Post by sclcookie on Jun 3, 2006 2:33:53 GMT -5
Lethal injection case should give Texas pause
With a decision expected soon from the U.S. Supreme Court, Texans might
think the state would halt its executions for at least a few weeks until
the high court decides whether lethal injections are constitutional.
That would be prudent. Instead, Texas officials - from the governor and
Legislature to the prison system and the state's highest criminal appeals
court - have decided to squeeze in as many executions as possible while
awaiting a ruling.
No one knows what the U.S. Supreme Court will do. The high court is
considering a case from Florida in which an inmate, who has exhausted all
other appeals, hopes to return to court to challenge the cruelty of a
specific method of lethal injection. Even if the court were to decide in
favor of the inmate, that wouldn't put an end to executions or to lethal
injections.
States likely would modernize their methods and concoct a lethal thingytail
that is based on medical science instead of winging it as they have been
doing for 30 years. Texas and other states might actually seek expertise
or advice from medical professionals about the fastest and most painless
way to execute condemned killers.
Why they have not already done so is a mystery.
We oppose the death penalty, primarily because the criminal justice system
makes mistakes. In death penalty cases, errors can be irreversible. We've
seen a steady stream of people being released from prisons after spending
years locked up or on death row for crimes they didn't commit. Texas now
is re-examining 2 cases in which innocent people might have been executed.
The debate over lethal injections is not about eliminating capital
punishment but about ensuring that executions are conducted as humanely as
possible and within the legal parameters of the Constitution. Deciding
which mix of chemicals would most quickly and painlessly kill a person
would seem a question easily answered by science.
Since 2003, we've called on state officials to modernize lethal
injections, and particularly to ban the drug pancuronium bromide. The
Legislature passed a law prohibiting the use of that drug for putting down
dogs, cats and reptiles because of its potential to cause unnecessary pain
and suffering. Why is a drug that is deemed unsuitable for putting down
animals OK for killing human beings?
There is some research that suggests the combination of drugs used in
executions doesn't effectively anesthetize some prisoners, so they feel
pain when the other chemicals are injected into their veins. They are
unable to call out, however, because of the paralyzing effects of
pancuronium bromide. Other medical professionals insist the combination
and dosages of drugs used are enough to kill quickly and painlessly.
Perhaps. But why take the chance? Texas seems to take pride in the fact
that it has the busiest execution chamber in the nation, and has shown an
unwillingness to halt executions even when significant legal issues have
been raised.
When other states passed laws prohibiting the execution of the mentally
retarded, Texas halted only when the U.S. Supreme Court banned it. When
the Supreme Court signaled it would address the issue of executing adults
who were 17 or younger at the time they committed capital murder, other
states paused. But Texas continued executing its 17-year-old offenders. It
stopped only after the court struck down the practice. The high court also
ruled that executing people with mental retardation and juvenile offenders
violated the Eighth Amendment.
Death penalty supporters argue that Texas and other states shouldn't be
concerned about whether lethal injections cause pain to convicted killers.
"It's much more humane than how their victims die," said William "Rusty"
Hubbarth, vice president of Justice For All, a Houston-based advocacy
group for crime victims.
That's a good sound bite, but doesn't address the legal and social issues
raised by lethal injections. Texas abandoned execution by hanging, firing
squad, gas chamber and electric chair because they were considered too
barbaric. The public is evaluating the drug thingytail used for lethal
injections by that same standard. But there is also the legal question of
whether the procedure is out of step with the Constitution's ban on cruel
and unusual punishment. That is the rule of law - like it or not.
(source: Editorial, Austin American-Statesman)
With a decision expected soon from the U.S. Supreme Court, Texans might
think the state would halt its executions for at least a few weeks until
the high court decides whether lethal injections are constitutional.
That would be prudent. Instead, Texas officials - from the governor and
Legislature to the prison system and the state's highest criminal appeals
court - have decided to squeeze in as many executions as possible while
awaiting a ruling.
No one knows what the U.S. Supreme Court will do. The high court is
considering a case from Florida in which an inmate, who has exhausted all
other appeals, hopes to return to court to challenge the cruelty of a
specific method of lethal injection. Even if the court were to decide in
favor of the inmate, that wouldn't put an end to executions or to lethal
injections.
States likely would modernize their methods and concoct a lethal thingytail
that is based on medical science instead of winging it as they have been
doing for 30 years. Texas and other states might actually seek expertise
or advice from medical professionals about the fastest and most painless
way to execute condemned killers.
Why they have not already done so is a mystery.
We oppose the death penalty, primarily because the criminal justice system
makes mistakes. In death penalty cases, errors can be irreversible. We've
seen a steady stream of people being released from prisons after spending
years locked up or on death row for crimes they didn't commit. Texas now
is re-examining 2 cases in which innocent people might have been executed.
The debate over lethal injections is not about eliminating capital
punishment but about ensuring that executions are conducted as humanely as
possible and within the legal parameters of the Constitution. Deciding
which mix of chemicals would most quickly and painlessly kill a person
would seem a question easily answered by science.
Since 2003, we've called on state officials to modernize lethal
injections, and particularly to ban the drug pancuronium bromide. The
Legislature passed a law prohibiting the use of that drug for putting down
dogs, cats and reptiles because of its potential to cause unnecessary pain
and suffering. Why is a drug that is deemed unsuitable for putting down
animals OK for killing human beings?
There is some research that suggests the combination of drugs used in
executions doesn't effectively anesthetize some prisoners, so they feel
pain when the other chemicals are injected into their veins. They are
unable to call out, however, because of the paralyzing effects of
pancuronium bromide. Other medical professionals insist the combination
and dosages of drugs used are enough to kill quickly and painlessly.
Perhaps. But why take the chance? Texas seems to take pride in the fact
that it has the busiest execution chamber in the nation, and has shown an
unwillingness to halt executions even when significant legal issues have
been raised.
When other states passed laws prohibiting the execution of the mentally
retarded, Texas halted only when the U.S. Supreme Court banned it. When
the Supreme Court signaled it would address the issue of executing adults
who were 17 or younger at the time they committed capital murder, other
states paused. But Texas continued executing its 17-year-old offenders. It
stopped only after the court struck down the practice. The high court also
ruled that executing people with mental retardation and juvenile offenders
violated the Eighth Amendment.
Death penalty supporters argue that Texas and other states shouldn't be
concerned about whether lethal injections cause pain to convicted killers.
"It's much more humane than how their victims die," said William "Rusty"
Hubbarth, vice president of Justice For All, a Houston-based advocacy
group for crime victims.
That's a good sound bite, but doesn't address the legal and social issues
raised by lethal injections. Texas abandoned execution by hanging, firing
squad, gas chamber and electric chair because they were considered too
barbaric. The public is evaluating the drug thingytail used for lethal
injections by that same standard. But there is also the legal question of
whether the procedure is out of step with the Constitution's ban on cruel
and unusual punishment. That is the rule of law - like it or not.
(source: Editorial, Austin American-Statesman)