Wednesday, September 26, 2007


Execution Delay

The U.S. Supreme Court is weighing in on lethal injection and the controversial three drug cocktail used in Tennessee and 35 other states. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court decided to consider the cases of two Kentucky inmates who are challenging the constitutionality of the three drug cocktail as cruel and unusual.

The decision to consider the case will likely halt executions in Tennessee until the Supreme Court rules. Most likely no ruling will come before January 2008 thus delaying the scheduled execution of Pervis Payne in December, as well as the executions of Paul Dennis Reid and E.J. Harbison in January.

The issue which the court will address is the constitutionality of the three drug cocktail, not the death penalty itself or the use of lethal injection as a method of execution. States across the country have been wrestling with these protocols, particularly after a botched execution by lethal injection in Florida in which Angel Diaz took 37 minutes to die and sustained severe burns on his arms.

TCASK hopes that the U.S. Supreme Court will finally address the issues with this cocktail that death penalty opponents have been highlighting for years. Regardless of what new protocols might arise from this ruling, the death penalty still asks the state to kill a human being. If we are going to have the death penalty in this country, I most certainly want it to be as humane as possible, but I don't know how far we can go to sanitize a homicide. It is what it is.

However, TCASK is grateful for the breathing space this action may give us to continue our work to educate and organize citizens on the issue without the cloud of an execution hanging over us. All in all, what began as a potentially difficult week has taken a very hopeful turn.

Read more here.
Comments :
Just more toying with our feelings.
Here's an interesting story:

Turns out the killer who has a November execution, got death before, but had his death sentence overturned and was sentenced instead to 40 years. He escaped from prison and victimized other people, and then killed someone. Now, had the original death sentence stuck, an innocent man would be alive today.

When killers are executed, we know they won't kill again.
The problem with your logic is that we sentence less than 2 percent of murderers to a death sentence.

For your argument to have any grounding in public policy we'd have to change that to 100%.

Otherwise we get to the issue of administrative fairness - who gets a death sentence is a crapshoot.

The number one indicator of a death sentence recipient is the color of the victim not gthe "heinouseness" of the crime.

Oh, and by the way, if TCASK required logic for someone to post we know that you wouldn't post again.
Second anon, while I do agree with your comment, it is unnecessary to be snarky.
Breathing time is welcomed. It was wonderful that yesterday did not mark our state ending another life. Hopefully our state will never take another life ever. It's a possiblity. I pray for it.
Anon2, don't let the baiting get to ya - there's reason, then there's just baiting.
That's not a problem with my logic--rather it's problem for your viewpoint. That news article shows a murder that would not have happened had a death sentence been carried out. One would think that intelligent folks could wrestle with that.

It's not as easy as saying "we shouldn't kill". Had we killed Landrigan, he would not have killed another.
"one would think intelligent folks could wrestle with that"

It appears there is even more controversy with the cocktail being used. Texas is on hold as of a news story this morning.(friday) It said the US Supreme Court is concerned about the procedure and is taking a look at it.
Wonder if the cure for liars is to lie, or the cure for adultery is to commit aldultery or the cure for hatred is to hate.
How ludicrous. Killing does not stop killing!!!
Sorry for the misspelling of adultery in the prior post.
Guess I got a little anxious.
Keep your judgements to yourself Ike. No one seems to "please" you unless they're exactly like you. You can't control others and publicly judging something like "being snarky" is a waste of your time. Must run in ya'lls circle. This is a blog. Get over it and go organize.
Not sure how to respond to that comment.
Then why did you?
Funny how no one here can deal with the issues that the Landrigan case raises. Had his original death sentence been carried out, an innocent man would not have been murdered. Being against the death penalty is not necessarily a matter of choosing not to kill.

Also, let's not forget that more and more studies (peer-reviewed even) are showing that the death penalty does have a deterrent effect. If that is true, then isn't opposition to the death penalty a problem?
Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post :

Create a Link

<< Home