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 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)
 * 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)

On second thought, I think the current title (Execution of Clayton Lockett) is fine. The article is about his scheduled execution, regardless of whether or not it was successful. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2015 (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, 1 May 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, 1 May 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, 1 May 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   &bull; talk &bull; 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. There are several weasel words and NPOV terms left, making the article look like it was written from an anti-capital punishment POV. I have tried to improve the article, but there is still some work left.

Best regards, 24.132.94.37 (talk) 08:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Criminal History section
I have read this section through a couple of times and find it impossible to understand. Here are my initial thoughts:
 * 1) I think it would helpful for it to be rearranged in chronological order.
 * 2) The way it is worded the reader has to go back and think for a moment to understand that he had 3 felony convictions and was sentenced in the first one to 7 years but presumably (we don't say) got out early to commit his second felony (the conspiracy) and was sentenced to 4 years but presumably ( we don't say) got out early to commit the murder.
 * 3) "Stephanie Neiman, a nineteen-year-old high school graduate and friend of Lockett's other victims, was a witness to his crimes." - the ones he was convicted of, or some new ones?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd agree, it is ordered in an odd way. I'd recommend that you be bold, and reorder as you suggest. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Recent article in the Atlantic

"There had never been a question of Lockett’s guilt. Fifteen years earlier, on June 3, 1999, he had stood in a ravine and aimed a 12-gauge shotgun at Stephanie Neiman, a 19-year-old who had graduated from high school two weeks earlier. Lockett and two accomplices had beaten one of Neiman’s friends and raped another. Lockett told Neiman multiple times that he would kill her if she didn’t promise to keep quiet. He warned her one last time, but she insisted she would go to the police."

The above paragraph is from a recent article in the Atlantic: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/06/execution-clayton-lockett/392069/. The passage clarifies the "other victims"  part of the Stephanie Neiman  case. I am shamefully incompetent at adding links, footnotes etc so I am just leaving it here in case anyone can use it.46.12.40.112 (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

4 September Report
The report of Oklahoma's internal investigation was released last Thursday. It likely contains information that should be used in the article. Mhults7791 (talk) 18:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Buried Alive
The article is clearly a grisly read. However, I wish to confirm what the article says as true: In the Criminal History section, the article states: "After she stated she would go to the police, Lockett decided to bury her alive.[10] Lockett ordered an accomplice to bury her while she was still breathing. She died from two wounds from a shotgun fired by Lockett."

1) Are we saying that Lockett SHOT Neiman and then ordered her to be buried alive?

2) Has the coroner to Neiman said that she died from the gunshot wounds ONLY? 3) Did Neiman suffocate WHILST she was dying from the gunshot wounds?

4) The upshot of this is that was Neiman dying (and suffering) from being buried alive whilst (presumably) bleeding to death from gunshot wounds?

5) How long was Neiman conscious for whilst/after being buried?

It just seems a little difficult, from an objective point of view, to say that someone can be being killed by multiple causes, to then lay the cause of death to one cause (again this must be in coroner's report).

I should say sorry to ask the cleary difficult questions, but such a crime deserves some specificity so that people can be sure of what precisely happened.

I might add that even if Lockett was an evil person (and looking at his life experience, it is not clear that he 'chose' evil) we as a civilised society have no place in making him suffer and die in a painful way. If you have to kill him for a rational reason (as a deterrent or to save resources) that's one thing, but by killing him this way, the State has shown that it is no different from the other criminals in its vindictiveness - and that's a bad place to be. Of course, the mechanisations that surround Lockett's death do reflect negatively upon the American State (and those who engineered the inhumane nature of Lockett's death).

ASavantDude (talk) 16:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Execution of Clayton Lockett. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20140501035701/http://docapp065p.doc.state.ok.us/servlet/page?_pageid=394&_dad=portal30&_schema=PORTAL30&doc_num=206409&offender_book_id=98755 to http://docapp065p.doc.state.ok.us/servlet/page?_pageid=394&_dad=portal30&_schema=PORTAL30&doc_num=206409&offender_book_id=98755

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:05, 26 September 2017 (UTC)