Capital punishment

[nerdanel]

Washington joins Oregon in governor-imposed moratorium status: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/12/us/wa ... ml?hp&_r=0

[Passdagas the Brown]

Excellent news.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

Pharmacy Won't Give Drug for Mo. Execution

An Oklahoma pharmacy will not provide a drug for a scheduled [killing] next week in Missouri as part of a settlement with the death row inmate's attorneys. But it's unclear whether the agreement will prevent or delay the lethal injection. ... Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon indicated last week that the state could move forward with the [killing] even after the judge issued a temporary restraining order that blocked the company from providing the drug. ... The state has refused to say where it obtains its [killing] drug, arguing that the source is part of the [death squad] and therefore shielded from public disclosure.

I mentioned this in another forum, but the conversation promptly became about pharmacists refusing to dole out birth control.

Here we have a drug that is by definition legal because the government is asking for it. And we have a pharmacist saying no, because it will be used to kill.

[axordil]

by definition legal because the government is asking for it.

Um.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

The definition of legal is "whatever the government says is legal". Whether that is right or wrong or moral or immoral or ethical or unethical, that's a different issue.

[axordil]

Except when one part of the government (usually the judiciary) informs one of the other parts they can't do what they're doing because it's illegal, even though the government was doing it. Which happens with regularity.

[eborr]

One of the key tenets of any democracy is the seperation of the judiciary from the legislature, therefore what the Govt says is legal is only legal if a judge agrees.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

But then there's this one pharmacist substituting his judgement for that of the combined agreement of legislators, executive officials, and judges.

[axordil]

It's unclear to me how an agency of the State of Missouri can compel someone in Oklahoma to sell them anything, even without legal action from the convict's attorney. It's not like they can shield him from lawsuits.

It's a nasty, dodgy business, sneaking around to execute people. The mentality the state is exhibiting borders on the juvenile: I keep waiting for the Department of Corrections to go "needer needer, we killed someone who had an appeal in process, whatcha gonna do about it?"

[Voronwë the Faithful]

One of the key tenets of any democracy is the seperation of the judiciary from the legislature, therefore what the Govt says is legal is only legal if a judge agrees.

Exactly.

[Frelga]

Sounds like the pharmacy agreed to stop selling the drug as their part of settling a lawsuit. Since the judge did not throw the lawsuit out, I am guessing that the pharmacy complying with the terms of the settlement is not exactly an act of defiance? How does that work, does anyone know?

On another forum, this resulted in a rather morbid discussion of alternative methods, which favored inert gasses as a painless solution.

[River]

If we're going down that road...

Best way to kill lab animals sought

Methods used to kill lab rats

Some methods recommended by the American Veterinary Medical Association.

Barbiturate injection: Fast-acting, but injection may cause pain.

Inhaled anaesthetic (halothane, isoflurane, sevoflurane or desflurane): Useful when restraint of animal is difficult.

Carbon dioxide: Acceptable, but chamber must be filled over several minutes and not pre-filled. Death to be verified afterwards or ensured by physical method.

Cervical dislocation: Causes rapid death, but skill must be learned.

Decapitation: Useful when tissues must be free of euthanasia chemicals.

Unacceptable: Nitrous oxide alone; nitrogen or argon asphyxiation (unless animals already anaesthetized); opioids.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

Weird off-topic tangent. Whatever.

Back to Frelga, good point, I had not thought of the inter-state aspect of this.

[nerdanel]

A murder victim's son recently wrote a detailed piece about watching the execution of his father's killer in Texas. It is the most raw and wrenching account I can recall ever reading by a witness to an execution. It's one person's perspective, with all the limitations that entails - but absolutely worth reading.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/story/witne ... fullpage=1

[JewelSong]

That was a fascinating and emotional read, Nel. Thanks for posting the link.

[Primula Baggins]

I agree. Harrowing but fascinating. I'm still digesting it.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The SCOTUS has agreed to take a case regarding the constitutionality of Oklahoma's lethal injection procedure. This comes just a few days after the court refused to stay the executions involved, and one of the inmates who was challenging the procedure was put to death. The three remaining inmates who brought the challenge are all scheduled to be put to death before the case will be heard by the court. Richard E. Glossip, is currently scheduled to die next Thursday; John M. Grant has an execution date of February 19; and Benjamin Cole, is scheduled to die March 5. They will likely move quickly to move for stays but because it only takes four justices to agree to hear a case, but five to order a stay, it is entirely possible that all three will be put to death before the case is ever heard by the court (in which I would guess that it would be dismissed as moot, although nel would know better than I).

http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/01/court ... protocols/

[Primula Baggins]

I heard that analysis on NPR. What a bizarre circumstance. I hope the five keep that potentially discordant possibility in mind when the motions for stay come before them.

[Teremia]

I heard a brief report on the news about the trial that's finally starting in Boston (of the marathon bomber), and I wanted to ask you thoughtful people about one aspect of the jury vetting process. The newscaster said one reason sorting through the 9000 (!!) people called in as potential jurors will be hard is that all jurors must be "death qualified" -- they must support the death penalty, since this is a capital case.

This has been rumbling around in my brain, troubling me. It seems to me that the section of the population that supports the death penalty may well have different views also on all sorts of things--more conservative, blah blah blah. In short: more likely to convict, under any circumstances. So doesn't it prejudice the trial, to require all the jurors to come from this particular segment of the population?

I am absolutely opposed to the death penalty, so I would be thrown off this jury pronto. In real life, of course, that would be a great relief--who wants to spend 4 months on such a horrifying and depressing trial! BUT I would also feel guilty that my *otherwise* reasonable (so I believe) and reasonably intelligent approach to processing evidence would thus be a priori excluded. It's a dilemma for me.

Just a thought, on this sunny Saturday....

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Teremia, yes that is absolutely an issue in all death penalty case, but other than eliminating the death penalty altogether (which you and I both agree should be done), I don't think there is any way to ameliorate it.

As an aside, jury selection is also going on for the trial of James Holmes, the disturbed young man who shot and killed 12 people (and injured 70 others) in Aurora, CO in 2012. It is that case in which 9000 potential jurors have been called. In the trial of Mr. Tsarnaev, the Boston Marathon bomb suspect, "only" 1200 potential jurors have been called.