Update: As expected, the stay was vacated and he was executed. More on the legal issues.
The first link cites inside knowledge that a claim based on alleged tainted jury challenges might be involved. The media coverage, however, seems to focus on possible problems with the lethal injection protocol. A particular concern is that recent shortages led to problems obtaining the necessary drugs, which inhibits the ability to safeguard their usage. One article discusses, for instance, that in effect the drugs used until the last minute are secret. A recent essay by Prof. Dorf also discusses in general recent execution problems. [He links to an account of a witness to a recent execution, interesting for various reasons, including a faith based one.]
I'm against the death penalty generally speaking, but have noted recent cases where specific orders were noted at the Supreme Court website involved some pretty horrible cases. This case, from what I can tell, is not what I would call "worst of the worst." He was sentenced to die for the premeditated murder (according to one article) of a store owner (another person was shot but survived) during an armed robbery. That's a really bad thing, but execution-worthy? I'm biased, but honestly, if someone who accepts the death penalty is certain cases was asked, would they on average apply it to him? Perhaps, there is more to the case.
A usual contributor to the Sentencing Law and Policy (where I first read about this case) comment threads cited a usual concern about rights of victims in cases of this sort. The person doesn't seem to care when victims oppose the death penalty. But, if that is a concern, I personally don't find the death penalty as overly useful. In Baze v. Rees, Stevens flags the issue too as part of a summary of the "costs" of the death penalty (FN17; I use quotes to note this is more than financial).
Victims interests should be considered as much as possible, balancing other concerns (see, e.g., Payne v. Tennessee, dissenting opinions). Likewise, as Prof. Dorf notes, the litigation here is often used selectively. But, that is how litigation in our system tends to work -- two sides with competing interests. Often more than two, with all the parties involved, including the courts here. The resulting rules should provide some clarity though when dealing with the death penalty, history suggests it will only get us that far. The death penalty, even by supporters, is applied with some degree of discomfort. Killing people should be.
---
* The second link was obtained by doing a search of the condemned's name, the SCOTUS website not providing easy direct access to recent orders of that sort. I noted this once to the veteran USSC reporter at SCOTUSBlog in an email and he agreed that it was not the best way to do things.
The Court should not produce a de facto ban on capital punishment by adopting method-of-execution rules that lead to litigation gridlock.The USSC is in a bit of a hiatus until oral arguments resume late February, but the recent temporary stay (by Alito, given its his circuit) of an execution is a notable action.* For the time being, and perhaps in general, there is no explanation why the stay is in place. Given some problems in recent years in this area, some clarity could be useful.
-- Justice Alito, concurring in Baze v. Rees
The first link cites inside knowledge that a claim based on alleged tainted jury challenges might be involved. The media coverage, however, seems to focus on possible problems with the lethal injection protocol. A particular concern is that recent shortages led to problems obtaining the necessary drugs, which inhibits the ability to safeguard their usage. One article discusses, for instance, that in effect the drugs used until the last minute are secret. A recent essay by Prof. Dorf also discusses in general recent execution problems. [He links to an account of a witness to a recent execution, interesting for various reasons, including a faith based one.]
I'm against the death penalty generally speaking, but have noted recent cases where specific orders were noted at the Supreme Court website involved some pretty horrible cases. This case, from what I can tell, is not what I would call "worst of the worst." He was sentenced to die for the premeditated murder (according to one article) of a store owner (another person was shot but survived) during an armed robbery. That's a really bad thing, but execution-worthy? I'm biased, but honestly, if someone who accepts the death penalty is certain cases was asked, would they on average apply it to him? Perhaps, there is more to the case.
A usual contributor to the Sentencing Law and Policy (where I first read about this case) comment threads cited a usual concern about rights of victims in cases of this sort. The person doesn't seem to care when victims oppose the death penalty. But, if that is a concern, I personally don't find the death penalty as overly useful. In Baze v. Rees, Stevens flags the issue too as part of a summary of the "costs" of the death penalty (FN17; I use quotes to note this is more than financial).
Victims interests should be considered as much as possible, balancing other concerns (see, e.g., Payne v. Tennessee, dissenting opinions). Likewise, as Prof. Dorf notes, the litigation here is often used selectively. But, that is how litigation in our system tends to work -- two sides with competing interests. Often more than two, with all the parties involved, including the courts here. The resulting rules should provide some clarity though when dealing with the death penalty, history suggests it will only get us that far. The death penalty, even by supporters, is applied with some degree of discomfort. Killing people should be.
The rule of evolving standards of decency with specific marks on the way to full progress and mature judgment means that resort to the penalty must be reserved for the worst of crimes and limited in its instances of application. In most cases justice is not better served by terminating the life of the perpetrator rather than confining him and preserving the possibility that he and the system will find ways to allow him to understand the enormity of his offense.Does this execution, putting aside the protocol issues which are worthy of concern specifically, really meet that test? Baze v. Rees highlights that ultimately such questions as has choice of means will usually not be decided by the courts except to uphold the actions of others. The "rule" applies all the same.
---
* The second link was obtained by doing a search of the condemned's name, the SCOTUS website not providing easy direct access to recent orders of that sort. I noted this once to the veteran USSC reporter at SCOTUSBlog in an email and he agreed that it was not the best way to do things.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!