Talk:Execution of Clayton Lockett

WPBannerShell living=yes parameter

Because this article attributes statements to people involved in this event or the events leading up to it (e.g. the crimes for which Lockett was convicted of), and because some of these people are still alive, I am adding |living=yes to {{WPBannerShell}}. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I have changed this to blpo=yes which is designed for this sort of article. --Racklever (talk) 05:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Title

I am not sure that "execution" is the appropriate title. There was no execution. It was merely an attempt at an execution, but certainly not an execution. Perhaps the title could be "death" of ... ? Any thoughts or ideas? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

"Failed execution of..." would be accurate by not NPOV. I think the best thing to do is to wait a few weeks to see what reliable sources and official records call this after the initial press winds down. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There was an execution, it just didn't succeed (properly.) They were, well, executing him for about 20 minutes before they stopped executing him. (Technically, he died from complications of the execution, I guess.) I agree it's a little odd because it implies that he was successfully executed...which he kind of was, but kind of wasn't. I'm not that set against "death of", but think of it this way: if he'd survived the attempted execution and was now in a hospital, it'd still make sense to be "execution of", since it refers to the process and not just the result. ToBk (talk) 21:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

If he were still alive, I don't see why it wouldn't be "Attempted execution of Clayton Lockett" or "Failed execution of Clayton Lockett". That's moot though. What to call what actually happened is the question. Since he died, I don't see a problem w/the title. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

"the act of killing someone especially as punishment for a crime" is what Merriam Webster has as the definition. I think few here would argue the state didn't kill him. They just did a crappy job of it. The main point I suppose is that it didn't go according to plan but I think the article covers it well69.178.63.252 (talk) 21:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

"Botched" vs "failed"?

I wasn't sure what to use myself, and most sources are calling it "botched" (especially in headlines, where it's more sensational.) However, that doesn't seem like a very clear term for an encyclopedia, and "failed" is used by some sources and reads better. The execution attempt was specifically stopped before he died (rather than him dying during the botched attempt), so "failed" seems accurate. Thoughts? ToBk (talk) 22:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The Merriam-Webster definition is "to do (something) badly: to ruin (something) because of carelessness or a lack of skill", which seems to fit. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 00:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

"Ruin" is "to damage (something) so badly that it is no longer useful, valuable, enjoyable, etc. : to spoil or destroy (something)". The usefulness, value and (possibly) enjoyment of an execution lies in its ability to kill criminals. It wasn't spoiled, because Lockett was. But yeah, "botch" is clearly the word of the day here, so we should reflect it. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:20, May 1, 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking more of the "to do (something) badly" and "carelessness or a lack of skill" parts and trying to show the clarity of the term. But because he died, failed definitely doesn't seem like the right word. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Was it really done "badly" if it worked? There was certainly apparent carelessness and lack of skill, but it didn't seem to cause ruin. One of those news vs logic deals, I'm afraid. We're not going to find sources calling it a win, in this climate. So we'll likely have to bend the truth, for verifiability's sake. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:56, May 1, 2014 (UTC)

"Botched" seems to be the word a lot of media sources are using to characterize it (though I'm not sure I, or others, would use that word). How about removing that adjective from the article's description of the event, and tagging on a sentence: "Problems during the execution process, including delays in rendering Lockett unconcious and achieving his death, led many to characterize his execution as "botched."" That approach notes the wide-spread current characterization, while preserving the NPOV of the article itself. John2510 (talk) 14:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Sounds fine by me. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:17, May 1, 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like a good solution. ToBk (talk) 02:10, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Killed vs. executed

user:Bus stop, I think the reason for the use of "killed" as opposed to "executed" is that technically, he was not executed. The execution was botched, and he later died of a heart attack. I could be wrong though. --WikiTryHardDieHard (talk) 00:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct, Lockett was not executed at all. I would also note that an execution is itself a killing, a judicial one.--Keshetsven (talk) 00:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The nature of the lethal injection is that it causes the heart to stop beating, which I think the media have characterized as "a heart attack." The lethal injection killed him. Thus, however imperfectly, he was executed. If it turns out that he coincidentally had an arterial blockage (i.e., what is traditionally characterized as a heart attack), during that same brief period of time, then I'll stand corrected. The article on lethal injection should be enlightening on this. John2510 (talk) 02:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The more I think about it, I think "heart attack" should be changed to "heart failure," based on the above. However, the sources appear to almost universally characterize it as a "heart attack." I suspect that will be proved incorrect in coming weeks. I guess it should wait for that. I think the characterization demonstrate some pretty outrageous bias on the part of the media (AKA, the "sources" for Wikipedia). John2510 (talk) 13:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

