Executing the sick

What happens if a condemned inmate gets sick soon before his scheduled execution

It depends–where is this taking place? China? Texas? Iraq?

lets say Texas, I think the lowered 'component ‘resale value’ might put off the Chinese

In Texas, the state would urge doctors to use extraordinary means to heal the inmate as quickly as possible in order to allow them to proceed with the execution and satisfy the state’s blood-lust.

Before or after Obama’s Death Panels start up?

:confused:And even after Obamacare(Romneycare?) it is not unusual for Americans to bankrupt themselves paying their medical bills…:confused:
I really don’t understand your country sometimes.

Anyway, on to death panels, I grew up in a country with death panels, and I think many Americans misunderstand them. N.I.C.E. as it called over there at worst refuses to fund lifeextending treatment if the net-benefits don’t justify the cost, there has never been a case of them actively shortening a patients life, in fact, euthanasia is illegal here.

what if they were mentally ill (and who could stand the tension anyway) would they then have a psychologist and drugs to make them sane enough to realise the import of their situation and be killed?

In Nebraska, they used to give the condemned a psychological examination prior to the execution, something I never understood. There was zero chance of getting out of it by displaying insanity, and there was, IMHO, zero reason for the prisoner to cooperate with the exam in the first place.

I’ve not really ever understood the prohibition of executing the mad, assuming your going to kill anyone. If they are mad they are probably never going to be trustworthy enough to release so why not kill them?

It’s very simple. It would be immoral to execute a sick man. So we go to extraordinary lengths to make him healthy before we kill him. What’s so confusing about that? Think of the terrible consequences if we didn’t do that. They guy might die from his disease before we get a chance to kill him ourselves. Who could be happy with that result?

You should see how we decide to start a war.

I don’t know why this is so controversial either. Inmates who are currently alive (regardless of their crime or sentence) are given health care. You don’t withhold that health care just because their sentence is the death penalty.

Furthermore, executions are quite frequently delayed. There’s always a chance of a pardon. If the inmate is allowed to die from disease before all of his legal options are played out, what’s the point of having laws?

The motivation has nothing to do with blood lust

you mean they get free health care! shocking.

If by “free” you mean “in exchange for most of their personal freedoms,” then yes. Free room and board is also included, as is free legal counsel.

Don’t forget free power! (For a limited time only.)

I don’t think he gets to call in, if that’s what you’re asking.

I’m not sure the jab at Obamacare was appropriate for general questions, but I imagine if an inmate got mentally sick they would delay the execution, if he got physically sick they’d just carry him to the gurney if necessary.

There’s been a number of suicide attempts before executions. Normally they patch the culprit up and proceed.

I think I see what you did here! Shocking indeed. But not nowadays… It’s poking.

In NY, the law doesn’t address the issue of physical health (with the exception that you can’t execute anyone who’s pregnant). However, there is a law that says nobody can be executed if they are mentally incapacitated to the point where they don’t understand that they are facing execution.

It’s a pretty theoretical issue in NY anyway. Nobody had been executed in the state since 1963.

Read sections 6, 7 and possibly 8 of this rather delightful guide to criminal law.

I see , i was going on the simple premise of removal rather than crime and retribution.