SCOTUS Not Likely To Alter/Ban Lethal Injection Method
The NYT’s is reporting that the SCOTUS was not moved by the evidence presented:
Donald B. Verrilli Jr., the lawyer for two inmates on Kentucky’s death row who are facing execution by the commonly used three-chemical protocol, conceded that theoretically his clients would have no case if the first drug, a barbiturate used for anesthesia, could be guaranteed to work perfectly by inducing deep unconsciousness.
But as a practical matter, Mr. Verrilli went on to say, systemic flaws in Kentucky’s procedures mean that there can be no such guarantee, and the state’s refusal to take reasonable steps to avoid the foreseeable risk of “torturous, excruciating pain” makes its use of the three-drug procedure unconstitutional.
It was here that Mr. Verrilli met resistance from both sides of the court, and the closely watched case appeared to founder in this gap between theory and practice.
From that moment on, it looked like the court got down to business:
…the risk of pain could be eliminated if medically trained personnel, rather than the prison warden, monitored the anesthesia. When Justice Antonin Scalia objected that the American Medical Association’s ethical code prohibited doctors from participating in executions, Mr. Verrilli replied, “That’s why there is another practical alternative here, which solves that problem.” The alternative, he said, is a “single dose of barbiturate, which does not require the participation of a medically trained professional.”
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked what the court should do “if you prevail here, and the next case is brought by someone subject to the single-drug protocol, and their claim is, ‘Look, this has never been tried.’”
Further, the chief justice said, the inmate might object that death would take longer without the third drug, and would appear less “dignified” because of muscle contractions that are suppressed by the second drug.
“You have objections that would apply even to your single-drug protocol,” Chief Justice Roberts said.
While the chief justice’s skepticism was not unexpected, Justice Stephen G. Breyer’s response to Mr. Verrilli’s argument was a surprise. Justice Breyer told Mr. Verrilli he had read scientific articles supporting the one-drug protocol that were cited in the briefs filed by the inmates and had found them confusing.
“So I’m left at sea,” he said. “I understand your contention. You claim that this is somehow more painful than some other method. But which? And what’s the evidence for that? What do I read to find it?”“I ended up thinking, of course there is a risk of human error,” Justice Breyer continued. “There is a risk of human error generally where you’re talking about the death penalty, and this may be one extra problem, one serious additional problem. But the question here is, Can we say that there is a more serious problem here than with other execution methods?”
The WaPo has the breakdown of where the justices stood at the end of the day:
Stevens wondered if that left the court enough room to decide whether the procedure is unconstitutional or if the court needs to “wait for another case to decide that rule.”
Breyer and Justice David H. Souter suggested sending the case back to the lower court for an examination of the three-drug protocol compared with alternatives, something that was not done when the case was decided.
Justice Antonin Scalia strenuously disagreed, saying the process “could take years,” while executions are put on hold. He also said a comparative analysis is unnecessary.
“This is an execution, not surgery,” Scalia said, adding, “Where does this come from, that . . . in the execution of a person who has been convicted of killing people we must choose the least painful method possible? Is that somewhere in our Constitution?”
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. were equally skeptical. Roberts said removing the second drug from the protocol or going to a one-drug method would lead to more litigation from those questioning a new procedure.
Deputy U.S. Solicitor General Gregory G. Garre, supporting Kentucky, quickly agreed. “There is no shortage of imagination” on the part of those challenging the death penalty, he said.
The inmates who brought the challenge are Ralph Baze, who killed two law enforcement officers who were attempting to serve a warrant in 1992, and Thomas C. Bowling, who shot and killed a couple, and wounded their toddler, after crashing his car into theirs in 1990.
The case is Baze v. Rees.
Ralph Baze says he’s through apologizing for gunning down Powell County Sheriff Steve Bennett and Deputy Arthur Briscoe on Jan. 30, 1992.
He says now, as he said then, that he shot the lawmen in a desperate attempt to save his own life.
“I’ve done all the apologizing I’m going to do,” Baze said in a recent prison interview. “They either believe me or they don’t.”
