Alabama Doesn't Executes Jeffrey Lee

Lee, who has been on death row for 25 years, was convicted of the 1998 murders of Jimmy Ellis and Elaine Thompson during a pawn shop robbery in Dallas County. He was also found guilty of the attempted murder of Helen King.

The death sentence and planned execution are problematic on multiple grounds, but only a few justices (at most) have agreed with the reasons.  

Twenty-five years is too long. Justice Breyer explained why. I will continue to cite his dissent. 

Sotomayor, for the liberals, flagged the problems with nitrogen gas. The others think "not enough."

An Alabama jury recommended 7-5 that he receive life without parole. A judge overrode them. 

The policy is no longer in place. The justices have rejected multiple appeals that flagged the problem. 

The jury, even without other potentially mitigating evidence, did not find him guilty enough to die. A double robbery/homicide clearly has aggravating circumstances. A majority of the jurors still thought he did not deserve to die.

The lower courts split one last time. The district court found some problems with nitrogen gas, but not enough. The court of appeals disagreed, sending it back to determine if a backup method (the firing squad) was available.* The state appealed. 

Steve Vladeck argued that the Supreme Court intervening, given the technical status of the case, would be particularly dubious. Hours after the execution was scheduled, the appeal was rejected. 

(I find it asinine that things work this way. That we have a finale on execution night. It is how it is set up. The state is partially to blame. It should change.) 

The machinery of death, with Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissenting, was stopped. For now. 

I have argued that final refusals to intervene, even if hopeless appeals, should be at least minimally explained in death penalty cases. I think so here. 

Anyway, Jeffrey Lee shouldn't be executed. A majority of his jury said so. Too long ago. 

If he's executed, he shouldn't be executed by nitrogen gas. There is too much doubt. I know. Is the firing squad better? I guess? 

Maybe, just let's not execute him at all. Alabama hasn't for over twenty-five years. Why start now?

===

Note: The rules hold that if you challenge an execution method, you need to provide an alternative. 

Maybe, see Glossip v. Gross, things would be different if the state used crucifixion or something, but they haven't found any such method now exists.

So, the firing squad was chosen. Is it better? Some experts suggest that it is. People think it is barbaric. It sounds like it would be. But pain and suffering-wise, it very well might be the best approach.

Not free from botching, of course.