|
Last Minute Death Row Appeals
|
View this Thread in Original format
| anuneventrade |
| quote: | Supreme Court to Weigh Execution Methods
By Gina Holland
The Associated Press
Monday, March 29, 2004; 1:02 PM
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court used the case of Alabama death row inmate David Larry Nelson for a stark discussion about execution methods, and whether federal judges can consider last-minute challenges to punishment.
Nelson had asked to be sent to Alabama's electric chair. But when his date with the executioner came, the chair was no longer in use. His medical condition would make the new punishment of lethal injection unconstitutionally cruel unless special precautions were taken, lawyer Bryan Stevenson of Montgomery, Ala., told justices.
Because of the condition of his veins - damaged by drug use - it may be impossible to insert an intravenous line without a type of surgery, Stevenson said.
Justices peppered Stevenson and Alabama's lawyer with questions about how his death sentence would be carried out, with the possibility of prison staff cutting into his neck or thigh to get to a good vein.
The court is deciding a technical question of whether last-minute appeals from death row inmates should be allowed in federal courts. Alabama Solicitor General Kevin Newsom said that Congress intended to limit federal appeals.
Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony M. Kennedy pressed Newsom for promises that Nelson would have a hearing in state court, and that prison staff would consider the best medical procedures for the inmate. Newsom assured them Nelson would have a full hearing in state courts
But Justice John Paul Stevens said that if Alabama wins, an inmate would have a limited right to appeal if he were told shortly before his execution "they're going to hang him up by his thumbs and beat him with whips until he dies."
Nelson's case prompted legal challenges to the types of drug cocktails used in lethal injections in other states, and justices have clashed 5-4 in a string of emergency appeals from inmates seeking temporary reprieves, on grounds that their own lethal injections would be unconstitutional.
Most recently, the court's five most conservative members voided a stay that a South Carolina death row inmate had received earlier this month.
Alabama claims Nelson's case is a prime example of a sluggish justice system and the need for limits on appeals. He has been on death row more than 20 years.
In 1994, he asked a jury to re-sentence him to death for shooting a man in the back of the head as the man had sex with Nelson's girlfriend on Jan. 1, 1978. The woman also was shot but survived to testify that Nelson set up the sexual liaison in a robbery plot.
Nelson also was convicted of shooting a cab driver and beating to death an elderly man, the court was told.
He first asked that his execution be televised, and sped up. He later changed his mind and sought delays.
Last fall, Nelson was less than three hours from execution by lethal injection when the Supreme Court stepped in to stop it. He had sought a stay after learning that executioners might have to cut deep into his flesh to administer the drugs.
The Constitution's Eighth Amendment "prohibits the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain. It permits sentences of death to be carried out, but not in a manner that is more torturous than necessary to extinguish life," one of Nelson's lawyers, Michael Kennedy McIntyre, told justices in a filing.
Attorneys for Alabama said in court documents that at least 14 states besides Alabama allow so-called "cut-down" procedures to access veins: Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia.
The case is Nelson v. Campbell, 03-6821.
---
On the Net:
Supreme Court:http://www.supremecourtus.gov/ |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2004Mar29.html
Regardless inmates will still be on "death row" for life. Usually until they're so old that it won't matter if they get executed anymore. This man was already waiting for 20 years.
Simply put, what a joke if they decide not to execute him. Justice prevails? I think not. |
|
|
| Dmatrox |
| they make death row and executions too difficult and complicated. why should the US amendment apply to those on death row? i mean they are going to be killed one way or another anyways right? |
|
|
| smokeape |
F*ck, just chop off his head. I hate lawyers...
:whip:
[[[smoke]]]] |
|
|
| arctic |
| quote: | Originally posted by smokeape
F*ck, just chop off his head. I hate lawyers...
:whip:
[[[smoke]]]] |
Sarcasm? |
|
|
| PhloTron |
Costs us poor taxpayers $32,000+ per year per inmate to keep them happy with all their privileges...grrr
Send him to Montana...it's still legal to hang him here...won't have to worry about vein damage then...
