home

High Court to Hear Death Case Challenging Execution Procedures

By Jeralyn, Section Death Penalty
Posted on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 11:20:03 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Clarence Hill was strapped to the gurney in Florida last night, the IV tubes already implanted in him, when Justice Anthony Kennedy issued a temporary stay, made permanent today by the entire court.

Hill argues that the three chemicals used in Florida's lethal injection method of execution cause pain, making his execution cruel and unusual punishment. His lawyer also contends that Hill is mentally retarded.

The Court set oral arguments for April 26, specifically mentioning the method of execution argument. Background on the lethal cocktail is here here.

[Graphic created exclusively for TalkLeft by CL]

< What Google Searches and Data Mining Mean for You | Bloggers Invited to Amsterdam >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    High Court to Hear Death Case Challenging Execution Procedures | 38 comments (38 topical)
    Re: High Court to Hear Death Case Challenging Exec (none / 0) (#1)
    by ras on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 01:03:51 PM EST
    So will this be a case that Alito will vote on, then? Looks like it: 44y, 21n so far. Mind you, John Kerry is speaking, so it could be a while yet before those numbers can change. In the meantime, here's a non-lawyer's q for you legal eagles: does a punishment truly have to be both cruel *and* unusual to be unconstitutional, as it says? I mean, if the founders had instead intended the prohibition to be on cruel *or* unusual punishment, they would have said so, right? Cuz unusual punishments get handed down from time to time that are not cruel, just quirky, and they are never challenged that I know of one the basis of just being unusual, so can a punishment such as this one be successfully challenged on the basis of "just" being cruel? All punishment is cruel to some degree anyway. That's what punishment means. If these are the same chemicals used for execution as always for this purpose, then by definition they are the usual ones and this punishment is not unusual. Serious q, actually, cuz it also implies that an extended moratorium on the dp could arguably make the dp unusual, and if that alone is enough to ban it....

    Re: High Court to Hear Death Case Challenging Exec (none / 0) (#2)
    by Al on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 01:12:00 PM EST
    It's very important that the public be confronted with all the dreadful details of how a person is put to death. Otherwise it is all too easy to dehumanize the process and ignore how barbaric it is. Joe Citizen, these awful things are being done to a human being in your name.

    Re: High Court to Hear Death Case Challenging Exec (none / 0) (#3)
    by mindfulmission on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 01:25:55 PM EST
    David Elliot is saying that this is only an appeal on whether or not Hill can even challenge the method. So the Supreme Court needs to vote yes on this appeal, and the Hill can move on with challenging the legality of lethal injection.

    Re: High Court to Hear Death Case Challenging Exec (none / 0) (#4)
    by mindfulmission on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 01:41:12 PM EST
    Anyone know what this will mean for others scheduled to be executed by lethal injection? Will they be granted stays?

    Re: High Court to Hear Death Case Challenging Exec (none / 0) (#5)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 03:41:19 PM EST
    I am against the death penalty if there is any doubt of the guilt. Absent that, shouldn't the punishment fit the crime? I see no claim of innocence here, just a claim of process.

    Re: High Court to Hear Death Case Challenging Exec (none / 0) (#6)
    by roxtar on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 03:44:39 PM EST
    A serioius question deserves a serious answer. "Cruel and unusual" requires that the punishment be both cruel AND unusual. The conjunctive case is the defense attorney's playground. Where a statute requires the state to prove that a defendant did "a AND b", all we have to do is disprove either one of those propositions in order to prevail. The disjunctive "or", however, gives the State two bites at the apple. If the State must prove that the defendant did "a OR b", they can prove either of those propositions. Defendant has to disprove both in order to prevail. These distinctions are not always appreciated by laymen. For example, the word "shall" is language of mandate. If a statute or a rule states that a party "shall" do something, there's no wiggle room. It was great sport for folks to mock Bill Clinton for dissecting "what the meaning of "is" is." I have won cases by convincing a jury that "is" means something different that "was". In summary, unusual is OK if it's not cruel. Conversely, cruel is OK if it's not unusual.

