Alabama Executes Carey Dale Grayson

Four teenagers, only one over eighteen (nineteen), horribly killed a woman and abused her body. They were influenced to some degree by alcohol and drugs. Plus, an absence of a moral compass that allows people to do it.

Three of the young men (so to speak) got the death penalty with the other getting life imprisonment. The two that were under eighteen eventually benefitted from Roper v. Simmons (no execution of those who commit crimes under eighteen). 

That left Carey Dale Grayson.

[There is a limited amount of expert discussion that people under twenty-one are also not developed enough to warrant execution.]

The crimes took place in February 1994. An execution thirty years after the crime is problematic (see Breyer's dissent). No one on the current Supreme Court has flagged this as a problem. 

A federal judge found nitrogen gas was acceptable even if some accounts had Alabama's first two attempts being iffy. Grayson also would not have the right to a strong sedative or to be executed by his chosen deadly poison method though maybe a mild sedative could be given. 

The Supreme Court this morning -- as usual, without comment [which, as usual, I oppose] -- rejected a final appeal addressing these concerns. The evidence that the method is cruel enough to violate the Eighth Amendment is likely not high enough to warrant such a judicial response. A liberal justice could have provided a statement explaining the situation.  

The crime here is horrible enough that it is quite understandable why Grayson would be executed. The problems are the long delay (thirty years?!) and his age. He was still a teenager. 

Yes, it was a horrible crime, if one was done with the hysteria that is sometimes shown by group action. Still. A single horrible act by someone nineteen does not warrant execution. 

Few will cry a tear for Carey Dale Grayson but I continue to think arbitrarily executing a few people -- some subset for crimes that do seem pretty damn bad -- is not good public policy. It also probably as a whole has constitutional problems, especially as applied. 

President Biden's Duty

What Chris Geidner said. 

President Biden must commute the sentences of those on death row. He says he opposes the death penalty. 

If he stands firm because of some conservative procedural regularity or for some other reason, the Trump Administration will likely execute some of them. And, that didn't go well the last time. 

On another website, some death penalty supporter sarcastically responded to my remarks about Biden on this subject. He thought Biden was acting purely politically.  He figured Biden would not act.

I think he has some personal opposition to the death penalty as he has concerns about abortion.  How deep it is remains to be seen. But, it isn't just politics.  

President Obama's support of the penalty in certain cases is the more politically safe approach these days.  This was shown by the Democratic presidential platform that did not support abolition.   

But this is all talk. It is up to Biden to act. If he does not, whatever his reasons, it will be trouble.  

He has the power. Let's see what he does with it. I don't want him only to pardon a couple turkeys.