I hate the sloth-like justice system that we have...
In the words of Mortal Kombat: "Finish Him!" |
|
|
| arctic |
| quote: | Originally posted by PhloTron
Costs us poor taxpayers $32,000+ per year per inmate to keep them happy with all their privileges...grrr
Send him to Montana...it's still legal to hang him here...won't have to worry about vein damage then...
I hate the sloth-like justice system that we have...
In the words of Mortal Kombat: "Finish Him!" |
Wait, you actually support the death penalty? :nervous: |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by arctic
Wait, you actually support the death penalty? :nervous: |
A very significant portion of Americans support the death penalty. I would be among them if only our system of justice were perfectly accurate. But I don't believe that it's even close.
Regarding last minute appeals. Well, I think the system as it stands is highly impractical. It probably exists as it is only to help create the illusion that innocent people are never put to death sine such an extensive appeals process exists.
I don't have a problem with an appeal at the last minute if it introduces new and relevant information pertaining to the guilt (or more especially the lack thereof) of the convicted individual. However, this type of appeal does not meet that criterion. |
|
|
| arctic |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
A very significant portion of Americans support the death penalty. I would be among them if only our system of justice were perfectly accurate. But I don't believe that it's even close. |
I've noticed that, I've always put most of the support down to the fact that it's actually still 'in operation' in the US, whereas most other western nations have abolished it by now. Seeing someone advocate the continuation of the death penalty as currently in place in the US is an unusual experience for me, as coming across an Australian who supports it is very rare, to say the least.
Theoretically, if the US had a prefect justice system then I could understand how someone could argue in favour of the death penalty, although I personally would still argue against it on ethical grounds. However, as it stands, the sheer amount of innocent people on death row (in my opinion) should illustrate the point that the death penalty in it's current form needs to be abolished immediately.
List of people acquitted from death row since the early 70s.
So-called collateral damage shouldn't be tolerated when it comes to the justice system, great care needs to be exercised to ensure that innocent people aren't convicted, let alone put to death. The problem with state-sanctioned execution is the fact that it's permanent. If you kill someone and later realize that you got it horribly wrong, there's no way to reverse your error. It's permanent. I have a huge problem with the state killing criminals (and people who are later found not to be criminals) when there are other options available to them. It isn't as if it's in a war type situation, it's not kill or be killed, if you will. Imprisonment is a perfectly viable option, and I've yet to see a solid case as to why we should kill rather than imprison (I guess the sanctity of human life principle comes into play here).
There's also the line of attack that death is an easy way out, and that life in prison would be far more traumatizing for someone. Personally I try to avoid that line of reasoning, as I view the prison system's primary function as one of rehabilitation rather than punishment, although evidently punishment is a prominent cog in the machine. Further to that, I'm not convinced that the death penalty is actually a decent deterrent to violent criminal acts.
| quote: | | Regarding last minute appeals. Well, I think the system as it stands is highly impractical. It probably exists as it is only to help create the illusion that innocent people are never put to death sine such an extensive appeals process exists. |
Precisely. It's just an illusion to lessen opposition to the way the justice system in the US currently handles death row cases. The fact is that innocent people do get put to death, which to me is unacceptable. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by arctic
Theoretically, if the US had a prefect justice system then I could understand how someone could argue in favour of the death penalty, although I personally would still argue against it on ethical grounds. |
I can understand why you're not comfortable with the idea of state-sponsored killing, especially when it reeks of bloodthirsty vengeance. The main reason I would support the death penalty under those conditions is that I am not fond of the alternatives, particularly imprisonment.
When someone is imprisoned, they become a burden to society - they consume resources but contribute nothing in return. If the person can be rehabilitated, then perhaps this investment is worth it. However, if we are imprisoning them for purely punitive reasons, or if there is no chance for rehabilitation, then it accomplishes nothing.
