Too Fat To Be Executed?

This is not necessarily a story I have been following closely, but it is a story that has some interesting legal implications. I have written about this particular case here.

Richard Cooey is a convicted rapist and murderer. These are charges that he has not denied. He was convicted of raping and murdering two young women in 1986. However, as he was waiting on death row in Ohio he also gained a considerable amount of weight. I guess sitting around 23 hours a day doing nothing much in one's cell could lead to a weight problem. Perhaps prisons need to work out how to give death row inmates more time for physical exercise. He weighed in at an impressive 125kgs.

Cooey had claimed that his obesity would mean that a lethal injection was tantamount to cruel and unusual punishment and as such prohibited by the provisions of the US Constitution. The other claim that Cooey's lawyers were arguing was that Cooey was taking a medication that would adversely impact on the effectiveness of the lethal injection drugs and cause him to suffer unnecessarily.

The appeal to the Supreme Court was denied by Justice Stevens. Justice Stevens is one of the more liberal justices of the current Supreme Court.

Simply, executing overweight or obese people is no less constitutional than executing death row inmates living within the "healthy" range, at least, as it relates to weight.

Air Travel -- Budget No More?

The rapidly rising fuel costs are ensuring that budget travel is not so budget anymore. Most airlines have already started to slug customers with a fuel surcharge in order to cover costs. The cynical among us might say that the reason is to ensure high profits. But perhaps those profit-oriented business types will say that companies have an obligation to shareholders and investors to provide a return on that investment.

I priced a ticket on Air Asia the other day. The ticket was cheap but the fuel surcharge doubled the price. I am not sure whether this works for all airlines but for Air Asia the simple math is to double whatever the published fare is and then you will have what you will have to pay.

The other income generator that is being implemented supposedly to offset rising fuel costs is one where passengers are slugged with a check-in baggage fee. This would seem to be a captive market considering most people travel for more than a few days and you cannot take liquids, gels and other sprays on board (they must be checked in). This will mean that most people will buy the liquids such as perfume, toothpaste, and deodorants on arrival. It will also mean that people will try and cram everything but the kitchen sink into their carry-on bag.

If you have ever been on an Indonesian airline you will know that people try and carry-on bags that only just fit into the overhead storage racks and clearly exceed the permissible carry-on size. This is worthy of another post because this is not the only insanity that flight attendants and ground staff seem to allow.

Anyway, it seems that Virgin Blue (photo) and Pacific Blue will be slugging passengers with a AUD 20 fee to check-in baggage from 1 September 2008. However, if you book and pay online for your check-in baggage then the fee is a mere AUD 8. You do, however, get to check-in up to 23 kilos. But, if you front up at the airport you will be hit with the flat AUD 20 fee. The excess baggage fee is AUD 8 per kilo.

I am looking forward to the "pay for weight" program being applied to people. The idea being that the fare you pay is based on how much you weigh. Now, this on face value would seem to be discriminatory against overweight and obese passengers. Yet, when you think about it the physics of the matter is that it presumably takes more fuel to move the heavier people from the ground and into the air. So, I guess, the question, "is if you are being charged based on how much it costs to move you, are you being discriminated against?"

What does this mean for budget travelers, shop around. There are still deals to be had even in these times of high fuel prices. When it is all said and done there is still more than one airline to choose from.

Obesity and Lethal Injections

There is a simple question being posed by a death row inmate in a federal lawsuit that has been lodged in Ohio and that question is, "can you be too fat to be put to death by lethal injection?" By now most of my regular readers know that I am anti-death penalty and have stated my reasons for such opposition elsewhere on my blog.

The inmate, Richard Cooey, argues that because of his obesity the executioners would not be able to find suitable veins for the needle and that the drugs would have diminished effect because of his weight. The diminished effect of the drugs would seem to be the primary argument because this would conceivably render the execution cruel and unusual. A person has a lot of veins, so if one was not readily available in the inmates arms, then the executioners move to his hands, legs, and feet in search of a suitable vein. My guess is that they would find one even in a fat person. Cooey is 5'7" tall and weighs a hefty 267 pounds.

The debate about whether Cooey should die for his crime, the rape and murder of two University of Akron students back in 1986, is not the point of this post. What is the point is whether the execution of fat people by lethal injection constitutes a breach of fat people's rights to be executed in a humane way. How stupid does that sound? Is there any humane way to be executed? And should we distinguish between humane ways of execution for fat people and people whose weight falls within a recognized standard.

Although, the obesity arguments are not the only arguments being run by the Public Defender assisting Cooey. It is also alleged that the migraine medication Cooey is taking will effect the lethal injection process as Topamax, the drug Cooey is taking, is likely to block Thiopental which is the drug that knocks you out before the lethal drugs are injected.

This, according to an expert, is likely to increase the risk that Cooey is not properly anesthetized and therefore he would be getting the full enjoyment of the lethal drugs that will kill him as they are pumped into his body. I figure that perhaps the surviving members of his victims' families might not be too concerned with the idea that Cooey suffers a little excruciating pain. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth might not be such a bad thing in the thoughts of those who have suffered since 1986 with the pain of losing loved ones.

The Federal Appeals Courts have generally not found in favor of these arguments. Therefore, the likely outcome is that the appeal will fail.

Cooey is scheduled to meet his maker on 14 October 2008.