Jessie Hoffman Execution

Jessie Hoffman at age 18 nearly thirty years ago committed a horrible crime. He kidnapped, robbed, raped, and murdered a woman. Louisiana sentenced him to death. Then, he waited and waited. 

An attempt later to cite his age as an argument to block his execution (under 21) failed. His lawyers also argued that Hoffman suffered from chronic childhood abuse and neglect, leading to post-traumatic stress symptoms and brain damage. 

We can understand why such a crime was considered "worse of the worst" though a reasonable judge or jury might decide not to give him the death penalty. 

Various appeals, including claims of racism in the jury, were rejected. My continual argument that too long on death row should nullify a death sentence obviously never got traction (Breyer, dissent). 

He tried to challenge the method of execution, including lethal injection, which now is functionally not in place in Louisiana. That failed, but a district court judge held that nitrogen gas as established in Louisiana did have too high of a risk of suffering. 

Supreme Court precedent requires a challenge to a method of execution to provide an alternative. Louisiana provides three options: lethal injection (no drugs now available*), electrocution (for some reason not available), and nitrogen gas. 

Nonetheless, you could offer an alternative that might possibly be made available. Hoffman suggested the firing squad (growing in popularity) or the drugs used in medical-aid-in-dying. The lower court judge held only the firing squad is functionally available.

An Obama nominee in the Fifth Circuit holding up an execution is not a safe bet. The Court of Appeals soon overturned the decision. He took it to the Supreme Court, including another argument he lost below.

Hoffman argues that as a Buddhist his religious liberty rights are violated since he wants to pray as he dies. Nitrogen gas interferes. Again, he offers a backup method so argues they still can execute him.

The lower court wasn't convinced. The factual findings held that nitrogen gas does not interfere. The back-up argument is a statutory claim. 

The three liberals would have granted a stay of execution without saying why. Sigh. Gorsuch, who is no fan of the method of execution claims, dissents regarding the religious liberty argument. He thinks the district court judge was wrong to second guess and wants the court of appeals to examine the question. 

Meanwhile, a sister-in-law of the victim supports commuting his sentence. Another relative wants to hear from him. Since the victim has multiple family members, obviously, this is of limited concern. 

Many families will be split over the question of how to properly punish murderers. We probably can see this in each of the three mass murderers Biden did not commute along with the rest.  

Jessie Hoffman did something horrible, truly horrible, at age 18. He was in prison for nearly thirty years. Executing him -- even if nitrogen gas works okay after one or more of its usages does seems not okay -- after all this time is not a great use of public policy.  

Meanwhile, the value of nitrogen gas as an alternative continues to be unclear. The firing squad might be the best (and most honest) method available.

Or we can just not execute people.  

ETA: There are preliminary remarks by witnesses that the execution went smoothly. A somewhat detailed account (down to the sounds of birds chirping) arguably is more opaque, including how much his desired religious expression was affected. 

==

* There have also been efforts to block the access of nitrogen gas and how the state obtained it for today's execution is somewhat unclear. 

The details of the Supreme Court decision making are also (this is somewhat academic) curious. The liberals would have granted a stay. Gorsuch would have granted a stay and cert. (on the religious liberty issue).

But you need five votes to hold up the execution. So, a "courtesy fifth" is necessary.

Roberts has offered to do it in the past. Since Gorsuch chose to rely on a religious liberty issue, Barrett (who has supported that in an execution in the past) was a possible fifth. But she did not do so.

The execution made the request for cert (to take up the case) moot even though four justices supported stopping the execution. Sort of embarrassing.