It bears note, of course, that due to the extensive appeals process most people executed end up costing an even greater amount of resources. Naturally, though, if we had a perfect justice system this would no longer be necessary.
I'm almost somewhat unconvinced that the permanent imprisonment of a human being is any less inhumane than killing them. The United States was founded with Patrick Henry's words in mind: "Give me liberty or give me death!" And I share this belief - namely that our freedom is at least as important, if not more so, than the goal of prolonging our life.
The best thing that imprisonment has going for it is the fact that it can be terminated if you are found to have been wrongfully convicted. Back in the day exile was a common punishment for major offenses - and I think it was the most ethically sound punishment available. However, it probably isn't practical in modern society.
| quote: |
However, as it stands, the sheer amount of innocent people on death row (in my opinion) should illustrate the point that the death penalty in it's current form needs to be abolished immediately.
List of people acquitted from death row since the early 70s.
So-called collateral damage shouldn't be tolerated when it comes to the justice system, great care needs to be exercised to ensure that innocent people aren't convicted, let alone put to death. The problem with state-sanctioned execution is the fact that it's permanent. If you kill someone and later realize that you got it horribly wrong, there's no way to reverse your error. It's permanent.
|
With that I must agree with you entirely. :)
It seems that I do not disagree with you at all about the problems with the death penalty. Any disagreement we may have would more likely be linked to differing analyses of the validity of the alternatives - particularly imprisonment. |
|
|
| arctic |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
I can understand why you're not comfortable with the idea of state-sponsored killing, especially when it reeks of bloodthirsty vengeance. The main reason I would support the death penalty under those conditions is that I am not fond of the alternatives, particularly imprisonment. |
That's pretty much it, I don't know if I like the "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" philosophy that seems to undermine the death penalty as practised in the US at the moment. I think I can see where this is going, I'm going to be in support of imprisonment (albeit managed differently to how it is now, as I think that the prison system in the US, and Australia for that matter, currently has some serious flaws), whilst you're going to argue that the prison system really doesn't work.
| quote: | | When someone is imprisoned, they become a burden to society - they consume resources but contribute nothing in return. If the person can be rehabilitated, then perhaps this investment is worth it. However, if we are imprisoning them for purely punitive reasons, or if there is no chance for rehabilitation, then it accomplishes nothing. |
I agree with your premise, as it stands they do contribute nothing. I would argue that we can rectify this. If the primary function of the prison system is to rehabilitate rather than punish, then surely investing in a prisoner by equipping them with the skills necessary to get a job once they're released is a good thing? Once the prisoner leaves prison, presuming that they do indeed get a job, then I believe that society is reaping the rewards of it's investment. The former prisoner is contributing to society as a direct result of it's investment in the prisoner, in the form of his education within the prison environment.
Of course, the above argument relies on the assumption that the prisoner will be released, and hence does not apply to prisoners given life-sentences with no prospect of parole or release. Regardless, I still believe that society can benefits from the efforts of a prisoner who is never released. Even if someone is destined to spend their entire life in jail, they can still work. If the state & the prison authorities wish, they can put prisoners to work, if you like. For instance, in the state where I live, most of the fruit growers are incapable of harvesting their crops, simply because they can't find enough workers. Their fruit is literally rotting on the trees. Now, logistics aside, it may be possible to put prisoners to work, if you like. If this could be put into practice, then the prisoners would be performing a valuable service to society, and could conceivably gain benefits within the prison environment if they worked well.
I also hold the belief that even if a prisoner does not work and is indeed a burden on society, that there isn't necessarily anything wrong with that. Regardless of what a prisoner has done, is recognising their right to life on altruistic grounds that hard? Of course , the argument that the prisoner has actually forfeited the right to life could be put forward, but again, I see it as unnecessary state-sanctioned killing. By the way, would you extend the notion of a burden upon society to disabled people, people in vegetative states, or people who are simply unable to work?