    Re: High Court to Hear Death Case Challenging Exec (none / 0) (#7)
    by Johnny on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 04:20:07 PM EST
    shouldn't the punishment fit the crime?
    That whole "eye for an eye" thing doesn't work anymore. How do you make a fitting punishment for someone accused of embezzelement? Secretly steal money from them? How about punishing jaywalkers? Lay them down in the street and walk over them? Punishment never fits the crime-most people do not have the stomach for "eye for an eye" justice.

    Re: High Court to Hear Death Case Challenging Exec (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 04:26:33 PM EST
    PPJ:
    ... shouldn't the punishment fit the crime?
    That is an appealing notion with no precise meaning. I imagine that, to you, it means whatever you want it to mean. It could even help as a guideline, when comparing punishments to see if judgements were fair, relative to one another. But it is not a principle that can be applied to determine exactly what any particular punisment should be. And it certainly does not prove that the death penalty is a valid punishment for the crime of murder. In biblical times, "an eye for an eye" was the law, but it no longer is. We do not maim people whose negligence caused an injury, we do not merely impose heavy fines on those guilty of theft. So why should murder be treated differently? As Mahatma Gandhi once said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth and the whole world would soon be blind and toothless."

    Re: High Court to Hear Death Case Challenging Exec (none / 0) (#9)
    by Al on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 05:51:40 PM EST
    Jim:
    shouldn't the punishment fit the crime?
    So a rapist should be raped, and an embezzler should be embezzled? Or are you thinking perhaps of some suitable mutilation? Do tell us your ideas on punishments that fit various crimes.

    Re: High Court to Hear Death Case Challenging Exec (none / 0) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 07:28:27 PM EST
    et al - Actually I was thinking of staying on target and the subject was murder and punishment...

    Re: High Court to Hear Death Case Challenging Exec (none / 0) (#11)
    by Johnny on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 04:54:15 AM EST
    et al - Actually I was thinking of staying on target and the subject was murder and punishment...
    Hardly. You do not make a comment like that and walk away. That sort of vagueness is what irritates people about your postings here. So tell us how the punisment should fit the crime. In first degree murders involving multiple victims, how do we pre-meditate killing the perp multiple times?

    Re: High Court to Hear Death Case Challenging Exec (none / 0) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 06:09:03 AM EST
    Johnny writes:
    You do not make a comment like that and walk away. That sort of vagueness is what irritates people about your postings here.
    Oh really? That irritates you? Wow.

    Re: High Court to Hear Death Case Challenging Exec (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 06:26:09 AM EST
    Jim: (scribbling note into little black book) ...and Johnny is irritated when I'm vague... heh heh...

    Re: High Court to Hear Death Case Challenging Exec (none / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 08:43:06 AM EST
    punihser - Shhhhh. Don't reveal my methods....

    Re: High Court to Hear Death Case Challenging Exec (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 08:55:01 AM EST
    Jim, :) Johnny ought to know better than to tell a poker player what irritates him...

    Re: High Court to Hear Death Case Challenging Exec (none / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 11:27:53 AM EST
    punisher - I would never take undue advantage. ;-)

    Re: High Court to Hear Death Case Challenging Exec (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 11:34:54 AM EST
    I've been the sucker at too many hold-em tables (exactly one table) to believe that there's anything known as undue advantage.

    Re: High Court to Hear Death Case Challenging Exec (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 11:58:59 AM EST
    PPJ:
    [To Johnny] Oh really? That irritates you? Wow. ... [To punisher] Shhhhh. Don't reveal my methods....
    I already knew that responding to your posts was futile. I hereby renew my vow to ignore them. Come to think of it, why don't blogs offer an ignore feature?

    Re: High Court to Hear Death Case Challenging Exec (none / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 12:59:07 PM EST
    cymro - They do. It is called the "down" key. And may I say that a wee bit of humor never hurt anyone. punisher - I'm available for lessons. How much money do you have? ;-)

    Re: High Court to Hear Death Case Challenging Exec (none / 0) (#20)
    by Johnny on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 02:58:16 PM EST
    Jim, what was it you were saying about staying on topic? So, do you have anything remotely interesting to say about your vague "eye for an eye" attitude? Or are you just sitting back and waiting for your next snark moment? Punisher, colluding with this man is almost as low as acting like him.

    Re: High Court to Hear Death Case Challenging Exec (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 03:21:52 PM EST
    PPJ: punisher - I'm available for lessons. How much money do you have? ;-) never ever ever again will I be the fresh meat at a table full of poker-playing retirees.

    Re: High Court to Hear Death Case Challenging Exec (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 05:41:21 PM EST
    Johnny: Punisher, colluding with this man is almost as low as acting like him. I'd suggest that you were colluding with him when you let him irritate you.

    Re: High Court to Hear Death Case Challenging Exec (none / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 06:58:32 PM EST
    Johnny - I see that you have provided us with another fine example of Goodwin's Law with your attack on punisher. As for vagueness... I would say that punisher gave you some excellent advice that you should accept. But either way works for me.

    Re: High Court to Hear Death Case Challenging Exec (none / 0) (#23)
    by Johnny on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 08:20:52 PM EST
    personal insult to another commenter deleted

    Re: High Court to Hear Death Case Challenging Exec (none / 0) (#25)
    by Johnny on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 08:26:08 PM EST
    Once again, it is "Godwin's" law. The extra "o" is obviously not an accidental error... Once again, it is meant to evoke Hitler, and a comparison thereof. Once again, you skirt the issue, that is what you excel at. Once again, you are miles off topic, after you gently chastized everyone for doing just that. Once again, your irrelevance is laughable. For a "retiree", you have a lot of growing up to do. Do it.

    Re: High Court to Hear Death Case Challenging Exec (none / 0) (#26)
    by Johnny on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 08:34:36 PM EST
    JL, PPJ has spent years deliberately provoking people into rage. In addition, he has personally insulted me, and numerous other posters on many occasions, going so far as to deliberately target both religion and cultural background, while crying out against those that would call his background into question. He is consistently at odds with the vast majority of the posters on this board, and is consistently diverting the conversation from the topic at hand, while talking from the side of his mouth about those that stray from the topic. He has, and I count them, 5 posts on this topic alone, that are off topic. Way off topic.

    Re: High Court to Hear Death Case Challenging Exec (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 08:40:23 PM EST
    Johnny - Not to be disagreeable, but I am looking at my computer's screen and it says Goodwin's Law. I invite you try this link.
    Professor Goodwin, U of I, in 1981 made the observation that Usenet discussions gravitate downhill
    Now you may argue about the spelling and the content, but the above is a quote showing the first part of his law. The second part does concern itself with Hitler. So perhaps I should have said, "Johnny - I see that you have provided us with another fine example of the first part of Goodwin's Law with your attack on punisher." .

    Re: High Court to Hear Death Case Challenging Exec (none / 0) (#28)
    by Johnny on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 08:52:18 PM EST
    Yeah Jim, not to be disagreeable, but this google search turns up more hits than this one... In fact, using your mispelling, the correct spelling shows up first. Not to be disagreeable, of course. Just correct. ;) Now go back to internet 101 and start again.

    Re: High Court to Hear Death Case Challenging Exec (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 09:18:27 PM EST
    Jeez, leave the computer for a few hours and miss out on an insult against me. Bummer.

