Current Events

TOPICS:

10/30/07

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87

 ... 484

Next

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Next

Subrosa

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA
July 2004

OCT 19, 2007 01:41 PM



Welcome to the eighty-second installment of SubrosaÂ’s SCOTUS Interruptus, a quasi-weekly column dedicated to keeping the SuicideGirls.com community abreast (hey-o!) of the CourtÂ’s important decisions, argument schedule and whatever else is relevant for that particular week. As always, a record of the opinions published by the Court can be found on their website here.


Last month, the lady and gents at the Court raised a few eyebrows by agreeing to hear the case of Baze v. Rees, a death penalty case that doesn’t challenge the constitutionality of capital punishment, but rather brings up the issue of whether execution by lethal injection violates the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. There, the condemned is basically arguing “Hey, I don’t so much mind that you kill me, but please don’t kill me like that! It might hurt, see.” It’s one of those completely-logical-and-yet-ridiculous-sounding arguments that makes me love the law so much.

It actually makes sense that the court granted certiorari here. In order to get a case on the Supreme Court docket, you need only four Justices to agree to hear the case. Justices Ginsberg, Breyer, Souter and Stevens have a pretty solid anti-death penalty voting record, whereas Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts are old-school Hangin’ Justices. As always, the wild card is Justice Kennedy. Now, given the general conservative lean of the current Court, you might expect the “liberal” justices to not want to vote to hear the case here. Basically, if you lose you risk setting up bad precedent that will be much more difficult to fix down the road. Better save the battle for a better time, you might say.

However, Kennedy, for all his pro-executive, pro-authority, pro-religion in government, anti-affirmative action and anti-integration viewpoints is also a pretty strong Catholic with a CatholicÂ’s view on the death penalty. In short, heÂ’s not so much a fan. It was Kennedy who wrote the opinion in Roper v. Simmons that outlawed capital punishment for minors. The Roper opinion was, in typical Kennedy fashion, almost literary in the way it deconstructed the arguments for capital punishment and deftly wove a discussion of international norms into the cruel and unusual punishment analysis. If other countries considered the execution of minors to be barbaric and did not use it, Kennedy argued, then the practice was cruel, unusual and unconstitutional.

So you can see why it makes sense for the liberal justices to vote to hear the case. With KennedyÂ’s analysis in Roper on the books, they stand a good chance at winning. ThereÂ’s also an added bonus here that they probably anticipated. While the merits of the case wonÂ’t be decided for several months, by simply agreeing to hear Baze, they also managed to put a de facto moratorium on the practice of lethal injection in the United States.

The Supreme Court has not issued anything like a nationwide moratorium on the lethal injection method of capital punishment — and it is not likely to do so. But an increasing number of lower court judges appear to be reading the Court’s planned review of the constitutionality of the most widely-used drug protocol for use in death chambers to be a strong call for caution in going forward with executions.

The Court on Sept. 25 agreed to rule on the case of Baze v. Rees (07-5439), raising the question of whether it violates the Eighth Amendment ban on “cruel and unusual punishment” to use the common three-drug formulation to carry out the death penalty, because the protocol is claimed to result in real pain and suffering before the execution is completed. The Court has not been asked to delay all lethal injections until it rules on the Baze case, and it is not clear that anyone would have the authority to ask the Justices for that kind of order, or that the Court would have the power to impose such a moratorium while the Baze case is pending. (It could do so, under its supervisory authority, over federal courts, but most death penalty cases arise in state courts.)

But it is now evident, from documents filed in various death penalty cases since Sept. 25, and from the content of the Supreme CourtÂ’s own order in an Arkansas case on Tuesday, that the effect of the grant of review in Baze is being debated actively in each case where an execution is imminent in a state using the specific three-drug protocol.


In short, lower federal and state courts are freaking the fuck out and refusing to execute anyone via lethal injection in the interim. Again, it makes sense. WouldnÂ’t they look like assholes if they stuck a needle in some dudeÂ’s arm today and then three months from now the Justices told them it was a constitutional no-no? Yeah. They would.

