For death penalty advocates, Oklahoma was featuring a type of macabre double header tonight: two executions to be held within hours of each other. That objective however failed in a most disturbing possible way after the first execution of Clayton Lockett left him in obvious agony for over 25 minutes. He eventually died from a heart attack and the second execution was postponed.
Witnesses reported that Lockett could be seen kicking and lifting his head on the gurney. After sixteen minutes, the prison officials closed the blinds and barred witnesses. Department of Corrections Director Robert Patton then called a halt to the execution and issued a 14-day stay for the execution of Charles Warner. Patton described the problem as a “vein failure”
Lockett was sentenced to death for killing a woman during a home invasion burglary in 1999 while Warner (right) was sentenced to death for raping and murdering an 11-month old girl in 1997.
Notably, the execution tonight used a new combination of drugs after a shortage in lethal injection drugs arose from an international campaign. They gave Lockett the sedative midazolam which was to be followed by the muscle relaxant vecuronium bromide to stop breathing and then potassium chloride to stop the heart.
The botched execution will only magnify concerns that there remain too many unknowns about lethal injection and that it constitutes a cruel punishment.
Notably, this incident comes a day after the release of a new report showing over four percent of death row inmates are likely innocent. The calculation of one in 25 death row being innocent in the study contradicts the earlier statistical data offered by Associate Justice Antonin Scalia in a concurring opinion in 2007 when he said that the error rate was 0.027 percent “or, to put it another way, a success rate of 99.973 percent.”
The execution and the study raise two of the main objections over the death penalty: that it is cruel and that the criminal justice system still produces false convictions. However, 55 percent of people polled reportedly still support the death penalty while a substantial percentage of 39 percent now opposes it. This is clearly going to be a debate that will continue to rage, particularly after the horrific scene tonight in Oklahoma.
Source: CNN
ap – if newsweek can find the 1 in 25 who are innocent then we will release them.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/capital-punishment-by-lethal-injection/
From what I’ve been hearing is that the vein that was delivering the pancuronium bromide, which paralyses the muscles, collapsed, so he was able to be seen writhing in pain. I’ve heard that those being executed by this lethal cocktail do feel the pain for a short while until the barbiturate component renders them unconscious. Looks like the barbiturate component didn’t get delivered effectively either in this case. The third drug, potassium chloride, is the one that actually stops the heart.
One in 25 Sentenced to Death in the U.S. Is Innocent, Study Claims
http://www.newsweek.com/one-25-executed-us-innocent-study-claims-248889
ACLU of Oklahoma’s Statement in Response to Tuesday Night’s Botched Execution in Oklahoma
April 30, 2014
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: 212-549-2666, media@aclu.org
Oklahoma City – In response to the botched execution of Clayton Lockett, the American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma has issued the below statements and is immediately calling for a full and open investigation into the execution. The ACLU of Oklahoma is also calling for an immediate moratorium on all executions pending the outcome of this investigation and for full and complete transparency regarding the execution process in Oklahoma.
The following is attributable to Ryan Kiesel, Executive Director, ACLU of Oklahoma:
“In Oklahoma’s haste to conduct a science experiment on two men behind a veil of secrecy, our state has disgraced itself before the nation and world. The greatest power any government has over an individual is to take that person’s life. More than any other power, the exercise of the power to kill must be accompanied by due process and transparency. This evening we saw what happens when we allow the government to act in secret at its most powerful moment and the consequences of trading due process for political posturing. This is not about whether these two men are guilty; that is not in dispute. Rather, it comes down to whether we trust the government enough to allow it to kill its citizens, even guilty ones, in a secret process.”
The following is attributable to Brady Henderson, Legal Director, ACLU of Oklahoma:
“We hope that courts will reconsider whether transparency about the drugs used in executions is required as a matter of law. After tonight, there’s no speculation needed to appreciate that there are fundamental failures in our execution process. It is important to remember that the State of Oklahoma continues to deny relatively simple requests from condemned men to find out about the drugs that will be used to kill them. There are serious concerns about the lethal injection process in light of more and more botched executions conducted with questionable drugs from questionable sources, and an Oklahoma law now bars inmates (and everybody else) from finding out important information needed to ensure compliance with the Constitution. In other words, it puts a veil of secrecy over one of the most grave functions of state government–killing its own citizens. If we are to have executions at all, they must not be conducted like hastily thrown together human science experiments.”
other anon – I think the ACLU is complicit in the results of this execution. Since they have been behind fighting the use of various drugs they have forced this particular cocktail on this prisoner. If they were not so whiny about it, there would be fewer problems.
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/columnists/jacquielynn-floyd/20140424-the-crime-of-un-airconditioned-texas-prisons.ece “But herding human beings together in locked buildings with no climate control during the savage Texas summer pushes the definition of stern punishment. Some people are physically unable to withstand it.
