About that botched death penalty in Tennessee | Hour 1

So, yeah, about that botched... execution in Tennessee. I made a comment yesterday and some people, I don't know, they kind of keyed in on it. Like, what are you saying? Blah, blah, blah. I was merely pointing out that this was, this was, is it an historic or a historic? I've heard it both ways. I think if you don't pronounce the H with a sound, then it's It's an historic and historic kind of thing. But if you say a historic, then it almost sounds like you're saying a history, you know, a historic, like wall, one word. And that would make it sound like it's not historic, like unhistoric, a history. Anyway, I know I go down these rabbit holes. This is why it takes me forever to read a story. You know, it's true. I'm a very slow reader. So I made this comment about the historic nature of, That's an old journalism trick right there is if you can't figure out the right way to frame something or the spelling of a word or pronunciation. You just find a different way to say it. So the historic nature of the execution of Krista Pike, as I saw yesterday, people were doing stories in the media about the historic nature of the execution. Not that it was a woman that was being put to death for a horrendous crime, which I will give you some of the details of that, because anytime you're talking about the administering of the death penalty and people come in and they want to talk about the defendant, the one that's being put to death, there's usually a lack of interest about the nature of the crime for which they are being put to death. So I will give you some of those details. I'll give you the warning in case, you know, you don't want to hear it. Um, But the execution team was apparently an all-female team. Now, I didn't even say anything else other than that. I just pointed out that this was a historic, sorry, I just pointed out the historic nature of the execution team. That botched it. I mean, they botched it. We don't know why. And you know me, I'm a patient person. And so I'm, willing to wait and see. They're doing an investigation to figure out how did they botch it, why was it botched, and all of that. So we'll see. However, there is something deeper here, I think, that we should probably discuss, which is the method of the executions. And there's a fellow named Andrew Walker. He is a professor of Christian ethics, and he wrote a piece for National Review. And the headline is, What the Modern State Gets Wrong About Execution. He says, when the state kills, how it does so should not look like an outpatient procedure. Or I. Would throw in there, like an assisted suicide or something like that's the thing too. Like maybe we just farm out all of our executions to Canada at this point, they become very adept at, at, you know, killing people. So maybe we just start sending our, our death row inmates up there and let Canada take them out. Um, He says, therein lies the irony. The more the state attempts to medicalize killing, the more it risks unsuccessful and inefficient executions, and the more it obscures the full weight of what retributive wrath is meant to accomplish and signify. We're seeing this in real time this week in Tennessee with the botched execution of Krista Pike. The particulars of the attempted execution of Pike are grisly. News reports indicate that the method of execution, lethal injection, left her breathing after two doses of pentobarbital. This was Tennessee's second execution failure within the last five months. Pike was rushed to the hospital where her condition remains critical. I'm curious about the protocols on that one. Like, you're trying to kill her. The state is trying to kill her, right? Let's not beat around the bush here, right? They're trying to kill her. And so you gave her these two doses and she's still breathing. She's not dead. And at that point you're like, oh my gosh, we have to save her. Well, no, you don't like you're, couldn't you just give her like more barbitol, like more pentobarbital, like just, just keep giving it to her. Why wouldn't you just keep doing that? Just, more and more and more and more doses until she finally does die. Like, again, if we just accept the premise here, right, that the state is going to kill this death row inmate because of her crimes, then. Why would you try to save her? I don't understand. Well, this probably gets to all of the lawsuits, right? This gets to all of the lawsuits that the left has been filing against states that still administer the death penalty to try to prevent them from administering the death penalty. Um, also at national review, Charles CW cook writes about how he is wrestling with his views on the death penalty. And I, and I, I, I completely understand where he's coming from. Um, I have gone back and forth on the death penalty over the course of my life. I was for it and then against it and then for it again and then against it again. It is a very difficult thing