Post by SoulTrainOz on Jul 3, 2006 19:29:20 GMT -5
Court ruling outlines real deficiencies in procedure.
If the devil is in the details, then a federal judge this week gave
Missouri lawmakers quite a revelation. The ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Fernando Gaitan Jr. effectively places a court-ordered moratorium on the death penalty in this state.
In a case brought by convicted murderer Michael Anthony Taylor, Gaitan ruled, among other things, that the state's use of lethal injection amounts to cruel and unusual punishment.
The ruling has already produced predictable criticisms of an "activist judge" gone too far. Indeed, if there is to be a moratorium on the death penalty in Missouri, we'd rather see the action come from the legislature or the governor than a solitary federal judge. We have consistently opposed the death penalty on this page and will continue to do so. We find its application in this country grossly unfair in regard to socioeconomic status. We believe its deterrent value is minimal. We believe what too many death penalty supporters seek is vengeance, not justice.
That being said, we know Gaitan's ruling is unlikely to sway death penalty supporters, particularly those in the Missouri legislature, from their position. What we hope, however, is that they read Gaitan's ruling carefully and come to the conclusion that, indeed, a moratorium on the death penalty in this state is warranted regardless of one's position on the ultimate punishment. Why?
The Taylor case shows us a death penalty system in Missouri that fails to follow the most basic standards of fairness and responsibility.
Most troublesome is the revelation that there is, or has been, no written protocol for how the state should consistently implement the 3-drug thingytail that ultimately leads to death. In at least two cases, including Taylor's, the doctor in charge of the lethal injection process gave the prisoner half the amount of sodium pentathol than traditionally called for. Worse yet, the doctor admitted under questioning that the procedure is followed, more or less, out of memory.
While reasonable people can differ over whether the death penalty alone is cruel and unusual, surely there are no right-thinking elected officials who believe that there shouldn't be some reasonable standard when it comes to the pain inflicted at the time of death, are there?
Gaitan finds other problems with Missouri's death penalty implementation. He notes that the doctor who carries out the lethal injections isn't an anesthesiologist, and he answers to a director of the Department of Corrections, Larry Crawford, who has no background in corrections or medicine. Democrats criticized Crawford's appointment to this job for specifically that reason. State statute requires the corrections director must have certain qualifications to fill such an important job.
Gaitan properly points out that Crawford falls short in this department.
Gaitan's ruling calls for 6 provisions to be undertaken by the state to ensure that the implementation of lethal injection doesn't violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment."
We don't believe a rewritten playbook is enough to answer this very serious deficiency.
It's time for lawmakers to follow Gaitan's lead and require that the death penalty only be considered if it can be applied fairly and humanely. We'd like to think they'd come the conclusion that we have that the death penalty no longer serves a reasonable purpose in American society but we at least hope they'll take their responsibilities seriously enough to force a full examination of death penalty procedures in the state of Missouri.
State lawmakers should implement their own death penalty moratorium and shine the brightest light possible on this dark form of ultimate punishment.
(source: News-Leader)
If the devil is in the details, then a federal judge this week gave
Missouri lawmakers quite a revelation. The ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Fernando Gaitan Jr. effectively places a court-ordered moratorium on the death penalty in this state.
In a case brought by convicted murderer Michael Anthony Taylor, Gaitan ruled, among other things, that the state's use of lethal injection amounts to cruel and unusual punishment.
The ruling has already produced predictable criticisms of an "activist judge" gone too far. Indeed, if there is to be a moratorium on the death penalty in Missouri, we'd rather see the action come from the legislature or the governor than a solitary federal judge. We have consistently opposed the death penalty on this page and will continue to do so. We find its application in this country grossly unfair in regard to socioeconomic status. We believe its deterrent value is minimal. We believe what too many death penalty supporters seek is vengeance, not justice.
That being said, we know Gaitan's ruling is unlikely to sway death penalty supporters, particularly those in the Missouri legislature, from their position. What we hope, however, is that they read Gaitan's ruling carefully and come to the conclusion that, indeed, a moratorium on the death penalty in this state is warranted regardless of one's position on the ultimate punishment. Why?
The Taylor case shows us a death penalty system in Missouri that fails to follow the most basic standards of fairness and responsibility.
Most troublesome is the revelation that there is, or has been, no written protocol for how the state should consistently implement the 3-drug thingytail that ultimately leads to death. In at least two cases, including Taylor's, the doctor in charge of the lethal injection process gave the prisoner half the amount of sodium pentathol than traditionally called for. Worse yet, the doctor admitted under questioning that the procedure is followed, more or less, out of memory.
While reasonable people can differ over whether the death penalty alone is cruel and unusual, surely there are no right-thinking elected officials who believe that there shouldn't be some reasonable standard when it comes to the pain inflicted at the time of death, are there?
Gaitan finds other problems with Missouri's death penalty implementation. He notes that the doctor who carries out the lethal injections isn't an anesthesiologist, and he answers to a director of the Department of Corrections, Larry Crawford, who has no background in corrections or medicine. Democrats criticized Crawford's appointment to this job for specifically that reason. State statute requires the corrections director must have certain qualifications to fill such an important job.
Gaitan properly points out that Crawford falls short in this department.
Gaitan's ruling calls for 6 provisions to be undertaken by the state to ensure that the implementation of lethal injection doesn't violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment."
We don't believe a rewritten playbook is enough to answer this very serious deficiency.
It's time for lawmakers to follow Gaitan's lead and require that the death penalty only be considered if it can be applied fairly and humanely. We'd like to think they'd come the conclusion that we have that the death penalty no longer serves a reasonable purpose in American society but we at least hope they'll take their responsibilities seriously enough to force a full examination of death penalty procedures in the state of Missouri.
State lawmakers should implement their own death penalty moratorium and shine the brightest light possible on this dark form of ultimate punishment.
(source: News-Leader)