Execution Watch: Robert Long

Last week, we had two executions go without an apparent hitch, the Supreme Court dealing with final appeals two days ahead of time. The concern there was that one of the people executed (putting aside the long time on death row, a continuing concern) rehabilitated himself enough to warrant commutation.  The daughter (if not the son) of the victim herself supported the move.  Plus, though the murder was horrible and all, a single murder of a spouse did not seem "worse of the worst" territory.

Long, now 65, pleaded guilty to killing eight women in the Tampa Bay area during an eight-month period in 1984. He was sentenced to death in 1985 for the murder of 22-year-old Michelle Denise Simms. He also claimed to have raped at least 40 women.

The other person executed was nineteen at the time of the offense, so raised an argument that the death penalty should only occur for those over twenty-one.  There is some logic to this, but eighteen is a firmer line, including since it is in various respects an average age for adulthood.  But, the person there otherwise seemed worthy of execution because it was such a heinous multiple murder, two involving young children. The murders also were horrible because of reportedly it arose because of a trivial dispute.  I think there was a bit more backstory than argument over a truck involved.

I repeat this in part to recall that even if these people were executed, the cases are still with us. Also, to compare to the crimes of the person scheduled for execution this week.  Florida executed two people last year, each for single murders. The person here is the type of "worse of the worst" that might be deemed a poster boy for execution. But, he has been in prison for thirty-five years. So, even if we ignore that allowing executions (like torture etc.; yes, there is overlap) will involve less blatant cases too and resist the idea that state authorized homicide is wrong, what value is it to execute him now?

Justice Breyer (along with Stevens) flagged this problem over the years, including in his Glossip v. Gross dissent:

These lengthy delays create two special constitutional difficulties. First, a lengthy delay in and of itself is especially cruel because it subjects death row inmates to decades of especially severe, dehumanizing conditions of confinement. Second, lengthy delay undermines the death penalty’s penological rationale.

(Citations and such omitted.)  The delays are a result of state mistake and inaction as much as defendant stonewalling techniques.  The push to speed things along leads to problems because there are real constitutional concerns (if not all successfully litigated) involved.  This was covered by Breyer and Sotomayor in the last full court opinion in this area.  Breyer also covers how retribution rationales are weaker when you execute someone so much later.  As to the confinement conditions, they are is some fashion tied to the sentence. It is an overall problem, including solitary confinement.  But, the death penalty worsens the situation.

The article also noted: 

Long’s attorney filed a motion ... earlier this month requesting a stay of execution. The motion stated Long is mentally ill and suffers from a form of epilepsy because of a traumatic brain injury.

It also claims there is a risk that the lethal injection drugs will fail (one article said seizures but can be also more open-ended looking at a last minute petition).* The rejection of this claim as untimely (if not also unproven) is probably sensible, especially given recent rulings.  Since only six people obtained clemency in Florida since executions started again since the mid-1970s (if many more before), the call for commutation is generally a longshot. Still, the argument this isn't a "deterrent" is probably strong, if somewhat besides the point if you are relying on retribution.  On that front, see above.

He was executed apparently on time after no public dissents to final appeals earlier today.   Execution scheduled next week.

---

* Looking at the various applications for stays (each case in the orders have a docket number, which can be searched for on the Supreme Court website, providing lots of reading material), his specific medical condition was flagged. Other claims, including being on death row for so long, was as well.

One or more justices very well probably was sympathetic, but do not each and every time repeat their same concerns.  This is standard practice and sensible as a general rule, but given the limited number of executions and the importance of the matter, I would like at least one justice to at least summarize things (or flag the strongest arguments) each time.  The standard "we oppose the death penalty" each and every time, even when that isn't the specific matter at hand, that Brennan and Marshall did to me is not necessary and a tad counterproductive.

I at least don't like (as has happened) justices to say they would stay (or oppose a stay) and not say why.  [footnote added]