for me because I can see too many good points from both sides. I can't. And the biggest one for me is that I don't trust the government to really do anything well, you know? And so when I know that we have incarcerated innocent people for long periods of time We know this. We know that there are corrupt district attorneys, that there are juries that don't get all the information, right? We know that these things happen. We know that innocent people have been convicted. So if you're going to put somebody to death, there is a chance, like in the overall data, right? If you're looking at the overall statistical reality, There is a not zero chance that government has murdered innocent people. And I'm not good with that. I'm not cool with that. I don't like that idea. See, so like coming back to sort of an anti-death penalty view isn't really about anything other than my acceptance that GovCo is pretty terrible. and corruption exists, bad people exist, people do bad things, right? And so I recognize these problems. In our system. However, I don't really get upset when the death penalty is administered, particularly in a case like this. I am. Not the soft shoulder to cry on on this. Because when I read the details and the confession, it's pretty clear this woman did this stuff. So, and it's horrific. So I'm like, yeah, no, I, okay, yeah, you put her to death. Like, I'm not going to go out there and protest the execution. Like, you're not going to see me out in front of a prison at, you know, three in the morning with some signs. No, no. Seems like this was a clean case. So they rush her to the hospital, and then soon after, the Tennessee governor, Bill Lee, announced that Tennessee would put a halt to further executions this year until a third party could review the execution procedures. Okay. I'm going to take a break. We're going to do some traffic, and then I'm going to come back, and I'm going to give you some of the details from... the crime for which she was convicted. Okay. So if you don't want to hear some of these details, um, then you can, you can abandon ship for, I mean, only for the next segment people. OK, then you're going to come right back. All right. So. You just this is not you don't get an off ramp for the whole rest of the show. All right. The holidays will be here before you know it. And so now is the time to create precious and priceless family heirlooms that will last for generations. Take your old photos, slides, films, and tapes to create a video in Mint Hill. There, they'll turn those memories into the story of your lives, memories from past family events captured forever to pass down to future generations. Creative Video's skilled team will professionally transfer your family's stories onto easy-to-use USB drives or DVDs that won't deteriorate over time like the old photos and tapes are doing right now. They will create a keepsake video that you can share and copy and keep forever. I can see it now. You're gathered around the holiday table with your loved ones, watching all these memories and people of your lives. You're sharing laughs, maybe some tears, telling stories that make your family uniquely yours. Beat the holiday rush and get your memories in now. Go to createavideo.com or visit them in Mint Hill just off I-485. Your photos and videos are your life told through the eyes of everyone around you and all who came before you. And they will tell others to come who you are. visit create a video.com. All right, let me jump over here first and get to Paul. Hello, Paul. Welcome to the program. Hey, good afternoon. Hey, uh, just wanted to call and weigh in on the Krista Pike, uh, situation. Um, yesterday I watched a documentary based on her case and with everything going on with the death penalty. And, uh, you know, it's, To me, it kind of shined a different light, put me in a different mind or frame of mind with it. And that is that, number one, she was barely 18 years old. They were talking about how her legal team, if you want to call it a team, they were under investigation, had no experience. with murder trials and this type of thing, family molestation. The list just goes on and on. Now, with that being said, I must put out there that I am for the death penalty. However, they are people that's done far more heinous crimes, way more than that girl ever did. And they've gotten life sentences. And as far as them trying to execute her a multitude of times. I don't know. It just got me all screwed up. I really hate what she has gone through, but at the same time, I hate for what the victim had gone through, obviously. It's just a screwed up situation, but I would put out there to anyone, if you have time, Watch the documentary about her situation and, you know, see for yourself. All right, so you are pro-death penalty, but not in this case. Well, I think every situation is different. Okay, but that's not what I asked. I'm asking about a different situation. So you're pro-death penalty, but not for Krista Pike, not in this case. Yes, I will have to say yes to that. Mm-hmm. All right, Paul, I appreciate the call. Have a good weekend. All right, see you. So here is what happened and what she confessed to. Pike went into another individual's room and told that person that she had just killed another woman. Last name Slemmer was her name. And she had brought back a piece of the victim's skull as a souvenir. She showed the other person's name is Eloylo. So Pike showed Eloylo the piece of skull and told her that she had cut the victim's throat six times, beaten her, and thrown asphalt at the victim's head. She told Eloylo that the victim had begged her to stop cutting and beating her, but she did not stop because the victim continued to talk. Pike told Deloillo. That she had thrown a large piece of asphalt at the victim's head and when it broke into smaller pieces, she threw those at the victim as well. She told Deloillo that a meat cleaver had been used to cut the victim's back and a box cutter had been used to cut her throat. Finally, Pike said that a pentagram had been carved onto the victim's forehead and chest. Eloylo said that Pike was dancing in a circle, smiling and singing la la la la la while she related all of these details about the murder. When Eloylo saw Pike at breakfast the next morning, she asked Pike what she had done with the piece of the victim's skull, and Pike replied that it was in her pocket and said, quote, yes, I'm eating breakfast with it. On the day after the murder, At approximately 8.05 in the morning, an employee of the University of Tennessee Grounds Department discovered the victim's semi-nude, slashed, and badly beaten body near the greenhouses on the agricultural campus. The groundsworker testified that the body was so badly beaten that he first mistook it for the corpse of an animal. So that's what this woman confessed to doing. Had no remorse for it, sang about it, danced about it, took a chunk of the woman's skull with her to breakfast, bragged about it. See, so in a case like this, and I recognize what Paul was saying there, like there are, you know, there's all this background. Maybe she didn't have the best legal team, right? But here's the thing. She confessed to doing this thing. And the state of Tennessee executes people for this kind of crime, right? If you don't want the death penalty, then take it off the books. It's really that simple. So if you are for the death penalty, but you don't want to see it applied in every case or any case or whatever, like this is, this is the challenge, right? So Krista Pike says, 1995 murders Colleen Slemmer. Back to Andrew Walker's piece here. He again is a professor of Christian ethics and he calls himself a retentionist, meaning he says, I believe the death penalty is just and called for by the demands of political justice. He also goes on to talk about the Christian theology in support of the death penalty as well. He says, Western law has long relied upon the natural law foundations of Christianity to justify capital punishment. He says, in Christian theology, the logic of capital punishment is grounded in a reciprocal and retributive understanding of divine justice. So profound is the dignity and worth of a human being that the only fitting response to the wanton murder of a human being is the forfeiting of one's own life. Far from capital punishment being a product of capricious bloodlust, it signifies the state's action to safeguard the political community and restore, though imperfectly, restore justice for the family of the slain. Capital punishment cannot bring back a loved one. It can, though, bring temporal assuagement to a family grieving the lost life of a loved one. He goes on to say no Christian theologian should suggest that capital punishment is not what it is, which is the lethal application of force to take the life of the guilty. That's what we're talking about. killing a human being because they killed another human being. So we should not minimize that because the taking of a human life should never be taken lightly or haphazardly. It should arouse a visceral response. It should. And this is why guys like Charlie Kirk, and you heard it from Paul there, as well as myself, this is why we wrestle with this, because it does inspire this kind of visceral response in people. Because if you value life, the state taking a life presents some problems. It raises these ethical questions. It makes people feel a certain way. Yet, It is the visceral nature of what capital punishment is that runs afoul of how the modern state practices it, which is medicalizing it and sanitizing it. So we do. This process in order to make ourselves feel better about what the state is doing, to compartmentalize it. All right, real quick. Every government number gets revised, right? Every projection gets walked back. Gold does not file corrections like GovCo. Revelation Gold Group helps families hold physical gold