Adding to the fun is the fact that the Court itself is passing out stays of execution like theyÂ’re neck bandanas at a hipster party.

The Supreme Court stopped the execution of Virginia death row inmate Christopher Scott Emmett yesterday, a move that legal experts said might signal a nationwide halt to lethal injections until the justices decide next year whether the procedure amounts to cruel and unusual punishment.
The court granted the stay of execution just four hours before Emmett was to be put to death. It is the second time the justices have stopped an execution since agreeing to decide whether lethal injections carry the potential for pain that would violate constitutional standards.
"I think this is a de facto moratorium," said Douglas A. Berman, a sentencing expert at Ohio State University's law school. Since almost all executions are carried out by lethal injection, he said a halt "would mean the most profound hiatus in the operation of the death penalty in at least two decades."


How many states use lethal injection? All but Nebraska (who are hella old school and use the fuckinÂ’ chair baybee!!! Ride the lightening, bitchezzz!!!111), and theyÂ’ve got nothing scheduled.

State courts, who are not automatically under the authority of the Supreme Court, are now following the fedÂ’s lead. Basically, weÂ’ve got a total shut-down of the death penalty until this is decided. Good news for pinko commies like me who think the death penalty is about as barbaric a practice that we as a society endorse, but will it be good news for the actual inmates? It will depend on how strong their arguments are that lethal injection is cruel and unusual. To me, it seems pretty fucking clear.

States began using lethal injection in 1978 on the grounds that it was more humane than electrocution and the gas chamber. Almost all the states that employ lethal injection use the same combination of three chemicals: sodium thiopental, a barbiturate intended to render the inmate unconscious at the start of the procedure; pancuronium bromide, which paralyzes the muscles; and potassium chloride, to stop the heart.

Studies have shown that if the barbiturate is not administered properly, some inmates might be fully aware as the paralyzing agent cuts off their ability to breathe. Moreover, pancuronium is known to cause severe pain, but the inmate would be unable to express that.


Yeah, because theyÂ’re paralyzed. And what if the practice is found unconstitutional? What then?

That would pose a conundrum, agreed Larry Byrd, a former chief prosecutor and Sarasota defense attorney.

"Whether you agree with the death penalty or not, the United States Supreme Court, since its inception, has held you cannot execute someone in an inhumane way," Byrd said. "We tried the electric chair and caught people's heads on fire. We tried lethal injection and it took 30 minutes for someone to die. Maybe the answer is gas -- oh, we tried that. The only thing left is the guillotine or public hanging. We're going backward."

"I think anytime we're going to talk about how to kill people, it's really splitting hairs," Butler said.


Mr. Butler is exactly right. We are splitting hairs, and that seems to me to be the strongest argument against the constitutionality of the death penalty of any kind. There is no way to kill someone that is not cruel. There is no way to kill someone that is not “unusual” by international standards. The idea that we can kill people but only in certain ways because they might be in pain is ridiculous to me. Of course they’re going to be in pain, they’re fucking dying. It’s not a beauty spa. It’s legal hypocrisy and it’s absurd.

At any rate, death penalty advocates are bumming because their annual body count will be below average. LetÂ’s hope it stays that way.

DucksAreCrazy

DucksAreCrazy

Lexington, KY
December 2006

OCT 19, 2007 02:14 PM

Clearly we need a return to the firing squad.

Subrosa

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA
July 2004

OCT 19, 2007 02:21 PM

DucksAreCrazy said:
Clearly we need a return to the firing squad.



I vote for the Iron Maiden!

Biopulse

biopulse

Houston, TX
February 2005

OCT 19, 2007 02:24 PM

On wikipedia - Capital Punishment in Taiwan.


