Post by SoulTrainOz on Jun 18, 2006 2:45:19 GMT -5
Penalty (Editorial)
We welcome a pair of decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court this week regarding death-penalty cases.
In one ruling, the high court gave death-row inmates in Texas and across the country a key legal tool to challenge the legality of the 3-drug thingytail that states use to kill them. In a separate ruling, the court decided that an inmate was entitled to a new hearing based on evidence and DNA testing brought forward after he was convicted.
The lethal injections ruling was based on a Florida case. Death-row inmate Clarence Hill, who was convicted of killing a police officer, challenged the legality of the method (lethal injection using certain drugs) Florida uses for executions. The Florida courts threw out the case. In its ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court focused on the narrow issue of whether inmates can bring lethal injection challenges under civil rights law. The good news is
that such challenges are permitted, so states no longer can throw them out.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court didn't answer the larger question of whether the combination of drugs used to execute people is so painful that it violates the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. That leaves the door open for Texas and other states to continue executing inmates using at least one drug that isn't fit for putting down dogs.
It remains to be seen what other states will do. Some experts said the ruling wouldn't slow executions in Texas, which has the nation's busiest execution chamber. But it will focus more attention on whether the system of executing inmates is humane.
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.
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.
We continue to question why a drug that is deemed unsuitable for putting down animals is OK for killing humans.
It is unrealistic to expect that Texas abandon capital punishment. Even so, it would be a huge improvement if the state updated its procedures and set minimum standards for carrying out executions - including requiring some kind of medical training and certification for those who are administering injections. There should be some kind of oversight or monitoring of lethal injections to ensure that they are being carried out correctly.
Since 1982, Texas has used the same chemicals for lethal injections that it now uses. Public dollars pay for prisons and executions, from salaries of guards to inmates' last meals. So when the public asks who is administering injections, what standards are in place for carrying out executions and whether the execution process is regularly audited or reviewed, the public should get an answer. We're still waiting for answers to those questions.
The separate ruling by the Supreme Court regarding new evidence might make a difference in exposing wrongful convictions in Texas. That decision gives instruction to lower courts about the correct way to handle new evidence, and particularly DNA testing, when it undermines the prosecution's case.
Texas courts, particularly the Court of Criminal Appeals, relies too
heavily on process.
We hope the ruling brings more balance to the system.
(source: Editorial, Austin American-Statesman)
We welcome a pair of decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court this week regarding death-penalty cases.
In one ruling, the high court gave death-row inmates in Texas and across the country a key legal tool to challenge the legality of the 3-drug thingytail that states use to kill them. In a separate ruling, the court decided that an inmate was entitled to a new hearing based on evidence and DNA testing brought forward after he was convicted.
The lethal injections ruling was based on a Florida case. Death-row inmate Clarence Hill, who was convicted of killing a police officer, challenged the legality of the method (lethal injection using certain drugs) Florida uses for executions. The Florida courts threw out the case. In its ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court focused on the narrow issue of whether inmates can bring lethal injection challenges under civil rights law. The good news is
that such challenges are permitted, so states no longer can throw them out.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court didn't answer the larger question of whether the combination of drugs used to execute people is so painful that it violates the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. That leaves the door open for Texas and other states to continue executing inmates using at least one drug that isn't fit for putting down dogs.
It remains to be seen what other states will do. Some experts said the ruling wouldn't slow executions in Texas, which has the nation's busiest execution chamber. But it will focus more attention on whether the system of executing inmates is humane.
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.
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.
We continue to question why a drug that is deemed unsuitable for putting down animals is OK for killing humans.
It is unrealistic to expect that Texas abandon capital punishment. Even so, it would be a huge improvement if the state updated its procedures and set minimum standards for carrying out executions - including requiring some kind of medical training and certification for those who are administering injections. There should be some kind of oversight or monitoring of lethal injections to ensure that they are being carried out correctly.
Since 1982, Texas has used the same chemicals for lethal injections that it now uses. Public dollars pay for prisons and executions, from salaries of guards to inmates' last meals. So when the public asks who is administering injections, what standards are in place for carrying out executions and whether the execution process is regularly audited or reviewed, the public should get an answer. We're still waiting for answers to those questions.
The separate ruling by the Supreme Court regarding new evidence might make a difference in exposing wrongful convictions in Texas. That decision gives instruction to lower courts about the correct way to handle new evidence, and particularly DNA testing, when it undermines the prosecution's case.
Texas courts, particularly the Court of Criminal Appeals, relies too
heavily on process.
We hope the ruling brings more balance to the system.
(source: Editorial, Austin American-Statesman)