and silver, including in a tax-advantaged gold IRA. It's real. It's in your name. And 10 minutes later, tells you if your retirement account qualifies. If you want to learn more, go to calendarmetals.com. That's calendarmetals.com. There is a link in the podcast description. Or if you want to talk to somebody, you can call 888-465-3049. We are discussing the failed, botched execution of Krista Pike in Tennessee. And the death penalty. So a lot of people on the text line, I will tell you there's, yes, quite a few references to maybe hiring Lindsay Clancy for the execution team. And also the use of fentanyl as a potential lethal injection. Yeah. Eric, in fact, uh, let me see here. He says, uh, there are pounds and pounds of fentanyl sitting in evidence lockers that gets destroyed after the cases are over. Uh, lots of it pharmaceutical grade stuff that got diverted from legitimate sources. Why not just use that instead of these other drugs? We know it kills and it's supposed to reduce pain and produce a euphoria. So they can't claim it's causing pain. Um, 704 number says, thank you, Pete. There were a lot of yous there. My point exactly isn't the point for her to die. Why are they taking her to the hospital? I never, ever, hardly agree with you, but on this one, the nail on the head. See, like if you listen long enough, you will arrive at the conclusion that there's probably one thing we agree on. You know? Maybe not more than that, but just at least one. The Hellion says they need to overhaul the appeals process when death is the sentence. It's not a deterrent after 10, 20 or 30 years. And I'm like you, I've gone back and forth on this issue. There is a slam dunk category, though, like you said. All right, let's let's chat with Mike. Hello, Mike. How are you? Happy Friday, Pete. Hope you're doing well. I am, sir. Hope you are. Indeed. Really good discussion that you've had. Great analysis that you put forward. I smell a butt coming. Oh, no, no. There's no butt. I will say that this is an issue in which... you know, well-meaning people of intelligence and goodwill can disagree as to where to come down. Your back and forth yourself and the way you've explained it is kind of where I am. And you and I have talked about this before. I come down on the side of opposing the death penalty, but not for the reasons that I think, oh, gosh, it's just not compassionate or it's below the A civilized society or anything like that. It's for the taxpayer. It's what we're going to have. Seriously. Wait a minute. Hang on a second, Mike. Wait a minute. Wait. You're still a Democrat, right? Oh, yeah. Come on. Dude, seriously? Come on. All right, hang on a second. Mike. Wait just a second. No, Mike. No, Mike, come on, man. Why do you find that so humorous? Really? I don't know why you find that humorous. I find it humorous any time Democrats come with the let's be guardians of taxpayer dollars argument, okay? Like, it's just comical, that part of it. The other part of it, though, is that the reason, you know why it's so expensive? What's that? Do you know why it's so expensive? Well, it is because if you're going to have the death penalty, it's just like what you were saying, is that sometimes prosecutors get it wrong. Sometimes police get it wrong. Sometimes that's by mistake. Sometimes that's intentional. And so what happens? And so sometimes we have, in fact, I think around 200 have been documented that we have put people to death. We're talking about cost. I'm focusing on the cost. I'm talking about the cost. Why is it so expensive? Well, the cost comes in that you want to, in that type of case, when it's the ultimate penalty, the death penalty, you want to make sure as much as you can that what you're doing is correct. You have longer and more expensive trials. And then later appealed. Yes, there it is. There it is. Yes. Yes. It takes a very, very, very, very, very long time. And who are the people who have been pushing for that period of time to be long? Are the people who are against the death penalty. Right. So it's comical to me. Hang on. It's comic. I'm going to let you respond. But it's comical to me also when the people who are opposed to the death penalty cite the cost because the cost is so great because of your actions. Right. People who oppose the death penalty want all of the appeals and they want it. To stretch out for decades. And then they cite that length of time as the reason why we shouldn't have it at all. But that's the reason why you stretched it out is because you don't want it at all. Well, no, the reason they get stretched out, Pete, it's not because you're doing this as a As a technique to stretch things out, you're doing it for the very reason that you cited, that jurors will get it wrong. That's not why they do it. Mike, Mike, Mike, come now. People, these laws, hang on. The length of time it takes to actually execute somebody, the length of time has grown longer, and that is not because the people who are pro-death penalty That's not because they want it to stretch out so long so they can be sure they're getting it right. That's not why that duration is what it is. It's because people who oppose the death penalty, right, they want it to be stretched out. They want to make sure that. Whatever the reason is. I don't care what the reason is. It doesn't matter the reason. The point is the people who oppose the death penalty are the ones who have stretched out the duration of the appeals between sentencing and. And the execution. Right. They have built in all of these are the people who have pushed for laws. Right. They're the ones who try to file all the appeals and stuff. You got the Innocence Project, like all of these people, these organizations, they're against the death penalty. They're the and they oppose it. And so they want they want a longer period of time. So they can keep fighting. Right. So the idea that you're going to then cite that as the as it being cost prohibitive. So, oh, well, like we've we've succeeded in stretching this out for, you know, 30 years. And now you're going to cite that duration as a, you know, cost effect. You know, it's more cost effective. Just leave them alive for 60 years or whatever. Like I find that to be a bit disingenuous. Well, I hear you. Why do you think it would be impossible or illogical for folks who oppose the death penalty to say, look, we don't want things stretched out either. We'd like to eliminate it, and we can if, in fact, what we do is just say– It is an expensive process. But they made it expensive. That's my point. So it's not illogical for people who oppose the death penalty to want to stretch out the appeals process. That's not illogical. It makes perfect sense because you don't want to see any death penalties executed, right? So by stretching it out, you increase the chances that the execution won't take place because you have more opportunities for appeal. So then what I find disingenuous is then citing that duration, the thing that you demanded to be put in place to make sure we get it right, that's the ostensible cover story, is to make sure we get it right. You then cite that stretching of the duration as a cost factor to then say, well, we shouldn't do it now because we succeeded in stretching out the durations. I don't know that we're disagreeing that much, Pete, in terms of saying, I mean, you yourself are saying that, look, if we're having a death penalty, then it must be administered fairly. And I don't know any way that you can do that without significantly lengthening the process to make sure it's done fairly. All right. So do you think that Krista Pike did it? Um, my personal opinion, I was not on the jury. I don't know, but yeah, I would think so. Yeah. With the confession based on everything. Yeah. With the confession, for example, right. It's a, it's a, it's a horrendous crime. Sure. Sure. Right. Right. Okay. So in a case like this, do we need 30 years of appeal? No. So administer the death, the death penalty. Um, right. So why, so why do we have. To, when you have, when you have this kind of a crime, And you have the confession and you have all the evidence, right? Right. Why did, why does the appeal process need to last 20, 30 years? I don't know. I mean, I mean, that's, that was your argument though. So like this is, and this is. This is my argument. My argument is not on the length of time. My argument is, you cited it for cost reasons. For cost reasons, not necessarily length of time. But that, no, but that is, that is though, because of all the appeals, the duration of the appeals jacks up the cost because the longer they are in prison, the more it costs, the more appeals processes and hearings and trials, retrials, whatever, the longer that goes, the more expensive it is. And you cited the cost. Right. And it is the cost, not the length of time, but the cost. Right, but in a case like this, it's pretty clear she did it. So why do we have to stretch this thing out like we've done, driving up the cost, to your point? You're exactly right. Again, I don't think we disagree that much. What we're talking about is... the process and the system. And we can cite each individual case as, oh, gosh, that's a worthy case for the death penalty. Oh, gosh, that could be one that's life imprisonment. My only point is, and again, this goes back to what you were acknowledging, it is as an expensive process. And you just immediately laughed at me when I said, look, that's my opposition is because we would be able to have a much more efficient and certain system if we said to women like Krista Pike, you know, the death penalty has been proven not to really be a deterrent anyway. Look, I understand. I clearly understand why the family and just those of us in society would want to have that type of ultimate punishment. But I understand it also comes with a very high cost. And that's really my point. And I don't I disagree with what