Executions are carried out by handgun shooting aimed at the heart from the back, or aimed at the brain stem under the ear if the prisoner consents to organ donation. The execution time used to be 6AM, but was changed to 9PM in 1995 to reduce officials' workload. Executions are performed in secret: nobody will be informed beforehand, including the condemned. Before the execution a last meal will be served and the prisoner will be prompted for any last words. The condemned prisoner will then be injected with strong anaesthetic to leave him or her completely senseless, and the shooting quickly takes the prisoner's life. After execution the High Prosecutors' Office in charge will announce the execution in detail. Although the Ministry of Justice has studied other methods including hanging and lethal injection since early 1990s, execution by shooting (performed by local bailiffs or military policemen) is the only execution method used in Taiwan to date(including military executions).

Uncognitive

Uncognitive

Brooklyn, NY
May 2003

OCT 19, 2007 02:25 PM

Subrosa said:

DucksAreCrazy said:
Clearly we need a return to the firing squad.



I vote for the Iron Maiden!



Iron Maiden? EXCELLENT!

Peanut85

peanut85

San Jose, CA
July 2002

OCT 19, 2007 02:31 PM

Biopulse said:
On wikipedia - Capital Punishment in Taiwan.


The execution time used to be 6AM, but was changed to 9PM in 1995 to reduce officials' workload.



Wow... Heaven forbid a work overload...

Subrosa

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA
July 2004

OCT 19, 2007 02:32 PM

Uncognitive said:

Subrosa said:

DucksAreCrazy said:
Clearly we need a return to the firing squad.



I vote for the Iron Maiden!



Iron Maiden? EXCELLENT!



Execute them!

freshprncebelair

freshprncebelair

Ellicott City, MD
June 2004

OCT 19, 2007 02:39 PM


At any rate, death penalty advocates are bumming because their annual body count will be below average. Let's hope it stays that way.



Just point out how if you wait around 50 years, the counts will be back up to normal (assuming you are putting people behind bars until they rot into the ground).

Uncognitive

Uncognitive

Brooklyn, NY
May 2003

OCT 19, 2007 02:41 PM

Subrosa said:

Uncognitive said:

Subrosa said:

DucksAreCrazy said:
Clearly we need a return to the firing squad.



I vote for the Iron Maiden!



Iron Maiden? EXCELLENT!



Execute them!



BOGUS!


QuixoticVignette

QuixoticVignette

I'm lost
October 2007

OCT 19, 2007 02:45 PM

Guillotine! Hell yes!

Other than that, capital punishment is bad for the soul.

I wonder if the people in Nebraska have read The Green Mile...?

Subrosa

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA
July 2004

OCT 19, 2007 03:10 PM

freshprncebelair said:


At any rate, death penalty advocates are bumming because their annual body count will be below average. Let's hope it stays that way.



Just point out how if you wait around 50 years, the counts will be back up to normal (assuming you are putting people behind bars until they rot into the ground).



Good point! Just think of it as killing them really slowly.

Munke

Munke

Roseville, CA
May 2004

OCT 19, 2007 03:22 PM

I can hear death penalty supporters in Texas crying now.

GOOD FOR THEM!

DevilsReject

DevilsReject

Cleveland, OH
February 2007

OCT 19, 2007 04:26 PM



Welcome to the eighty-second installment of Subrosa's SCOTUS Interruptus, a quasi-weekly column dedicated to keeping the SuicideGirls.com community abreast (hey-o!)



i love it!

ver0nika23

ver0nika23

New Orleans, LA
OLD SKOOL

OCT 19, 2007 04:26 PM

Dear Subrosa: As a law geek who didn't go to law school because of absurd tuition, and is toying with being a paralegal for the hell of it, I thank you for the time you spend keeping us updated on the SCOTUS, and other legal matters. At some point I will send you a picture of my boobs to show you how much I care.

joeywrists

joeywrists

Lake Grove, NY
March 2006

OCT 19, 2007 04:50 PM

seppuku is the way to go damn it

bean

bean

STAFF

Los Angeles, CA

OCT 19, 2007 04:56 PM

I loved it!

xazapdmytinu

xazapdmytinu

Fort Collins, CO
July 2007

OCT 19, 2007 05:02 PM

Biopulse said:
On wikipedia - Capital Punishment in Taiwan.


