Matthew Johnson (Texas/May 20th)
As far as it goes, this is the least troublesome execution in some ways. His guilt is clear.
It was horrible: an elderly store clerk dies from a lingering death arising from a petty robbery. The trial was in 2013, which is relatively speaking, not long ago. At least in the United States these days.
There is some debate, as flagged since the 1980s, over the "future dangerousness" standard. Also, he has not been violent since being placed on death row. Johnson also has found religion on death row.
So, you have a horrible crime, but even there, the necessity of execution after over a decade is unclear.
Benjamin Ritchie (Indiana/May 20th)
Benjamin Ritchie was sentenced to die for the murder of a police officer in 2002. So, aggravated circumstances.
Once over twenty years have passed, significant problems are firmly present (Breyer's dissent).
Other mitigated circumstances are either mixed (some testimony for good conduct in prison, other evidence not so much) or not found compelling (Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Disorder (FASD), as well as his history of childhood abuse and neglect).
Overall, if you think there should be a heightened level of assurance before executing someone, there is some room to doubt. Acknowledging different levels of difficulty in each case, my stance is that the state should at least meet a beyond a reasonable doubt standard. This does not seem to have occurred here, even if "clear and convincing" is met.
The final appeals concerned allegations that the fetal alcohol evidence was not adequately provided. The usual rejoinder is that nothing new is under the sun. The arguments were made and failed.
The Supreme Court, without comment, rejected the appeals. Notably, there rarely are dissents these days, Sotomayor and Jackson noted their dissent. Without comment. Sotomayor in the past was more chatty.
It's a taking of life by the government. Due process warrants some comment. The briefing here argued the court below split on the question, suggesting the matter is open to some doubt. Two justices did doubt it. So why can't they explain why, for the record?
He was executed shortly after midnight.
Oscar Smith (Tennessee/May 22nd)
Tennessee, after years of problems and study, chose Oscar Smith to restart executions after five years. He has been on death row for thirty-five years.
Prof. Lain, in her book, flagged how multiple people chose electrocution over lethal injection in recent years. Smith "chose" lethal injection by default (not deciding).
Oscar Smith (though he claims innocence) murdered his estranged wife (history of domestic violence) and her two teenage sons. Some delays have been based on challenges of the lethal injection procedure and the state's own problems.
Meanwhile, showing how these things split, some of the victims' families of those on death row have asked the governor to hold up pending executions.
In their letter, the group of 51 “victims, survivors, and family members of those impacted by violent crime” argue the death penalty does not act as a healing tool for victims and takes away from state-funded resources that could help with their healing. For these individuals, “access to trauma recovery services, financial and funeral assistance, counseling, safe housing, and violence prevention programs” are truly helpful, yet “these essential resources remain out of reach for many.”
Execution of a seventy-five-year-old man four decades after his crimes comes off as glorified state-authorized euthanasia. Aside from other issues.
==
These crimes are horrible. I do not think the people who thought they were death penalty worthy are merely bloodthirsty. If we should have empathy for murderers, let's have some for everyone else.
Still, there are issues in each case. The arbitrary "lottery" selection of who to execute continues.