ETA: The third execution -- with interests that basically piggy-backed the others [lethal injection protocol and safety of clergy at execution] -- occurred today on time without further drama. It is a "Breaking Bad" sort of situation, which of the three seems the most blatant -- five executions to cover up drug crimes, including two children. The system is tainted, however, even if you can justify one or the other execution. And, that "if" is unclear.
Yesterday afternoon, this order dropped at SCOTUS:
[SCOTUSBlog's report shows even more how convoluted all the last minute litigation was. I support a 24-48 Hr. buffer zone around the actual execution to prevent this sort of gruesome last day execution litigation process. Once the justices lifted the stay, it was basically expected the courts had to rush thru a bunch of stuff before the execution. The process here is also tied to rules regarding when one sues etc. that sometimes is reliant on when the actual execution is scheduled. I can see a dramatic reenactment of this in some sort of legal related show or work, viewing things from various angles.]
Breyer again had a broader attack, including noting how how two people committed the crime the first time around but only one person was executed. I didn't toss that in last time and would be wary about relying on it without investigating why that happened. But, as covered here, there does seem to be a concern there. ["Right, the judge later said, essentially, “I’m sorry,” that this was a bad sentence. And the federal prosecutors at the time of the trial asked the Justice Department to reduce the requested sentence to life in prison. The Justice Department refused."] He also noted that we have another long delay. Some use that to say we can just streamline the process. But, as he has noted in the past, the delays are in part a result of safeguarding the interests of justice. He also cited a procedural issue that was part of the complications with this specific execution.
The main attack, again by Sotomayor (for four justices), regards the mental competency claim, including letting the damn lower courts do their jobs respecting addressing it. As noted by one legal observer on Twitter, the D.C. panel involved here was not just a bunch of liberals and they all agreed he had a case worthy of review. As with risk of drugs being cruel, this is something of an odds game though there again was some sound evidence here that it was a problem per past cases and overall.
The petition that received no comment involved two sixty something clergy members who argued it was too unsafe (especially with a staff member already testing positive) for them to be there at the execution. Basically a RFRA claim. From what I can tell from the ACLU release (linked above), the one involved in today's execution did risk it. We have seen repeatedly in recent months the risk involved in these cases, a sort of Russian Roulette in various cases where some get sick and others do not. The execution due on Friday was involved here. More to come?
Note that last month the Supreme Court held up a Texan execution when it would not allow the clergy member to be in the execution room. The two situations might be different somehow (e.g., some implication the state changed the rule for bad reasons), but how exactly is unclear. They didn't take the case; they sent it back, including seeking evidence the rule in place was necessary for security reasons. Still, as with the rule regarding the exact details needed per federal law to execute, before we restart federal executions after seventeen years, seems arbitrary not to make it crystal clear, with Supreme Court review, what is necessary here.
The people executed are not exactly people one would have much sympathy with especially as people are suffering and dying because of the Big V. And, the nature of the crimes were particularly taken into consideration when choosing these people to lead the way. But, we do have to focus on the specific sometimes, and also retain basic fairness. Middle of the night "justice" and rushed executions, each with real issues of concern that at the very least should have been handled with some semblance of regular process [an execution in August or September won't please many upset but it would improve due process].
Chief Justice Roberts has come off fairly well this term regarding the reputation of the Supreme Court. This is a black mark.
Yesterday afternoon, this order dropped at SCOTUS:
ORDER LIST: 591 U.S.)It took another twelve hours or so, reports say around three o'clock in the morning (so later than last time), for the final orders to drop. Same breakdown -- five to four -- but only the liberals explained themselves. Again, the feds rushed to execute in the morning though not sure if this time the person (as was reported last time) was left on the table for hours until the execution was okayed. The father of one of the victims supported the execution but noted that she was still dead so there is no "closure." There are a variety of responses of family members in such cases and those who speak in their name should accept that.
WEDNESDAY, JULY 15, 2020
ORDER IN PENDING CASE
20A4 UNITED STATES, ET AL. V. PURKEY, WESLEY I.
The application to vacate the stay of execution entered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on July 2, 2020, presented to Justice Kavanaugh and by him referred to the Court, is granted.
Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan would deny the application.
[SCOTUSBlog's report shows even more how convoluted all the last minute litigation was. I support a 24-48 Hr. buffer zone around the actual execution to prevent this sort of gruesome last day execution litigation process. Once the justices lifted the stay, it was basically expected the courts had to rush thru a bunch of stuff before the execution. The process here is also tied to rules regarding when one sues etc. that sometimes is reliant on when the actual execution is scheduled. I can see a dramatic reenactment of this in some sort of legal related show or work, viewing things from various angles.]
Breyer again had a broader attack, including noting how how two people committed the crime the first time around but only one person was executed. I didn't toss that in last time and would be wary about relying on it without investigating why that happened. But, as covered here, there does seem to be a concern there. ["Right, the judge later said, essentially, “I’m sorry,” that this was a bad sentence. And the federal prosecutors at the time of the trial asked the Justice Department to reduce the requested sentence to life in prison. The Justice Department refused."] He also noted that we have another long delay. Some use that to say we can just streamline the process. But, as he has noted in the past, the delays are in part a result of safeguarding the interests of justice. He also cited a procedural issue that was part of the complications with this specific execution.
The main attack, again by Sotomayor (for four justices), regards the mental competency claim, including letting the damn lower courts do their jobs respecting addressing it. As noted by one legal observer on Twitter, the D.C. panel involved here was not just a bunch of liberals and they all agreed he had a case worthy of review. As with risk of drugs being cruel, this is something of an odds game though there again was some sound evidence here that it was a problem per past cases and overall.
The petition that received no comment involved two sixty something clergy members who argued it was too unsafe (especially with a staff member already testing positive) for them to be there at the execution. Basically a RFRA claim. From what I can tell from the ACLU release (linked above), the one involved in today's execution did risk it. We have seen repeatedly in recent months the risk involved in these cases, a sort of Russian Roulette in various cases where some get sick and others do not. The execution due on Friday was involved here. More to come?
Note that last month the Supreme Court held up a Texan execution when it would not allow the clergy member to be in the execution room. The two situations might be different somehow (e.g., some implication the state changed the rule for bad reasons), but how exactly is unclear. They didn't take the case; they sent it back, including seeking evidence the rule in place was necessary for security reasons. Still, as with the rule regarding the exact details needed per federal law to execute, before we restart federal executions after seventeen years, seems arbitrary not to make it crystal clear, with Supreme Court review, what is necessary here.
The people executed are not exactly people one would have much sympathy with especially as people are suffering and dying because of the Big V. And, the nature of the crimes were particularly taken into consideration when choosing these people to lead the way. But, we do have to focus on the specific sometimes, and also retain basic fairness. Middle of the night "justice" and rushed executions, each with real issues of concern that at the very least should have been handled with some semblance of regular process [an execution in August or September won't please many upset but it would improve due process].
Chief Justice Roberts has come off fairly well this term regarding the reputation of the Supreme Court. This is a black mark.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!