Now, obviously this isn't directed at you, but rather people who support the death penalty due to the punishment or suffering that it apparently inflicts upon the prisoner. I say to them, would not spending the rest of their life locked up in prison be a comparable fate? In what way is the death penalty inherently harsher than life imprisonment. Granted, the circumstances and conditions inside the prison are the determining factor here, but if we run with the assumption that the conditions inside the prison are going to be relatively harsh, then again, why is the death penalty inherently more harmful or traumatic to the prisoner than life imprisonment?
| quote: | | It bears note, of course, that due to the extensive appeals process most people executed end up costing an even greater amount of resources. Naturally, though, if we had a perfect justice system this would no longer be necessary. |
I'd tend to agree with that, drawn out appeals are yet another reason to abolish it. Briefly suspending my opposition to it, in some cases those appeals are still justified. Even though with a perfect justice system I believe that a strong case can still be made against the death penalty, without one I don't see how any decent case can be made in support of it.
| quote: | | I'm almost somewhat unconvinced that the permanent imprisonment of a human being is any less inhumane than killing them. The United States was founded with Patrick Henry's words in mind: "Give me liberty or give me death!" And I share this belief - namely that our freedom is at least as important, if not more so, than the goal of prolonging our life. |
I hold the view that in the end, it depends on the conditions inside the prison. Some prisons can be hell holes, a fate worse then death to coin a phrase. Others can be incredibly humane, offer the prisoners opportunities to earn money and privileges, and generally treat their subjects with dignity and respect. In all honesty, I believe that the issue of whether life imprisonment is any more or less humane than execution needs to me made with the conditions inside the prison the primary factor taken into consideration. To summarize, I think that it can be both more humane and less humane. There is no way to make an absolute judgement that one is uniformly more humane than the other.
With regards to the Henry quotation, I see your point, perhaps it should be up to the prisoners themselves whether they want to be executed or imprisoned? I've never actually thought about that before. If the highest punishment that the courts were able to impose was life imprisonment, with the option of a prisoner requesting that an execution take place, we might not have this problem today. On the other hand, I personally would generally prefer imprisonment over death, depending on the circumstances of course. A humane prison with opportunities to read, write and so on would be preferable to execution. Again, the prospect of a release of course needs to be taken into consideration, and as such I don't think that the "Give me liberty or give me death!" principle can be applied to cases where the prisoner hasn't been given a life sentence.
| quote: | | The best thing that imprisonment has going for it is the fact that it can be terminated if you are found to have been wrongfully convicted. Back in the day exile was a common punishment for major offenses - and I think it was the most ethically sound punishment available. However, it probably isn't practical in modern society. |
Agreed, we're getting back to the (possibly utopian?) idea of the perfect justice system. Ah exile, one of my favourite topics. :p Since my country was founded by convicts, I think that exile is a fantastic idea, after all, I wouldn't be here today if not for the British convict laws. ;)
Flippancy aside, I agree that it isn't viable in today's technologically advanced world. Ah well.
| quote: | With that I must agree with you entirely. :)
It seems that I do not disagree with you at all about the problems with the death penalty. Any disagreement we may have would more likely be linked to differing analyses of the validity of the alternatives - particularly imprisonment. |
Seems that way, the validity of imprisonment & the my ethical objections to execution seem to be the major differences, when it comes to the death penalty as it's currently practised and enforced we appear to be in full agreement. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| Forget death or imprisonment, criminals should just be publicly flogged (AKA: horse-whipped). :p |
|
|
| astroboy |
| I agree with arctic for the most part. Achieving 100% accuracy (the only acceptable statistic when it comes to the death penalty) in the justice system, is simply impracticable. It would involve major changes to the criminal justice system (IMHO, the burden of proof, to take one example - "beyond reasonable doubt" does not quite cut it). Then there is the fact that juries are imperfect, and half the time are incapable of understanding the judges directions. Then there is the whole investigative process which, itself is far from perfect. Google up "Ronald Cotton" for an example of how easy it is to wrongly convict someone of a serious offence. |
|
|
|
|
