As I noted last time, the short term execution warrant approach (let's say one that expires at midnight) led to a case this year where the U.S. Supreme Court took too long to decide a last minute appeal, leading the state to run out of time. The person was later eventually executed (a new execution warrant provided) after the Supreme Court rejected the appeal. My proposal would be to (except in extreme cases where something arises at the last minute) provide a buffer zone (perhaps twenty-four hours) for final appeals to avoid this happening. Anyway, like the last entry, South Dakota provides an extended period (a week) to execute though the warden has to give forty-hour notice. On Saturday, therefore, we knew Rhines was sentenced to die on Monday though the clock started the day before.
There is a last minute dispute on the proper lethal injection protocol, the claim being that state rules warrant him to get one of two ultra-short-acting barbiturates while the state wants to use another. As noted in the past, there is overall some reason to be concerned about lethal injection protocols, including the efficiency of specific drugs and respect for some basic due process on procedures used. There has been problems in both cases. Rhines cites expert testimony and appeals to the text of the specific law in question. So, not just some federal constitution claim.
One notable aspect here is that he is gay and claimed discriminatory bias tainted the proceedings. One problem here is that the justices are strongly split on even using the possibility of racism to pierce the privacy of the jury room to question the result. But, especially with only two people on death row in South Dakota suggesting the possibility of arbitrariness is if anything more present given small sample sizes, there does seem to be credible evidence here of problems. He also made other procedural claims. Supreme Court rejected all without comment. Rhines brought back the claim of discrimination in his final appeal to the Supreme Court.
After 1913, someone was executed in South Dakota in 1947 (murder of a state agent), the next execution was in 2007. Of the four people executed since then, two were executed for the same correctional officer's death. Talk about "special circumstances." The torture/murder leading to that 2007 execution also covers one of the two people on death row now, something being found wrong with the conviction of that second person. This is an example of how even the same crimes can result in different results.
Charles Russell Rhines, the other one on death row, was sentenced to die for the torture murder of a store clerk during a robbery. He has been on death row for over twenty-five years. Thus, we have the length on death row issue that comes up in various case. Rhines is now in his early sixties and selectively executing one long term prison resident for a heinous murder to me constitutionally arbitrary and bad public policy. Yes, heinous:
Two would be being one death row for twenty-five years after being sentenced to die in significant part because you are gay. But, though Sotomayor showed some concern about denying some assistance for the clemency hearing, no justice even commented on this matter. (Might have dissented privately.) The third final order involved the argument that the state was not following its rules for lethal injections. That is a technical issue that I understand (especially with multiple comments on this issue in the past) the justices going over again on the record. I appreciate Sotomayor following her now apparent habit to clarify her vote in death penalty cases even when she does not vote for a stay. And, the long time on death row issue was not specifically flagged from what can see, even if Breyer wanted to reference it again.
Unlike Brennan/Marshall and eventually Blackmun, the more anti-death penalty justices (RBG joined Breyer in Glossip but tends to let others speak; Kagan is less often a vote against the death penalty but joined/spoke out in certain cases) do not comment each time there is an execution. But, the anti-gay issue was worthy of comment, even if it was to say that they considered it again or there isn't enough material on the record to be able to base holding up the execution. The silence is unfortunate.
SCOTUSBlog summarized things here. He was executed.
There is a last minute dispute on the proper lethal injection protocol, the claim being that state rules warrant him to get one of two ultra-short-acting barbiturates while the state wants to use another. As noted in the past, there is overall some reason to be concerned about lethal injection protocols, including the efficiency of specific drugs and respect for some basic due process on procedures used. There has been problems in both cases. Rhines cites expert testimony and appeals to the text of the specific law in question. So, not just some federal constitution claim.
One notable aspect here is that he is gay and claimed discriminatory bias tainted the proceedings. One problem here is that the justices are strongly split on even using the possibility of racism to pierce the privacy of the jury room to question the result. But, especially with only two people on death row in South Dakota suggesting the possibility of arbitrariness is if anything more present given small sample sizes, there does seem to be credible evidence here of problems. He also made other procedural claims. Supreme Court rejected all without comment. Rhines brought back the claim of discrimination in his final appeal to the Supreme Court.
After 1913, someone was executed in South Dakota in 1947 (murder of a state agent), the next execution was in 2007. Of the four people executed since then, two were executed for the same correctional officer's death. Talk about "special circumstances." The torture/murder leading to that 2007 execution also covers one of the two people on death row now, something being found wrong with the conviction of that second person. This is an example of how even the same crimes can result in different results.
Charles Russell Rhines, the other one on death row, was sentenced to die for the torture murder of a store clerk during a robbery. He has been on death row for over twenty-five years. Thus, we have the length on death row issue that comes up in various case. Rhines is now in his early sixties and selectively executing one long term prison resident for a heinous murder to me constitutionally arbitrary and bad public policy. Yes, heinous:
Rhines, caught burglarizing a doughnut shop in Rapid City, South Dakota by an employee named Donnivan Schaeffer, stabbed the 22-year old in the abdomen and back. Then, as Schaeffer pleaded for his life, Rhines thrust the blade into the base of his skull.The horrible method of murder during a robbery here is why his crime was found to fit within the aggravating factors that bring forth a finding of capital murder. I'm still not sure if murder of a witness to a robbery is the sort of "worse of the worst" type of murder warranting the death penalty in a state where four people were executed since the Truman Administration. Murder of a correction officer, if we allow the death penalty, very well might be. Not factoring in other concerns.
Two would be being one death row for twenty-five years after being sentenced to die in significant part because you are gay. But, though Sotomayor showed some concern about denying some assistance for the clemency hearing, no justice even commented on this matter. (Might have dissented privately.) The third final order involved the argument that the state was not following its rules for lethal injections. That is a technical issue that I understand (especially with multiple comments on this issue in the past) the justices going over again on the record. I appreciate Sotomayor following her now apparent habit to clarify her vote in death penalty cases even when she does not vote for a stay. And, the long time on death row issue was not specifically flagged from what can see, even if Breyer wanted to reference it again.
Unlike Brennan/Marshall and eventually Blackmun, the more anti-death penalty justices (RBG joined Breyer in Glossip but tends to let others speak; Kagan is less often a vote against the death penalty but joined/spoke out in certain cases) do not comment each time there is an execution. But, the anti-gay issue was worthy of comment, even if it was to say that they considered it again or there isn't enough material on the record to be able to base holding up the execution. The silence is unfortunate.
SCOTUSBlog summarized things here. He was executed.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!