Baze also makes no apologies for working since his 1993 murder conviction and death sentence to persuade the appellate courts to free him.
“I’m not going to throw my hands up and not try to even save my life,” he said.
Thanks to memeorandum for the links!
January 8, 2008 - 01:51 PM on January 8th, 2008
testing…
January 8, 2008 - 01:54 PM on January 8th, 2008
Good! we’re back on line.
The anti-DP folks are out of arguments. This arguing about lethal injection is a red herring. They just don’t want any executions, period. Too bad.
There are no longer any arguments left against the DP. DNA evidence is conclusive, and all of the pending cases are automatically being reviewed in light of the new methods.
The ones that are guilty, proven by DNA, should be executed forthwith.
January 8, 2008 - 02:17 PM on January 8th, 2008
I missed you
/
January 8, 2008 - 05:21 PM on January 8th, 2008
Thanks; I almost went through withdrawals going ~24 hrs without being able to post!
Yesterday I sat down and wrote a masterpiece of a post. I even proofread it carefully and fixed all of the grammatical and spelling errors. It was a gem, worthy of all the effort I put into it.
Then I clicked the “Submit Comment” button and was utterly frustrated! I so wanted to post on HilLiary’s campaign problems but could not!
Pam, I used to have your email addy but apparently it has changed. Is there some way I could send interesting material to you for possible posting here? I think you have my gmail address; if that’s okay (to send stuff) could you send me a new email contact address?
January 8, 2008 - 05:44 PM on January 8th, 2008
“..Thomas C. Bowling, who shot and killed a couple, and wounded their toddler, after crashing his car into theirs in 1990. ”
This is the kind of sub-human pos the DP was intended for. So…we’re supposed to feel sorry for this waster of oxygen? I say kill his lawyer along with him…
January 8, 2008 - 05:45 PM on January 8th, 2008
Thank goodness thats fixed
The stats anti dp folks post usually represent a technicality in the law and not that the person is actually innocent of the murder. Thankfully dna has wiped out any argument they can put forth.
What we really need to focus on is the abortion. I was astonished when I heard it was 47 million in 30 years. So next time any anti dp idiot starts quoting me stats I’m just going to ask how they like THEIR figures being off the charts.
January 8, 2008 - 06:01 PM on January 8th, 2008
“What we really need to focus on is the abortion.”
———–
I take it you’re not catholic.
Many catholics follow the church teachings that ALL murder is wrong and anti-christian, whether it be abortion or the death penalty.
My point is for you all to keep in mind that not all anti-DP folks are what you might consider loony liberals, when in fact there are many are religious conservatives who feel strongly about capital punishment.
January 8, 2008 - 06:22 PM on January 8th, 2008
4- Robert, I will e-mail you a note and then yes you may just send me stuff..SanFran..I think you have mine?
January 8, 2008 - 06:27 PM on January 8th, 2008
not sure…don’t think so.
January 9, 2008 - 12:08 AM on January 9th, 2008
There is a VERY quick, relatively painless and quite inexpensive means of carrying out the death penalty. Unfortunately, there are too few people in this country with the cajones to actually do it and the libs would be screaming about how undignified it would be. That method would be to simply strap the condemned person into a chair, place the muzzle of a handgun against the back base of the skull, and pull the trigger. As the bullet would pass through the medula oblongata, all bodily functions would cease immediately. There would be little to no sensation of pain as the person would be dead in less than a second. Use of a small caliber handgun would permit an open casket funeral. Large caliber or high power rounds would not be necessary as the brain stem would be protected by very little bone. A 32 acp or 380 ACP would be more than adequate.
Personally, with all of the uproar over the death penalty, I would prefer something that would be arguably cruel and unusual, but nearly as effective as execution. I think that simply severing the condemned’s spinal column in the lumbar region thereby rendering them paralyzed from the waist down should be offered as a viable option. It would greatly hamper their ability to ever escape and should evidence come up that exonerates them later, they’d still be alive. They would be able to be trained to perform other functions and perhaps even return to a useful life in a couple of decades, without society having to worry about them recidivating. There just aren’t very many mass murderers out there in wheelchairs.