Post by Anja on Jun 21, 2006 1:03:17 GMT -5
Who dies and how?----Court issues sensible death penalty rulings
The U.S. Supreme Court issued two decisions last week that will be
characterized by some as a victory for death row inmates. They are not.
One ruling concerns the way lethal injection executions are carried out;
the other deals with the rights of the condemned to new hearings when
credible evidence of possible innocence surfaces. Both are common-sense
victories for fairness and mercy, the hallmarks of a justice system in a
civilized society.
In the first case a unanimous court decided that Florida killer Clarence
Hill had the right to challenge not his death sentence but the way it was
to be carried out. Lethal injection is the manner of execution in Florida
and 36 other states, including California.
In Florida, executioners first administer an anesthetic, then a drug that
causes paralysis and finally a drug that induces a heart attack. Attorneys
for Hill argued that the anesthetic is not powerful enough to stop
excruciating pain, but the paralyzing agent prevents the condemned inmate
from expressing the pain he feels. The plea here is not to stop the
execution but to make it painless. Unless that is done, Hill argued, the
execution violates the U.S. Constitution's Eighth Amendment prohibition
against cruel and unusual punishment. The court made no ruling on the
substance of that argument. It merely granted Hill's procedural right to
have his petition heard.
The 2nd case involved actual questions of guilt or innocence. Paul House,
a Tennessee man was convicted of the 1985 murder of a woman. Although
House was not charged with rape, prosecutors strongly implied at his trial
that sexual assault was a motive for the crime, and they said that House's
semen was found on the victim's body. Newly obtained DNA evidence has
shown that the semen taken at the crime scene was not from House but from
the victim's husband. New witnesses also came forward since House's
original conviction to testify that they had seen the victim and her
husband fighting the night of the murder.
The new evidence was not enough to prove actual innocence but it did, the
court majority concluded, warrant a fresh federal review.
Certainly the court's decisions will have an impact on death row inmates.
One seeks to ensure that executions are carried out in a humane way and
the 2nd to make sure that those executed are clearly guilty. It's
impossible to find fault with either.
(source: Editorial, The Sacramento Bee)
The U.S. Supreme Court issued two decisions last week that will be
characterized by some as a victory for death row inmates. They are not.
One ruling concerns the way lethal injection executions are carried out;
the other deals with the rights of the condemned to new hearings when
credible evidence of possible innocence surfaces. Both are common-sense
victories for fairness and mercy, the hallmarks of a justice system in a
civilized society.
In the first case a unanimous court decided that Florida killer Clarence
Hill had the right to challenge not his death sentence but the way it was
to be carried out. Lethal injection is the manner of execution in Florida
and 36 other states, including California.
In Florida, executioners first administer an anesthetic, then a drug that
causes paralysis and finally a drug that induces a heart attack. Attorneys
for Hill argued that the anesthetic is not powerful enough to stop
excruciating pain, but the paralyzing agent prevents the condemned inmate
from expressing the pain he feels. The plea here is not to stop the
execution but to make it painless. Unless that is done, Hill argued, the
execution violates the U.S. Constitution's Eighth Amendment prohibition
against cruel and unusual punishment. The court made no ruling on the
substance of that argument. It merely granted Hill's procedural right to
have his petition heard.
The 2nd case involved actual questions of guilt or innocence. Paul House,
a Tennessee man was convicted of the 1985 murder of a woman. Although
House was not charged with rape, prosecutors strongly implied at his trial
that sexual assault was a motive for the crime, and they said that House's
semen was found on the victim's body. Newly obtained DNA evidence has
shown that the semen taken at the crime scene was not from House but from
the victim's husband. New witnesses also came forward since House's
original conviction to testify that they had seen the victim and her
husband fighting the night of the murder.
The new evidence was not enough to prove actual innocence but it did, the
court majority concluded, warrant a fresh federal review.
Certainly the court's decisions will have an impact on death row inmates.
One seeks to ensure that executions are carried out in a humane way and
the 2nd to make sure that those executed are clearly guilty. It's
impossible to find fault with either.
(source: Editorial, The Sacramento Bee)