And I think I very specifically pulled her example out as someone who CAN be rehabilitated. She doesn’t deserve the death penalty, arguably not even the life sentence (probably 20 years would be fair).
Prison should not be about punishing someone for what they did, but to ensure that 1, they don’t do it again once released 2, they understand why what they did was wrong.
Therefore the death sentence should only be applicable to those who have committed an egregious enough crime AND have proven to be impossible to rehabilitate.
But please let’s continue nitpicking because that’s totally going to resolve this debate…
I disagree with you, but I disagree more with the people who are downvoting you for sharing your opinion.
You’re engaging in conversation and debate respectfully, and people shouldn’t be downvoting you for that.
It’s because they’re arguing from a position of emotion, not facts.
That may be why you’re downvoting, but I’d wager most people are downvoting because they disagree with what that person is saying. Besides, do you downvote arguments you agree with when they aren’t backed by factual evidence? Do you think the others do too?
And it shouldn’t matter if their arguments come from emotion rather than facts – shouldn’t discussions of ethical matters take subjective things like emotion into consideration? They’re engaging and contributing to discussion in good faith. Downvoting that kind of stuff is how we end up creating circle jerks and groupthink.
In what universe is “hey maybe we should prevent preventable deaths” an argument from a position of emotion?
downvoting is just expressing a disagreement then? Is it disrespectful to express than an opinion is wrong using the tools this platform is built around? really strange way of thinking
The “netiquette” for platforms with these kinds of functions has been that downvotes are for comments that don’t contribute to discussion, are rule-breaking, needlessly adversarial, etc.
It makes sense, because downvoting hides comments from other readers. Doing that to respectful contributors who you disagree with will turn this into a platform filled with circle jerks and groupthink.
Since this is impossible, I’m firmly against the death penalty.
In the age of DNA, this is most certainly NOT impossible.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/colorado-crime-analyst-manipulated-dna-data-sentenced-rcna596722
No it isn’t impossible.
Objective, irrefutable evidence exists. Video recordings that clearly show one’s face, with further supporting evidence to ensure its not mistaken identity.
The words you’re using have rules. I don’t mean this in an adversarial way, but you are wrong.
Irrefutable evidence does not prove the claim, it just proves that you can’t refute the evidence. Video evidence can be misleading or fake. DNA evidence needs context to prove anything.
Anyway, like I say, these things have rules. The only things in the entire human domain that can be positively proved are mathematical statements. This is why gravity remains a theory, even after 350 years. One single counterexample disproves it. There are numerous examples of this happening in the context of the death penalty, where a jury was so convinced of guilt they condemned someone who was later executed, then, later still, new information emerged which proved them to be innocent.
Just by the pure first-principles of logic, the death sentence is a bad idea.
And in 99.9999% of the cases, I agree with you. Including this case. This woman doesn’t deserve to die, especially not in this botched manner (and especially not when people whose decisions are directly responsible of the suffering and death of thousands - the UnitedHealth CEO for example would sooner deserve this kind of execution, not the quick death of Luigi’s bullet).
And, again, I repeat, there’s maybe one or two individuals every decade that are truly so gruesome and irreparably incompatible with society that they would deserve to die - and even then, I’d tie their death sentence to rigorous examination of all evidence to completelt exclude the potential of them being innocent; thorough psychological evaluations to confirm that they’re incorrigible and irrehabilitable, and extensive security advisory that confirms the danger they’d pose to society.
Again; it is not possible to completely exclude the potential of them being innocent. That is literally beyond the wit of man.
No it isn’t… but please let’s keep pretending it is so all you idiots can keep downvoting. you clearly get off to it and who am I to stand in the way of your pleasure.
Video footage in the age of LLM is completely worthless as evidence.
No it isn’t. Even the best LLMs are incapable of making perfect fakes.
They might fool the average viewer, but forensic analysis can still easily pinpoint fakes.
And beyond that, I’ve already mentioned two methods that individually key a video or photo to specific hardware that is nigh impossible to fake (aka it’s mathematically possible, just not physically).
How do you prove the video hasn’t been tampered with?
Forensic analysis can already do that. Yes, even AI tampering can be proven.
I feels like you’re missing the point. There’s a tons of cases where innocent people get prison time despite no hard proof on them(via coercion or the lack of alibi), then there’s guilty people who hired a gang of lawyers to throw out hard evidence one by one(by finding every minor mistake by the prosecutor). It’s incredibly hard to proof people are beyond reasonable doubt that they should be executed, especially when the guilty can just play innocent.
How?
“trust me bro”
Ask a forensic analyst? I am not one so my knowledge of it is cursory at best.
However recent hardware now includes hardware level attestation in the image files that cannot be reproduced, so validity of video and photo evidence can NOW be established easily. If the signature is there, easy, the video wasn’t manipulated. If it is missing, the evidence is no longer attested, therefore questionable.
How do you know the attestation key hasn’t been compromised, allowing me to sign any video I want?
For now. At this point, it doesn’t matter much if the AI economic bubble collapses, research will continue, potentially at a lesser pace, and could still outpace, even if temporarily, detection methods.
Yeah, uh, no.
It might avoid free eye detection (still doesn’t, AI content is still incredibly easy to spot), but FORENSIC analysis is a bit more thorough than that.
Though I really love these kinds of comments. I at least used to work in the field some 15 years ago, so I have some awareness of what’s going on. Meanwhile the group of people here who saw flashy AI demos and two-three episodes of CSI think they know best.
For example, here’s a fun fact: camera sensor pixels aren’t equal. Even on the same sensor, there’s a subtle level of difference in sensitivity between pixels, pixel blocks, and so on. The built in ISP also has its own unique signature. Hell, there’s even a unique signature in the variations of the variance between key frames! All of which can be extracted - much like a hash - but would take immense computational power (we’re talking quantum computing levels, since it IS essentially reversing a hash or cryptographic key) to properly break.
This kind of fingerprinting alone could verify if a video was tampered with nor not. There’s been whitepapers about this kind of verification since at least 2012. Yet I bet none of you who oh so confidently downvote, knew about it.
Humans will still be behind the “forensic science”, and humans are fallible. There was just a DNA forensic analyst who was found guilty of evidence tampering. She was overworked so just… Made stuff up.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/colorado-crime-analyst-manipulated-dna-data-sentenced-rcna596722
Also as someone who currently works in the legal field, expert witness testimony is not the slam dunk you assume it is.
White papers aside has it been done in court yet?
Where is the line between “objective and irrefutable” and “room for reasonable doubt”?
Where is it today?
If there’s no contradictory evidence, then there’s no room for doubt. At that point it is up to the jury to make the decision - including if the death penalty should be applied, if the person truly poses a danger to society justifying their death.
Again, in my opinion, the death penalty is 99% antiquated. The only time it is ever justified if the person’s existence in itself poses a threat to the public. A simple murder, no matter how grievous, like this case, is definitely not death penalty worthy. The likes of John Wayne Gacy, or Jeffrey Dahmer. Of whom there’s maybe one every decade or so.
Billionaires.