The University of Texas Law School’s Human Rights Clinic issued a report this week saying the state’s refusal to air-condition its prisons violates constitutional prohibitions on cruel and unusual punishment. The report linked extreme heat to 19 inmate deaths in recent years, as well as heat-related illnesses suffered by both inmates and prison staff.
Paul Schulte:
“kraaken – and you see life without parole as rehabilitation? At 40k a year, I personally do not want to support a murderer”.
Paul: What I understand from your post is that you want to spend more money on people on the death row than the ones convicted with life without parole. These are the facts and why would you want to spend more money to start with and have a murderous mentality as a fortune cookie?
Here is one example. You can educate yourself with others on your own.
http://www.examiner.com/article/capital-punishment-is-far-more-expensive-than-life-without-parole
kraaken – the reason it is more expensive is the number of appeals available to the defendant. First through the state system, then through the federal system. The Supreme Court has opined about streamlining the appeals on the federal level. This would cut the cost.
This is one more reason to ban death penalty. Death Penalty has no room in our society where innocent people are killed and the above happens. It makes us worse than the criminals.
Do we want to keep on cultivating this murderous mentality rather than evolving ourselves mentally?
I was distressed with this news, a sad day. I am also at a loss. Working in the veterinary field, we euthanize animals in a very quick and humane manner. With proper sedation ahead of the procedure, (that is key!), an overdose of barbiturates quickly stops breathing, followed by the heart stopping. Once the injection is given, the animal can pass within seconds. I just do not understand the 3 step cocktail and how it could be so grossly mismanaged.
Teji – do we want to continue paying 40k a year to house murderers? That is coming out of my tax money.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/29/oklahoma-executions-drugs-lethal-injection/8476389/ Botched execution could put breaks on death penalty.
kraaken – btw, the death penalty is a deterrent for me. 🙂
The guillotine. The blade drops, the head rolls off and you’re dead in 1/120 of a second. Problem is that those who advocate for the death penalty, as Mike Appleton so wisely stated, have no interest in ‘justice’. Their interest is in making the condemned suffer. Vengeance. And yet we hide behind all of the BS about ‘deterrent’. We seem to proudly take our place among nations like China, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, the list goes on and on. It was said when the guillotine was introduced in France that the people watching the first execution by guillotine were angry and very nearly rioted. Why? Because it wasn’t slow enough. They didn’t get to watch the condemned writhe in agony. I remember after the execution of Timothy McVeigh one of the witnesses interviewed was a woman, probably in her late thirties, probably a Southern Baptist, probably taught Sunday School (having been one myself, I know the type very well). Her complaint? He just went to sleep. McVeigh’s death brought how many of those who died back to life? I don’t think I’ve ever heard a witness or family member say ‘Closure, finally’. Perhaps J. Brian Harris, Ph.D., P.E. as a profession could speak to the concept of ‘closure’. I’ve certainly never seen it.
kraaken – and you see life without parole as rehabilitation? At 40k a year, I personally do not want to support a murderer.
Cal – at what point do you see me disagreeing with you?
James – would you please link to some source to back up your claim on barbarism and monolithic groups?
@ Paul Schulte, “… Where I live, judges are selected, not elected, they have no skin in the game.”
The Supreme LAW of this land is the US Constitution and ALL THAT IS IN PURSUANCE THEREOF IT (caps are mine because so many leave that VERY important part out). This is going to be a long explanation because it is very important to understand what a judges duties are, when and why they can be removed from office, and who makes the decision to remove them from the position they are occupying.
US Constitution, Article III. Section. 1: The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
The key part to take note of here is that it does NOT say that judges are in for life, and it does say that “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts… shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour”. ”
Inferior courts are all courts except the supreme courts.
James Madison, Federalist 39: “According to the provisions of most of the constitutions, again, as well as according to the most respectable and received opinions on the subject, the members of the judiciary department are to retain their offices by the firm tenure of good behaviour.”
James Wilson, Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention: “…The tenure by which the Judges are to hold their places, is, as it unquestionably ought to be, that of good behaviour”.
Tucker’s Blackstone, Volume I, Chapter 1 regarding how the Oath applies to the judiciary: “But here a very natural, and very material, question arises: how are these customs or maxims to be known, and by whom is their validity to be determined? The answer is, by the judges in the several courts of justice. They are the depositaries of the laws; the living oracles, who must decide in all cases of doubt, and who are bound by an oath to decide according to the supreme law of the land, the U.S. Constitution.
Now this is a positive law, fixed and established by custom, which custom is evidenced by judicial decisions; and therefore can never be departed from by any modern judge without a breach of his oath and the law. For herein there is nothing repugnant to natural justice;…”
US Constitution, Article III Section. 2: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;…
The US Constitution says in Article VI that it does NOT apply to any law created. It is only those laws that follow (are in Pursuance thereof) the US Constitution,
“… This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
Article VI says that only the laws that are made in Pursuance thereof the US Constitution are lawful here in the USA.
Under our laws all justices must make their case decisions based on that those cases are “in PURSUANCE THEREOF the US Constitution” or found to NOT be “in PURSUANCE THEREOF the US Constitution” to be lawful decisions. They are using “Good Behaviour” and are keeping the contract agreed to when they do so.
Those justices that “interpret” the US Constitution, basing their decisions on “precedent” without verifying that “precedent” to be “in PURSUANCE THEREOF the US Constitution”, or on foreign law are no longer in “Good Behaviour” and have broken the contract that they are under.
The justices no longer using “Good Behaviour” can be fired because they have broken the contract.
They can be fired for breaking the contract, for not using “Good Behaviour” as the law and contract requires!! Actually they must be fired when they are not using “Good Behaviour” as required of them.
Thomas Jefferson: “…To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps…and their power is more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruption of time and party, its members would become despots….”
James Madison: “But it is objected, that the judicial authority is to be regarded as the sole expositor of the Constitution in the last resort; …”
John Marshall: Opinion as Chief Justice in Marbury vs. Madison, 1802: “The particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”
So many believe only those in the government decides what happens and if they – in all three branches are good or bad. But here in America, the people are supposed to decide directly and indirectly through various means – though the last few decades it has been much ignored even in the courts. Many have also forgotten that the courts were to be an independent branch enforcing the US Constitution, under no type of coercion from either the executive or the legislative branches.
The judicial was set to be totally separate from, and not under the power of, either the executive branch or the legislative branch. They were to be an independent branch that was taxed with the duty of making sure that the other two branches, plus the states, actions were “in Pursuance thereof” the US Constitution. They were to make sure that laws did not encroach on the people’s unalienable natural rights in any way. The courts were not given the power to make the decisions of guilt or innocence – that power is left with the people.
Many have forgotten that the courts were set up to be directly under the influence of the people, as jurors. “We the People” are directly the decision-makers of the guilt or innocence of our neighbors, and of the laws presented to us as jurors. We are also the final decision makers on if judges are using “Good Behaviour” in the courtrooms or not; not the executive or legislative branches; nor is the judicial to decide it’s guilt or innocence itself. “We the people” are the final arbitrator of the decision if the judges within OUR courtrooms are using “Good Behaviour”.
In the courtrooms as a jury, the people are the ones who lawfully decide a case brought against a person. More importantly they are to decide if the law is a good law or not as a jury. A sanctioned doctrine of trial proceedings wherein members of a jury disregard either the evidence presented and/or the instructions of the judge in order to reach a verdict based upon their own consciences. Basically the jurors are the judges of both law and fact.
Early in US history, judges informed jurors of their nullification right as they are still supposed to be doing. The first Chief Justice, John Jay, told jurors: “You have a right to take upon yourselves to judge both the facts and law.” And he said “The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.”
Thomas Jefferson: “I consider [trial by jury] as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”
John Adams: “It is not only his [the juror’s] right, but his duty…to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.”
“though in direct opposition to the direction of the court” is “We the people” deciding the court, prosecutors, lawmakers were all wrong. So why would anyone think that the final decisions over a judge using “Good Behaviour” would be left to anyone else?
Samuel Chase: “The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts.”
Patrick Henry: “Why do we love this trial by jury? Because it prevents the hand of oppression from cutting you off…This gives me comfort, that, as long as I have existence, my neighbors will protect me.”
James Madison, Federalist 46: “The Foederal and State Governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, instituted with different powers, and designated for different purposes… They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone; and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expence of the other. Truth no less than decency requires, that the event in every case, should be supposed to depend on the sentiments and sanction of their common constituents.”
Just because the federal and state governments have done much to misinform and disabuse the people of what their constitutional duties are regarding our governments, the branches within our governments, does not mean that we must allow it to continue. If there is a judge who is not keeping the contract that that person not only agreed to, but gave their PERSONAL guarantee in the form of the required oath(s) of office that that person would do exactly that; remove that person, fire that person as that person has no legitimate authority backing those actions. Their legitimate authority comes from doing the duties as assigned and dictated by the US Constitution and whatever state Constitution applies, and by KEEPING their Oath.
As Foghorn Leghorn used to say “It’s a joke, son! It’s a joke!
“the rest of us call it”
Barbarism often requires bullying via the invention of monolithic groups to be perpetuated. One could speak for one’s self and leave it at that.
Human conception is the actual cause of all human deaths?
Being conceived as a zygote is an inescapable death penalty event?
James – you need to lighten up some. 🙂
bettykath – the rest of us call it an execution.
Cal, When a state apparatus conspires to kill, I’d call it premeditated murder.
OT but good news needs to be shared. Comments seem to indicate dismay at the number of bad cops getting away with bad behavior. Karma comes to a few.
http://www.newsday.com/news/south-texas-officers-sentenced-on-drug-charges-1.7866190
“U.S. District Judge Randy Crane sentenced four of nine former law enforcement officers to prison terms ranging from eight years to nearly 12 years before recessing to continue the others Wednesday morning.”