you're saying, that these processes are too long. Mike, here's the thing. I find it difficult to believe that your main objection to the death penalty being administered, even in the most horrific of cases, is a financial one. That's what I find. Hard to believe. I think you're saying that because you believe that that appeals to fiscal conservatives. Well, I'm thinking myself, is that part of not the appeal, but is that, in other words, whether it's fiscal conservatives or not that I'm trying to appeal to, I'm just thinking it is, for me, a rational point of view as to why one can oppose the death penalty and still be in favor of very significant punishment, but just, frankly, make it much more efficient and much less expensive. Right, and keep them in prison and keep those costs going as well. That's expensive, too. Well, not as expensive as carrying it out. There have been lots of studies to show the non-capital cases really are far less expensive. Sure. You're under solitary confinement. So would you agree then also, would you, oh no, solitary confinement, that's a bad thing too. Same crowd, anti-death penalty, same crowd doesn't want solitary confinement. But what about making sure that life is actually life in prison? Oh, yeah. So you were in favor when when that law got in favor of that. Right. So when when that law got changed, that now people who are sentenced to life, that that actually means life in North Carolina, you were supportive of that. Yeah. OK. No problem with that. All right. I'm a Democrat. I'm saying that. All right. All right. I got you, Mike. I appreciate the call. Have a good weekend. All right. See you again. You too. All right. That's Mike. I'm sorry. It's just my, you know, when a Democrat starts talking about the fiscal restraint. Argument on this, it's just always funny to me. 704 number on the text line says, let's replace the death penalty with life in prison so that the next leftist-controlled Supreme Court, Congress, presidential administration, governor, state legislature, et cetera, will redefine life doesn't actually mean life. See, here's, and this is the problem, and this is what I was getting at with Mike there, is that The arguments that are put forward by the anti-death penalty crowd do not appear to be in good faith. And I don't trust them. Right? So you say, okay, fine, life in prison. But if you look at other countries, Charlie Cook did this over at National Review. In Portugal, they have a maximum prison sentence of 25 years. for anything. Uh, Norway, uh, gave Anders Breivik who murdered 77 people and said that he wished he'd killed more. They gave him 21 years in Germany. The median time served for life imprisonment is 17.4 years. See, so when you put somebody to death, they're never getting out. Even if Democrats take control of the legislature and the courts and right. The, They're not they're not getting let out. And this is the thing is we don't trust you Democrats any longer on these things. Charlie Cook said as an activist class. OK, so you're just talking about the whole class of these activists. The anti-death penalty brigade strikes me as being dishonest, unlikable and chronically incapable of prioritizing or even acknowledging the innocent. Please note, I am not talking here about the average citizen opponent of the death penalty, almost all of whom are decent and earnest people. He's talking about the professional political movement that exists to try to prevent every single execution. Over the past half century, these people have convinced the Supreme Court to rule that the Constitution says things about the death penalty that it absolutely does not say. Right. There is there is no originalist case whatsoever that limits the death penalty to only premeditated murders. That is entirely made up. So the people who are leading the lawfare against the death penalty. They do these things like stack up all sorts of appeals. They stretch out the duration of the appeals process. They limit you to what kinds of methods for execution you can and cannot use, right? They do all of these things to make it so onerous that the death penalty is never administered. That's the point. That's the point. So that's why I laugh when I hear Mike say that he opposes the death penalty for fiscal purposes, because I suspect he's totally fine with trillions of dollars being spent on all sorts of other things. On all of that, it's fine. But on this tiny subset of a subset of the criminal justice budget, like that? No, no, no. This is too expensive. All right, that'll do it for this episode. Thank you so much for listening. I could not do the show without your support and the support of the businesses that advertise on the podcast. So if you'd like, please support them, too, and tell them you heard it here. You can also become a patron at my Patreon page or go to the Pete Kaliner show dot com. Again, thank you so much for listening and don't break anything while I'm gone.