Despite the Bush family's near monopoly on state sanctioned killings, a grossly botched lethal (or almost-lethal) injection earlier this week has called into question the procedure in Florida. (Apparently, California has also now been ordered by state court to cease lethal injection.)
I hope that maybe this cascade of events will finally bring this topic back to the forefront of the American conscience. I notice this topic is not very engaging here, either.
For those who are counting. George 131 in Texas and Jeb 20 in Florida = 151 Deaths ORDERED by a child of G.H.W. Bush.
Florida execution was botched
Gov. Jeb Bush suspended all executions in Florida after a medical examiner said Friday that officials botched the insertion of the needles when a convicted killer was put to death earlier this week.
Dr. William Hamilton, who performed the autopsy, said the execution of Angel Nieves Diaz took 34 minutes — twice as long as usual — and required a rare second dose of lethal chemicals because the needles were inserted all the way through his veins and into the flesh in his arms.
Executions in Florida normally take no more than about 15 minutes, with the inmate rendered unconscious and motionless within three to five minutes. But Diaz appeared to be moving 24 minutes after the first injection, grimacing, blinking, licking his lips, blowing and appearing to mouth words.
As a result of the chemicals going into Diaz's arms around the elbow, he had an 12-inch chemical burn on his right arm and an 11-inch chemical burn on his left arm, Hamilton said.
"This is complete negligence on the part of the state," [Diaz's attorney, Suzanne Myers Keffler] said. "When he was still moving after the first shot of chemicals, they should have known there was a problem and they shouldn't have continued. This shows a complete disregard for Mr. Diaz. This is disgusting."
I am trying to get more info on which part of the 3-part process was botched.
UPDATE - Apparently Diaz final words were "The death penalty is not only a form of vengeance, but also a cowardly act by humans."
Also, here's the California news just now breaking:
California lethal injection may be unconsitutional
SAN FRANCISCO - A federal judge who imposed a moratorium on executions in California ruled Friday that the state's method of lethal injection is at risk of violating the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
California's "implementation of lethal injection is broken, but it can be fixed," U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel said.
The Yahoo headline is "Judge Say Executions Unconstitional" - I don't think this story says that at all. Seems like this judge is looking for new and improved means to kill people. Any legal minds?
UPDATE - I changed title to encompass developments in both states, and hope start a forum for a Friday night discussion about state-sponsored killing.
A followup to the polling:
- Could those of you who think there is a place for a death sentence in extreme cases, please describe what extreme situations would qualify. I know the word "extreme" was vague, but I would point out that our current limitations set by the courts are guided by the phrase cruel and unusual. What makes something extreme? The status of the victim, such as a child? Or the number of victims? How about a need for closure after a traumatic national event, such as 9/11?
- Is "closure" really just a polite word for "vengeance?"
- For those who oppose no mater the circumstance - what if the criminal had deliberately tortured and killed your child as you were forced to watch? Could vengeance serve a purpose to help you move on?
UPDATE#2 - Well, clearly very few of us approve of the death penalty as a standard tool of the justice system. So, why don't we care to push the issue? The rest of the civilized world has segregated our legal system from theirs. by treaty and practice, to guarantee that their actions PROTECT persons in their custody from OUR barbarism. These countries stand on principle against a practice that we "progressives" practically ignore. That's a shame!
I recall watching a documentary about the execution of a man in a southern state. It was clear that the film wanted to show that executions are not really about the condemned, but the people left behind. The man was a son, who years earlier had murdered the son of another. Two mothers grieved that day, one from loss another from guilt and shame. Fast forward to execution day, and one mother grieves now at the death of her son, and the other feels satisfied that "now she knows what it feels like to lose your son." This is what capital punishment makes of us.