You don't have to stand corrected, you are not a source. The man was brutally murdered not executed. There was undoubtedly malpractice and lack of adherence to professional standards and I quote: "The doctor checked the IV and reported the blood vein had collapsed, and the drugs had either absorbed into tissue, leaked out or both. [...] Patton asked if enough drugs had been administered to cause death, to which the doctor replied “no”. The director then asked if another vein was available to complete the execution, and if so, were there enough drugs left. The doctor answered no to both questions." Barbarism in the 2014 America, land of the the free. Not.--Keshetsven (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

No one questions his guilt or the fairness of his trial. A state execution, however poorly performed, and even if barbaric, remains an execution. I'm not interested in your political criticism of the U.S. The only thing of significance, good or bad, to occur in Romania in the last fifty years was the show trial and execution of Ceaușescu. I guess if that was my country's claim to fame, I'd be a little defensive about executions too. John2510 (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

No, the most significant thing to occur in Romania in the last fifty years was the transition from a communist country to being member of EU and NATO. Can the US claim such progress? Good on you, comparing communist Romania with 21st century US. Haha. The fact of the matter is that US' claim of fame is being the 'leading' democracy of the world which everyone can see it cannot live up to it. "I am proud to be [Romanian] today, proud that I live in a country where this barbarism does not exist but we must remember this atrocity occurred not in some far off, third world, dictatorship. It happened in America, 'land of the free'."--Keshetsven (talk) 13:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Use of the word Killing sounds a little pov to me. While I agree that things went wrong with his execution its still just that an execution. Execution should be used in place of killing.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 21:10, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Killing, is speculative and provoking. He was executed. The fact that he died in another fashion than intended does not make it a killing. Secondly on a personal note I do not understand the fuss about this, this guy murdered in a gruesome fashion and he died the same. Is it really something that states and the world should "condemn"? He should have thought about how awful executions are before he viciously murdered another human being. He had a much easier death than his victim, being sedated and everything, his victim did not get that luxury.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

You should read the quote in bold from the timeline. And killing in not speculative at all; an execution is defined as being a judicial killing. Look it up.--Keshetsven (talk) 13:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The more I read about it, the more genuinely confused I am about how he actually died. The most complete reports indicate that the execution was cancelled and then he died of a "heart attack." Hmmm... Can he be said then to have been "executed," when the execution was cancelled? Was he "killed" if he had a "heart attack?" I agree that judgmental language POV terminology has not place in the article, but I'm not sure what language is most factually accurate. The autopsy should provide some clarification about exact cause of death. I note that the WP articles draw a clear distinction between a "heart attack" and "cardiac arrest." I gather people who are executed (by whatever means) die of cardiac arrest, and not a heart attack. John2510 (talk) 13:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Clayton Lockett's childhood

Clayton Lockett's mother abandoned him when he was three years old, following that his criminal father used drugs in front of the boy and blew marijuana smoke up his nose from the age of three. His father taught Lockett to steal and punished him when he was caught. His father frequently stripped him naked and beat him with belts or boards and pointed guns at family members. His father watched pornography with the boy and a brother may have sexually abused him. Lokett was further damaged at the age of sixteen when three men raped him in a correctional facility. Psychiatrist, Dr John R Smith described Lokett as, "severely damaged psychologically", Dr Smith stated Lokett had post traumatic stress disorder, was disconnected from his feelings, was insecure, anxious, depressed, vulnerable. Lokett's upbringing taught him, antisocial behavior. Dr Smith claimed further that rage at his earlier abuse was acted out against his victims, Lokett let two victims go because they had children and he understood what being abandoned as a child was like.

I added the above to the article but it was taken out. I've thought things over and I'm sure the bad childhood if it happened diminished Lockett's responsibility for his actions. I don't think Lockett deserved being tortured to death especially as he suffered over a decade on death row and his victims didn't suffer that. Lockett certainly deserved a very long prison sentence. Why didn't Lockett show remorse? Perhaps that had something to do with American prisons not trying to rehabilitate prisoners on death row.

Anyway does anyone know a usable source for the material about Lockett's childhood so it can go into the article? Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

At this point, the title and focus of the article are on his execution. There is a very brief mention of his criminal history and the crimes that led to his condemnation. I might agree to include information about his childhood (I'm not the one who deleted it), but only if we elaborate on his crimes and subsequent behavior in prison. Since the stated reason for including the latter is to demonstrate diminished responsibilty and mitigating punishment, I think the reader would need the full picture. He wasn't tortured, and his less than placid death was certainly not intentional, but I wouldn't argue that torture would have been undeserved, given his actions (See - http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2014-05-07.html). John2510 (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Weasel word

The sentence "[...] led many to characterize the execution as "botched". " contains the weasel word "many" (as per WP:WEASEL). Also, the "botched" word is unsourced. In order to increase article quality I would like to remove the entire sentence until (a) a neutral replacement of the weasel word has been found and (b) the "botched" word is supported by a reliable source. Best regards, 24.132.94.37 (talk) 08:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)