    Re: High Court to Hear Death Case Challenging Exec (none / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 09:19:37 PM EST
    Johnny - The discussion begun when you claimed I had irritated you with a vague comment...
    Posted by Johnny January 26, 2006 05:54 AM et al - (my comment) Actually I was thinking of staying on target and the subject was murder and punishment... Hardly. You do not make a comment like that and walk away. That sort of vagueness is what irritates people about your postings here. So tell us how the punisment should fit the crime. In first degree murders involving multiple victims, how do we pre-meditate killing the perp multiple times
    You obviously didn't see that my comment was in response to Al, and others, bringing in rape, robbery, etc. I replied:
    Posted by JimakaPPJ January 26, 2006 07:09 AM Oh really? That irritates you? Wow.
    Then punisher tried to give you some good advice about not letting things irritate you, and not telling people when they do. You rewarded him with a very vulgar and nasty attack. I even tried to give you some advice, even after you attacked punisher.
    Posted by JimakaPPJ January 26, 2006 07:58 PM Johnny - I see that you have provided us with another fine example of Goodwin's Law with your attack on punisher. As for vagueness... I would say that punisher gave you some excellent advice that you should accept. But either way works for me.
    Now, off topic? Well, how did it get off topic? Very simple. By you telling me that you wouldn't accept my "vague comment." And I say this. I have never insulted your ethnic background and I challenge you to prove it by going to the archives and bringing them forward. What I have done, is agree that the europeans did bad things, and that the native americans did bad things and that I felt no responsibility for their actions. And that I felt you were trying to play the "blame game." As to being at "odds," yes I am on national defense. This has been explained before and isn't a surprise to anyone. As for insulting backgrounds, I do not have to go to the archives to demonstarte your latest at 9:36 on this thread.
    Once again, your irrelevance is laughable. For a "retiree", you have a lot of growing up to do. Do it.
    As for Goodwin's Law, my link speaks for itself.

    Re: High Court to Hear Death Case Challenging Exec (none / 0) (#31)
    by Johnny on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 09:37:35 PM EST
    Jim, ever considered running for office?

    Re: High Court to Hear Death Case Challenging Exec (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 09:41:15 PM EST
    Why do you think I haven't served? ;-)

    Re: High Court to Hear Death Case Challenging Exec (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 09:54:37 PM EST
    If you're really President Bush, then not really.

    Re: High Court to Hear Death Case Challenging Exec (none / 0) (#34)
    by Edger on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 12:52:49 AM EST
    DA, He cain't be bush. He can spell way more better than bush. And when when I axed him those SIX questions yesterday, he actchooly, in his very own words, managed to "asnwer" all ONE of 'em, all by hisself, without no stinkin' speechifier holdin' the pencil for 'im. Ah'm so proud of the boy, Ah could jus' kiss 'im! ^^ OO

    Re: High Court to Hear Death Case Challenging Exec (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 05:52:37 AM EST
    Dark Avenger - My response was in the past tense. What does that tell you? Let me help you. First, it means I couldn't be Bush, because he is serving. Secondly, it neither confirms nor denies that I ever served. edger - Nice application of Goodwin's Law.

    Re: High Court to Hear Death Case Challenging Exec (none / 0) (#36)
    by Edger on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 06:08:00 AM EST
    Now the rainman gave me two cures, Then he said, "Jump right in." The one was Texas medicine, The other was just railroad gin. An' like a fool I mixed them An' it strangled up my mind, An' now people just get uglier An' I have no sense of time.

    Re: High Court to Hear Death Case Challenging Exec (none / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 08:28:56 AM EST
    edger - Re questions. What part of the following didn't you understand?
    Posted by JimakaPPJ January 26, 2006 08:49 PM edger - My comment to Jesurgislac asnwers your question
    Now, you have my answers, twice. I wouldn't to be vague.

    Re: High Court to Hear Death Case Challenging Exec (none / 0) (#38)
    by Edger on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 08:40:07 AM EST
    Now, you have my answers, twice... I wouldn't to be vague. You're partway there. One down, only five to go... Ya dinna wanna be vague now, do ya laddie? Ah knows ya got it inya son!

    High Court to Hear Death Case Challenging Execution Procedures | 38 comments (38 topical)