Executions are carried out by handgun shooting aimed at the heart from the back, or aimed at the brain stem under the ear if the prisoner consents to organ donation. The execution time used to be 6AM, but was changed to 9PM in 1995 to reduce officials' workload. Executions are performed in secret: nobody will be informed beforehand, including the condemned. Before the execution a last meal will be served and the prisoner will be prompted for any last words. The condemned prisoner will then be injected with strong anaesthetic to leave him or her completely senseless, and the shooting quickly takes the prisoner's life. After execution the High Prosecutors' Office in charge will announce the execution in detail. Although the Ministry of Justice has studied other methods including hanging and lethal injection since early 1990s, execution by shooting (performed by local bailiffs or military policemen) is the only execution method used in Taiwan to date(including military executions).



I like this one...reminds me a bit of 1984 when they just show up in the cafe and put two in Winston's head.

SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

OCT 19, 2007 05:06 PM

Nice article.

bean

bean

STAFF

Los Angeles, CA

OCT 19, 2007 05:09 PM

oyaji said:
My father might argue a case next term.



No shit? Hot.

__andy__

__andy__

I'm lost
September 2007

OCT 19, 2007 05:35 PM

Even though I am against the death penalty in most cases, I am sure there is some kind of drug that they can use that is quick and painless.

Rockoval

Rockoval

I'm lost
July 2006

OCT 19, 2007 05:37 PM

What I don't understand, is why they use the 3 chemical combination in the first place. Wouldn't it make a lot more sence to use a single lethal dose of a barbiturate or opioid, the way veterinarians put dogs to sleep? I do wish there was no death penalty at all, but in states like mine, the best you can ask for is that they do it humanely.

Quartz

Quartz

USA
November 2005

OCT 19, 2007 05:57 PM

ver0nika23 said:
Dear Subrosa: As a law geek who didn't go to law school because of absurd tuition, and is toying with being a paralegal for the hell of it, I thank you for the time you spend keeping us updated on the SCOTUS, and other legal matters. At some point I will send you a picture of my boobs to show you how much I care.



I half second this, as I am taking business law, and even though it doesn't all pertain to my class, it's still helpful! YAY!

TheFuckOffKid

TheFuckOffKid

NEWSWIRE

Australia

OCT 19, 2007 06:58 PM

oyaji said:
Who would have thought something related to being a lawyer would, like, be so appreciated by the ladies?



Your law icecream brings all the girls to the yard.

Admiral_Pants

Admiral_Pants

Austin, TX
May 2004

OCT 19, 2007 07:15 PM

Rockoval said:
What I don't understand, is why they use the 3 chemical combination in the first place. Wouldn't it make a lot more sence to use a single lethal dose of a barbiturate or opioid, the way veterinarians put dogs to sleep? I do wish there was no death penalty at all, but in states like mine, the best you can ask for is that they do it humanely.



Nitrogen asphyxiation

spyder13

spyder13

San Francisco, CA
October 2006

OCT 19, 2007 07:19 PM

I am not for the death penalty in many circumstances, but there are a few people who do not need to be in this world. I am not saying life in prison is a walk in the park, but there are some who don't deserve our tax dollars to a full life even if it is in jail. I wont name names, but people who by their own admission molest and kill children, rape and kill women, brutally assualt and kill people, kill and eat people (you know who you are), ... you know, something so henious that... well I think you get the point. And again the key for me is "by their own admission." Not someone who admits guilt under pressure from authorities, which comes out in trial as force or brutality to get the confession, but someone who willingly admits "I did it." Even if they are sorry and feel remorse we all know that doesn't make up for a cheating lover, a betraying friend, an abusive parent, ... well again you should get the point. There are some people, who are truly few and far between, that really don't belong here and don't deserve to be here. Sometimes we do need to thin the herd and spend our resources on making the next generation better these people. I'd rather kill one guilty person (again, by their own admission) than permit a system to fail the children of the future and create 2 or more like the guilty.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Next