NOTE: I will post a debate on a topic of this blog
every fortnight. It will be twice in a month.
Let us hear from 2
American judges in their opinion of the lethal injection:
On December 15, 2006,
in the case Morales v. Tilton, Judge Fogel ruled that California
execution procedures violate the Eighth Amendment to the United States
Constitution because inexperienced, untrained prison staff do executions in
crowded, poorly-lit settings; Fogel wrote that "implementation of lethal
injection" by California "is broken, but...can be fixed." That
moratorium came ten months after Fogel issued a ruling two hours prior to the
scheduled February 21, 2006 execution of Michael Morales with conditions to
prevent a painful execution: instead of administering it via intravenous tube,
a licensed medical professional would have to inject sodium thiopental directly
into Morales' vein. California then delayed the execution, as it could not
comply with Fogel's order. Under the same painful death criteria, Fogel issued
a stay of execution for Albert Greenwood Brown on September 28, 2010, two days
before Brown was scheduled to be executed. In response to Fogel's ruling in Morales
v. Tilton, The New York Times wrote in a 2011 editorial: "For
legislators in state capitols considering whether to abolish the [death]
penalty...this case...has documented how lethal injection can be cruel and
unusual punishment when unprofessionally administered and how the culture of
prisons breeds that shoddy approach. It is one more reason to reject the death
penalty as a barbaric punishment."
 |
| Jeremy Fogel |
AUTHOR: Jeremy
Don Fogel (born September 17, 1949) is a former United States federal judge for
the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. An
appointee of President Bill Clinton, Fogel previously was a judge for the
municipal court and superior court of Santa Clara County, California from 1981
to 1998. On October 3, 2011, he became Director of the Federal Judicial Center.
Judge says execution by lethal injection is legal
By RACHEL
LA CORTE, Associated Press Published: Jul 10, 2009 at 8:17 AM PST Last Updated:
Jul 10, 2009 at 11:57 AM PST
OLYMPIA,
Wash. (AP) - A judge has affirmed Washington state's procedures for executing
prisoners by lethal injection, turning aside complaints that condemned inmates
could be partially conscious when fatal drugs flow into their veins.
In a ruling released Friday, Thurston County Superior Court Judge Chris Wickham said that the inmates presented no evidence that the state "intended to impose punishment that was 'cruel."'
"The procedure to be used by defendants, although not fail-safe, appears to have been designed to administer the death penalty in a way that is humane for the inmate and the observers," Wickham wrote. "It is an attempt to provide some dignity to this most grave event."
The inmates are likely to appeal the ruling. A message left with one inmate's attorney Friday morning was not immediately returned.
The lawsuit, filed by three death-row inmates, argued that Washington's preferred method of execution needs a major overhaul to satisfy constitutional bans on cruel punishment.
The lawsuit did not seek to end the death penalty in Washington. Instead, the inmates' lawyers asked the state to trade its current mix of three intravenous drugs for a large dose of one powerful sedative - an approach that plaintiffs said would kill a condemned prisoner with virtually no risk of pain or suffering.
Attorneys for the state countered that Washington's lethal injection system passes constitutional tests because it is substantially similar to a Kentucky system upheld last year by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Washington, like roughly three dozen states, performs lethal injections by administering successive doses of three separate drugs. The chemicals are intended to render a condemned prisoner unconscious, then paralyze the person's body, and, finally, stop the inmate's heart.
The lawsuit, however, argued that Washington's lethal injection procedures are so sloppy and inconsistent that inmates might be partially conscious when fatal drugs flow into their veins. If that happened, the condemned person could be subjected to suffocation and excruciating pain.
The lawsuit alleged a long list of shortcomings in the state's lethal injection methods: No supervision by doctors or nurses, inadequate training and rehearsals for the execution team, and lack of medical qualifications for everyone involved.
At trial, lawyers for the state said the lawsuit essentially demanded "a perfect execution." But the state said prison officials were not required to prove that execution procedures would be followed in a flawless manner that eliminated all risk of pain.
Moreover, the similarities between Washington's policies and those of Kentucky - including the requirement of some medical training or experience for the execution team - are strong enough to prevent a substantial, intolerable risk of harm, the state said.
The state also rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the Washington Constitution offers a stronger protection against cruel punishment than the U.S. Constitution's Eighth Amendment.
The case is a combined lawsuit on behalf of three death row inmates: Darold Stenson, who shot his wife and business partner in Clallam County; Cal Coburn Brown, who tortured and killed a Burien woman; and Jonathan Gentry, who killed a 12-year-old girl in Kitsap County.
Washington death row inmates may opt for hanging instead of lethal injection. The state's last execution was the lethal injection death of James Elledge in 2001.
AUTHOR: Judge Chris Wickham was first elected
to Superior Court in 2004. Immediately prior to his election, he had served
for 13 years as the Family Court Commissioner for Thurston County Superior
Court. In 1999, the court became a Unified Family Court and so his
assignment included family and juvenile law cases. As Commissioner, Judge
Wickham helped develop programs at Superior Court including the Unified Family
Court, the Courthouse Facilitator program and Family Treatment Court. He
has been the chair of the 2003 and 2004 Domestic Violence Summits for Thurston
County. He currently serves as Presiding Judge for Thurston County
Superior Court.
He is the past chair of the
Certified Professional Guardian Board for the State of Washington and the past
chair of the Superior Court Judges Association Probate and Guardianship
Committee. He is a long-time member of the Superior Court Judges
Association Family and Juvenile Law Committee. He is a co-chair of the
Board of Judicial Administration, a state-wide group that coordinates policy
for all courts in the State of Washington. He is a member of the National
Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.
Judge Wickham is currently one
of four general jurisdiction trial judges in Thurston County Superior Court.
Judge Wickham had a general legal
practice in Olympia. He had previously worked as a labor law attorney in
California and as a legal services attorney in Connecticut and Olympia.
Judge Wickham is admitted to practice law in California, Connecticut and
Washington. A native of New York State, he has resided in Thurston
County, Washington, since 1977.
Judge Wickham is a graduate of Cornell
University and Hastings College of Law. He serves on various law-related
boards and committees and as faculty for the Domestic Violence Institute,
a joint project of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges and
Futures Without Violence. He has done extensive training in the areas of
family law and domestic violence.
In the greater Thurston County
community, Judge Wickham has served on boards of many community groups,
including Senior Services, the Dispute Resolution Center, the United Community
Aids Network, Garden Raised Bounty, the Griffin Neighborhood Association and
Capitol Land Trust. He is a member of West Olympia Rotary.
Judge Wickham enjoys his family,
sailing, cycling, running, reading and traveling. http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/superior/judge-wickham.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment