Monday was supposed to be the first day in a string of executions in Arkansas, as the state’s supply of the sedative midazolam, which is used in the lethal injection, expires at the end of the month. That is why Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson ordered eight executions to take place over 11 days, before the current stash of midazolam expires. But a succession of lawsuits has stopped the executions from happening.

This is the latest development in a messy legal fight as Arkansas is pushing to execute eight prisoners in almost as many days. Last month, the eight prisoners filed a lawsuit in which they called the state’s rush to kill them “reckless and unconstitutional.” They also cited the use of midazolam as a problem, as many other states have stopped using the drug after a couple of botched executions that led to slow and painful deaths.

At the end of last week, pharmaceutical companies Fresenius Kabi USA and West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corp. filed a friend of the court brief in the prisoners’ lawsuit. Fresenius Kabi said it believes that the state of Arkansas acquired potassium chloride, the second ingredient in the three-drug lethal injection, from the company, and that it did so under false pretenses.

Arkansas fights in multiple courts to carry out two of eight planned executions Monday. https://t.co/ueFxXfktba

— AP Central U.S. (@APCentralRegion) April 17, 2017

On Friday, Arkansas Judge Wendell Griffen halted the use of the third of the three execution drugs, vecuronium bromide. The manufacturer of this drug, McKesson Corporation, also claimed that the state bought it under false pretenses, by using the medical license of an Arkansas physician. Although Griffen’s ruling was not based on the executions legality, it made the carrying out of the executions impossible. And then over the weekend, federal Judge Kristine Baker halted all of the executions, citing the prisoners’ lawsuit.

“The threat of irreparable harm to the plaintiffs is significant: If midazolam does not adequately anesthetize plaintiffs, or if their executions are ‘botched,’ they will suffer severe pain before they die,” she wrote. But on Monday, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned her ruling, saying the evidence that the executions would “cause severe pain and needless suffering” was insufficient.

To complicate matters, Judge Griffen was barred on Monday from hearing any death penalty cases in the state as it was revealed that he attended an anti-death penalty rally right after issuing the halt of the lethal injection on Friday. Griffen not only attended the demonstration, he also lay down on a cot and bound himself with a rope, making it look like he was a death row inmate on a gurney, awaiting execution. The protest took place outside Gov. Hutchinson’s house. Death penalty advocates were outraged and many Republican lawmakers called it judicial misconduct.

Judge rules against #Arkansas #executions. Judge attends anti-#deathpenalty rally. Judge barred from such cases. https://t.co/SodtMofgaj pic.twitter.com/hDLKFp553A

— AP Central U.S. (@APCentralRegion) April 17, 2017

The hurried pace of carrying out eight executions over 11 days is unprecedented in modern times, and Arkansas hasn’t performed an execution since 2005. But Hutchinson has been eager to get going, citing justice for the families of the victims the inmates have killed. And after all the legal back and forth, it looked like the state could go on with the plans. But then in a last minute development, the Arkansas Supreme Court granted a delay in the execution of one of the prisoners, Don Davis, after his attorney sought a stay on Monday. The court also stayed the execution of Bruce Ward.

Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge asked the U.S. Supreme Court late Monday evening to overrule that decision. The court declined to hear the case. However, late Monday the Arkansas Supreme Court also overruled the restraining order by Griffen on the use of vecuronium bromide, which means the lethal injections are free to use again. But the state is also facing a different problem: it can’t seem to find enough witnesses for the executions. The law requires at least six civilian witnesses at each execution.

So for now, all the prisoners are still alive. But since Baker’s stay of the executions was overruled, there is nothing that stops the state from going through with the executions, as long as there are enough witnesses. On Thursday, two inmates, Ledell Lee and Stacey Johnson, are scheduled for execution.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Arkansas Keeps Fighting to Carry Out Planned Executions appeared first on Law Street.

The Supreme Court kicked off a new term on Monday by rejecting hundreds of appeals that built up over the summer recess. Because of the Jewish holiday of Rosh Hashanah, which commemorates the Jewish New Year, the justices did not hear any arguments on Monday. Three of the eight justices are Jewish. Arguments are scheduled to begin on Tuesday. Here are five cases that will not be heard by the high court this coming term.

Death Row Appeal

From 2009 to 2013, death row inmates in North Carolina were allowed to review sentencing statistics to prove their sentencing was tainted by racial bias under the Racial Justice Act. Four inmates–three African-Americans and one Native American–had their death sentences reduced to life in prison with no parole because of the newly enacted law. But North Carolina’s Supreme Court vacated the reduced sentences last December, after the Racial Justice Act was annulled in 2013, meaning the inmates’ death sentences could be reinstated.

The inmates sought to appeal that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which rejected their appeal on Monday. Their cases will be retried at the state level. North Carolina has not performed an execution in 10 years.

Obama Immigration Appeal

In late 2014, President Obama announced a proposal to shield illegal immigrants who met certain residency requirements and stopped children who were U.S. citizens from being deported. Twenty-six states sued, claiming Obama was overstepping his authority, and the Supreme Court, operating as an eight person bench due to Justice Antonin Scalia’s death in February, ruled in a 4-4 decision against the administration.

On Monday, the high court weighed an appeal from the Obama administration to reconsider his proposal when a ninth member joins the bench. They rejected the appeal.

Taser Gun Appeal

In 2011, police officers in North Carolina shot a man five times with a taser gun. The man, Ronald Armstrong, was mentally ill and refused to be taken to a mental hospital. He later died from the taser wounds.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the police used excessive force, and established new restrictions on police officers’ ability to use a taser gun on people resisting arrest. The U.S. Supreme will not rehear the case this term, they said on Monday, leaving in place the taser guidelines established by the lower court.

John Deere Appeal

Prior to 2013, New Hampshire’s Automobile Dealer Bill of Rights law barred automobile manufacturers from ending dealer contracts without just cause. Then, in 2013, New Hampshire Governor Maggie Hassan expanded the law to include farm equipment manufacturers. Led by John Deere, the newly expanded law was challenged in the state’s Supreme Court, which upheld the law.

The farm equipment firms appealed their case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which let the state court ruling stand by rejecting the appeal.

“Whitey” Bulger Appeal

James “Whitey” Bulger, the infamous Boston gangster, was arrested in 2011 after 17 years on the lam. Two years later, he was convicted of racketeering crimes, and of playing a role in at least 11 murders. Bulger, 87, appealed his 2013 conviction, arguing that a now-dead federal prosecutor promised him immunity.

His appeal to the Supreme Court was officially shut down on Monday, and he is now essentially guaranteed to spend the remainder of his life behind bars.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Kicks Off New Term with Hundreds of Rejected Appeals appeared first on Law Street.

Justin Ross Harris was indicted on September 4 by a grand jury on eight counts for the murder of his 22-month-old son, who was left in a hot car. The public anxiously waited for this verdict after Harris became public enemy number one after the incident in June. Cobb County District Attorney Vic Reynolds stated that he will decide over the next three weeks whether to seek a mandatory life sentence or the death penalty in this case. If Reynolds does seek the death penalty, it will be for the malice murder charge, which alleges that Harris, who has claimed his son’s death was an accident, premeditated the child’s killing.

There has been much debate over the outcome and potential sentence of punishment that Mr. Harris will receive. Some believe these charges are way too severe, considering there may still be a possibility that the death of Harris’ young son was in fact an accident. In my opinion, this all comes down to just how ethical the death penalty really is? The death of a 22-month-old baby is tragic, and what is even more heartbreaking is that this seems to be becoming the norm. I was reading the news today, and several newspapers have created sections in which ‘hot car baby deaths’ are featured. It is clear that enforcing the death penalty as a deterrent just does not work.

In the twenty-first century, I honestly believe if we were to live by the saying ‘an eye for an eye’ we would be living in chaos. In order to lead by example, as a country that punishes individuals who commit heinous crimes, we should rise above just killing them off by an injection. It costs more money to keep an individual on death row than it does to place them in prison on a life sentence. An eye for an eye means that equal amount of suffering should be received, and I ask you, do you really think a quick lethal injection can compare to some of the horrific murders and rapes these victims suffer? Would it not make more sense to sentence these individuals to life sentences in prison, forcing them to acknowledge what they have done, while being punished by depriving them of any normal life they once had? What I think a lot of people fail to understand is that although these individuals can be sentenced to death row, they will spend years awaiting their actual death while money is wasted on them sitting in a cell.

With ironic timing, after three decades on death row, this week 50-year-old Henry McCollum and his brother were released from prison in North Carolina due to DNA evidence after serving a sentence for the rape and murder of a female in 1983. As expected, social media jumped at the chance to voice their opinions on this case, and the death penalty in general. Many believe that if someone commits such a heinous crime they should also suffer, whereas others argue that killing them via the death penalty is the easy way out. I have done a lot of research in the use of DNA to exonerate individuals. The Innocence Project is an organization that dedicates itself to cases exactly like this in the hope of overturning wrongful convictions. The flaw with the death penalty is the fact that in most cases, with an absence of evidence or lack of investigative material, it is close to impossible to be 100 percent sure of conviction. The risk that an individual can be sentenced to death, and then be proven innocent is way too high to warrant any ethical justification for this form of punishment.

As a country that bases itself on a constitution that protects the rights of the people and forbids cruel and unusual punishment, I struggle to see how sentencing someone to die by lethal injection for a crime that cannot be supported with 100 percent guaranteed proof is not in itself a contradiction of what we stand for. By sentencing Harris to death, I do not see how that can compare to the suffering of a young baby in a hot car. It is controversial to compare the suffering of ways to die for both the victim and the perpetrator, but I actually think the death penalty can sometimes be an easy way out.

Justice for victims who have lost their lives due to crime demands that their perpetrators be punished and made to understand and take responsibility for their actions. I am still unsure about where I stand in terms of rehabilitation for these types of criminals, but I genuinely feel like (and for this you can blame my criminology background and psycho analytic personality) if we do not try to understand why these things happen and why people do the things they do, we will not be able to prevent any harm done to us in the future, and more importantly to the next generation that will live in this exact same era of punishment.

—

Hannah Kaye (@HannahSKaye) is originally from London, now living in New York. Recently graduated with an MA in criminal justice from John Jay College. Strong contenders for things she is most passionate about are bagels and cupcakes.

Featured image courtesy of [Luigi Caterino via Flickr]

Hannah Kaye

Hannah Kaye is originally from London, now living in New York. Recently graduated with an MA in criminal justice from John Jay College. Strong contenders for things she is most passionate about are bagels and cupcakes. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Death Penalty is the Easy Way Out appeared first on Law Street.

It is getting harder and harder for states to kill people.

Four executions by lethal injection have been botched in the past calendar year. In July, it took two hours for an Arizona inmate to die after he was given 15 times the dose of drugs usually used. And, with the supply of those drugs running out fast, it looks like America is in store for even more of these gruesome mishaps. Cries are growing louder and louder for an end to the death penalty as more and more executions are botched.

Yep, neither the number of innocent people on death row nor the inhuman delays that keep prisoners guessing if and when they will be killed are responsible for the most recent national conversation about the death penalty. Instead, it’s a lack of efficiency in our execution tactics that has Americans up in arms.

Don’t fret, death penalty supporters! There is a simple solution to this problem. It just isn’t as pretty or as comforting as lethal injection.

A federal judge recently called for replacing lethal injection with the firing squad, and his argument is pretty sound:

Lethal injection uses medication to make an execution look peaceful. Since one of the drugs used paralyzes the inmate, all anyone sees is a person slowly falling asleep. U.S. 9th Circuit Court Chief Judge Alex Kozinski has a problem with that:

Executions are, in fact, brutal, savage events, and nothing the state tries to do can mask that reality. Nor should we. If we as a society want to carry out executions, we should be willing to face the fact that the state is committing a horrendous brutality on our behalf.

Kozinski’s argument against lethal injection is a moral one. He believes that America needs to look at the ugliness of executions and reckon with what they have wrought upon their fellow man.

I agree that the firing squad should be used, but I would like to go one step further in arguing why. The firing squad isn’t just a moral solution to our death penalty crisis. It’s also a much more practical way to end the lives of our most degenerate citizens. It is time for this nation to abandon its experiment with lethal injection and join Somalia in the practice of shooting its citizens.

Lethal injections have become a crapshoot, where people who aren’t even medical officials mix untested drugs to try their best to kill someone. There is a lot of room for error.

Firing squads, on the other hand, are almost impossible to screw up. Five marksmen shoot the sitting and sedated inmate in the heart with rifles. One of the marksmen is firing a blank so none of them know who fired a kill shot, but the odds of four trained shooters missing their target is highly unlikely. A guaranteed quick, albeit bloody, death is the primary benefit of the firing squad.

But wait, there’s more! Death by firing squad is one of the only execution tactics that preserves the organs for donation (except for the heart, obviously). There are tangible benefits!

Sure, like all good things, there are some downsides to the firing squad. For one, shooting people is surprisingly expensive. The salaries of the five shooters and the cost of the rifles, chair, hood, and sedative all add up to the hefty price of $165,000. But, can we as a society really put a price on justice?

Well, yes. The current price of justice is $1,286.86. That is how much it costs to kill someone with the newest drug cocktail. You know, the one that isn’t even working the way it is supposed to. I’m willing to pay a little more in taxes if it means fewer criminals gasping and wheezing for two hours on a prison gurney.

There’s also the slight problem that being shot in the heart by four bullets is a gruesome way to die. That is why we as a society decided on lethal injection in the first place. All we see is a bad person falling asleep. It’s a sanitary and supposedly peaceful end.

But, as Kozinski reminds us, executions are not supposed to be pretty. The state is murdering one of its own citizens. It is supposed to be gruesome. We shouldn’t hide from this reality. If we are going to allow states to continue killing the people they are supposed to protect, we should accept the barbaric nature of this policy. There are few forms of death that embrace this philosophy more than exploding a man’s heart with four small pieces of lead.

America needs to change its course if lethal injections continue to be botched. The firing squad is the most effective way of killing criminals quickly and humanely.

Or, we could just repeal the death penalty, save billions of dollars, and bring our criminal justice system up to the ethical standard of the rest of the developed world.

But that would be silly. Open fire!

—

Eric Essagof (@ericmessagof) is a student at The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [T Woodward via Flickr]

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post It’s Time To Bring Back The Firing Squad appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, March 3, 2014 the Supreme Court heard oral arguments that charged Florida with failing to properly establish an inmate’s IQ before ordering the death penalty. In determining the level at which inmates are ineligible for capital punishment, Florida has drawn a strict line at an IQ of 70 or below. However, experts in the medical field as well as several justices feel that this policy does not take into account the five point margin of error in IQ testing in establishing whether or not someone is intellectually disabled. The five point error margin could be crucial in sentencing capital punishment; whether or not you agree with the death penalty at all, it is essential that the decision for a death sentence is justly made.

Here’s the breakdown of the case:

Freddie Lee Hall, a 68 year old, is facing the death penalty for the crimes of raping and killing a 21 year old pregnant woman as well as a police officer. Hall was given several IQ tests throughout his incarceration and received scores of 71, 72, 73, 74, and 80, all of which are above Florida’s 70’s point marker. However, studies have shown the five point margin of error is necessary, concluding that scores as high as 75 considered indications of intellectual disability. Even if you take the average of all Hall’s scores, a 74, he falls within the margin and could be deemed ineligible for the death penalty. Seth Waxman, a lawyer for the defense, stated that this matter “can only be properly diagnosed by professionals.” It seems that other justices shared Waxman’s concerns. Justice Kennedy questioned why states like Florida drew such a hard cutoff, when professionals acknowledged that the IQ test design includes a margin of error.

Looking back at prior verdicts:

The 2002 case Atkins v. Virginia established a precedent for establishing the eligibility for the death penalty based on an inmate’s IQ. The decision gave states a general guideline to follow in establishing proof of intellectual disability in inmates. It stated that in order to declare someone as intellectually disabled, it must be proven that the individual lacks practical and social abilities as well as possesses a low IQ score. The decision stated that low IQ scores are “typically under 70.” In discussing the Atkins ruling, Justice Scalia explained that the court did not make their decision primarily on the studies done by the American Psychiatric Association’s assessment of intellectual disability, but on the adopted policies of the states. But shouldn’t the opinions of experts in a particular field factor in significantly to justice’s decisions, especially in an area they personally are unfamiliar with?

It’s useful to take the precedent into account when determining how to rule in a case with a similar principle; however, the court’s previous decision only vaguely answers the question of whether establishing a hard line at an IQ of 70 is appropriate. The court should, therefore turn to experts on IQ measurements in order to make an appropriate judgement on the state a man’s life.

Furthermore, the case brings attention to the lack of focus on rehabilitation in Florida prisons and the United States in general. In this specific situation, Hall has spent over half of his life on death row, and the man is almost 70 years old! This situation is unfortunately not unique in Florida; as Justice Kennedy mentioned in oral argument, the last ten Florida inmates who received the death penalty spent on average 24.9 years on death row. Florida is not alone in keeping prisoners waiting on death row for longer periods of time, but the amount of years prisoners have spent in this status is concerning. Maintaining someone’s uncertainty over whether he or she will live or die for this long can cause anxiety and the general deterioration of his or her mental state. It is true that a factor involved in the lengthening of the time spent on death row is a more thorough appeals process, which is important in determining guilt and fair sentencing. Nevertheless, an average of 24.9 years is way too long to keep someone waiting on a question of life or death.

Indeed, Hall v. Florida’s significance will reach far beyond the determination of a man’s mental abilities. The case exposes that Florida’s justice system has failed to take into consideration an error margin and other factors in determining whether the death penalty is appropriate. Additionally, it allows inmates to wait extraordinary amounts of time on death row before a final decision. Capital punishment is serious, and the Florida justice system must change to treat those on death row appropriately.

[New York Times] [SCOTUS Blog] [Washington Post] [Death Penalty Info]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Featured image courtesy of [Jeff Kubina via Flickr]

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post Hall v. Florida: What Will the Ruling Be? appeared first on Law Street.

The United States will be able to report a lower number of executions in 2013. Thirty-nine people were executed in nine different states, a 10% reduction from 2012. Twenty-three of those executions took place in just two states–Florida and Texas. To put this in context, in 1999, there were 98 people executed for their crimes. In addition, eighty new death sentences were handed out, which is a dramatic shift from 315 just 19 years ago.

There has also been a slow but perceptible trend of death penalty abolition on the state level. There are now 18 states and the District of Columbia that have abolished the death penalty. Six of these states have done so since 2007.

So, why? Why are we seeing a reduction in executions?

There a few different viable answers. The first is a declining availability of the drugs used in lethal injection. The vast majority of executions in the United States are done by lethal injection, although there are occasionally exceptions, and some states still allow methods such as firing squads or hanging.

But the states that intend to carry out death penalty sentences by lethal injection have run into a problem. Most of the drugs used come from European-based companies, and in 2011, the European Commission put extremely tight regulations on the import of those drugs. Some European drug companies, such as Danish-based Lundbeck which produces one of the most efficient and popular drugs for use during a lethal injection, flat out banned its use during executions. The death penalty has been abolished in all European states with the exception of Belarus.

As a result, states are scrambling to find a way to carry out lethal injections. Some states have experienced with drug cocktails, and others use untested drugs. According to Richard Dieter, Executive Director of the Death Penalty Information Center, “the states are scrambling to find the drugs. They want to carry out these executions that they have scheduled, but they don’t have the drugs and they’re changing and trying new procedures never used before in the history of executions”. Some lawsuits have alleged that this experimentation could be considered cruel and unusual punishment and has led to stays on executions in the state of California, among others.

Another proposed reason for the drop in executions is the discovery of evidence that proves the innocence of many people who had been previously executed. Improved forensic technology and DNA testing show that trials do not always result in justice. Groups such as the Innocence Project attempt to exonerate people who have been convicted of crimes, and since 1989, there have been 311 post-conviction exonerations based on DNA evidence alone. Eighteen of those people were awaiting their executions on death row.

Finally, the trend may be attributed to a number of other reasons. Part of it may be moral–the US stands essentially alone among its allies in its use of the death penalty. Another reason may be that most violent offenders die in prison anyways, which makes prosecutors and judges less likely to push for it.

Whatever the reason for the diminished use of the death penalty over the last few years, it will be interesting to see if it sticks. If those who attribute the shift to the inability to get the appropriate medications are correct, we should see an uptick in executions as that issue is resolved. If it’s more about the moral constraints, maybe executions will continue to lessen. Either way, capital punishment in the US will change.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [CACorrections via Wikipedia]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is the US Done With the Death Penalty? appeared first on Law Street.