Yesterday a federal judge declared that the use of three drugs administered during lethal injections were unconstitutional. Judge Aleta Truager of a federal district court ruled that the state cannot kill a death row inmate because the drugs used would have "a substantial risk of unnecessary pain."
The Governer Phil Breedson put a 90 day hold on executions in February because the states old protocols were criticized as being "confusing."
The inmate Edward Harbison (who beat an elderly woman to death in 1983) appealed his case arguing that the states new protocols were illegal. Judge Trauger agreed with him and has put his death sentence on hold until the state can find a less painful way to die.
This is another case of the federal courts interfering with the states rights. I am for states rights and I believe that the state has the right to decide how a person dies, but this article left many unanswered questions. Like what role should the Federal court play in the execution of a State's inmate? I can understand not wanting to die a painful excruciating death, but in all honestly does the person who is being executed think that his victim received the same consideration when she was beat to death? I do think it is important (especially in a state where our death penalty accounts for half the nations total) that the federal government intervenes when there is a case of someone being wrongfully accused. But this seems like a person using the not so well defined power between the state's court and the federal court to escape his death sentence. I wonder if the electric chair is any less painful.
Just for the record I am not for or against the death penalty because I believe it varies case to case, but is there really a illegal way to die? The end result is usually the same.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/20/us/20tennessee.html?ref=us
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment