The Death Penalty on hold in Tennessee pending court action
States watch new U.S. Supreme Court term
By State Representative Debra Maggart, 45th House
The U.S. Supreme Court began its new term October 1st and has agreed to consider the constitutionality of lethal injections in death penalty cases in the Baze v. Rees case in our neighboring state of Kentucky. Their finding could affect the way death row inmates are executed around the country.
Tennessee joins 36 other states in the use of lethal injection as a method of implementing the death penalty. However, the state has suspended executions due to the finding of 6th Circuit Court of Appeals U.S. District Judge Aleta Trauger ruling that this method is illegal as she said it was cruel and unusual.
Last Thursday State House Republicans asked Governor Bredesen to “vigorously pursue” and appeal Judge Trauger’s ruling. We also asked the Governor to request the Attorney General to file a “friend of the court” or “amicus curiae brief” supporting the state of Kentucky in the Baze v. Rees case. The Governor announced Friday that the state would appeal Judge Trauger’s decision. However, he said he did not have a role in filing a “friend of the court” brief to bring additional resources to the Kentucky case before the Supreme Court, as that was a decision of the state’s attorney general. This is despite the fact that the Kentucky case will have nationwide impact on the death penalty statutes of all 37 states like ours that use lethal injection as a method of carrying out their capital punishment law.
The General Assembly has made it clear in our state law that the death penalty should be carried out using any method that passes court scrutiny. The governor and the attorney general should be following the laws set out by the people’s representatives by using every legal resource available to us to pursue justice for those who are the victims of the very worst of the worst crimes committed in Tennessee.
It took four decades for Tennessee to implement our capital punishment law. Returning to a system that endlessly denies justice to the victims of heinous crimes is “cruel and unusual” to victims, their families and their friends. Those left behind because of the criminal’s actions suffer much pain and psychological trauma.
We owe it to the victims to utilize Tennessee’s full resources to join efforts to uphold our capital punishment law. I support due process and the rule of law in our state, but feel strongly that we must defend those who are defenseless, the victims whose life has been ended by a terrible and violent act.
Currently, Tennessee uses a three-drug cocktail of thiopental, an anesthetic, pancuronium bromide, a nerve blocker and muscle paralyzer; and potassium chloride, a drug to stop the heart. Judge Trauger’s decision states that lethal injection could “result in a terrifying, excruciating death.”
The judge maintained that Tennessee must adopt a valid method of execution in spite of new procedures adopted by the Tennessee Department of Corrections this year. This case interrupted plans to carry out the death sentence of Edward Jerome Harbison. Harbison was convicted in 1983 for brutally beating an elderly woman, Edith Russell, to death during a burglary.
The Tennessee General Assembly has worked to have a death penalty method that would pass court scrutiny when we passed lethal injection instead of electrocution. The action by Judge Trauger appears to demonstrate that possibly no method of capital punishment would be allowed by the courts, although we have hope that the U.S. Supreme Court will uphold the lethal injection method.
The high court will hear a challenge from two death row inmates in Kentucky—Ralph Baze and Thomas Clyde Bowling, Jr.—who sued Kentucky in 2004, claiming lethal injection amounts to cruel and unusual punishment and therefore violates the 8th Amendment of the U.S, Constitution.
Previously, the Supreme Court has never ruled whether the mix of drugs used in lethal injections violated the 8th amendment. They have however, made it easier for death row inmates to contest the lethal injection process used across the nation. Some of the questions presented are:
1. Does the 8th Amendment prohibit means for carrying out a method of execution that create unnecessary risk of pain and suffering as supposed to a substantial risk of the wanton infliction of pain?
Do the means for carrying out an execution cause unnecessary risk of pain and suffering in violation of the 8th Amendment upon a showing that readily available alternatives that pose less risk of pain and suffering could be used?
Does the continued use of the three-drug cocktail (like Tennessee’s) , either used individually or together, violate the 8th Amendment because this method can be carried out by using other chemicals pose less risk of pain and suffering?
The Kentucky case doesn’t seek to throw out the death penalty by lethal injection but wants changes in how it is given and new standards for courts to use to determine whether the punishment is constitutional. The Court has ordered final briefs be filed by December 28, 2007.
Next week, Monday and Tuesday , October 15 & 16 , the state legislature’s Special Joint Committee will meet to study “the Administration of the Death Penalty system in Tennessee”. Presentation topics include Tennessee’s Capital Case Process, and Evaluating Fairness and Accuracy in State Death Penalty Systems: The Tennessee Death Penalty Assessment Report. Tuesday’s topics include Lethal Injection Procedures and Status Report on Executions. These meetings are open to the public and begin on Monday at 1 pm to 3 pm in Legislative Plaza Room 12 and Tuesday morning at 9 am to 11 am. You may watch it on streaming video by going to the Tennessee General Assembly website.
Your concerns are important to me and I hope you will contact me anytime. My office number is 615-741-3893 and my email address is rep.debra.maggart@legislature.state.tn.us
States watch new U.S. Supreme Court term
By State Representative Debra Maggart, 45th House
The U.S. Supreme Court began its new term October 1st and has agreed to consider the constitutionality of lethal injections in death penalty cases in the Baze v. Rees case in our neighboring state of Kentucky. Their finding could affect the way death row inmates are executed around the country.
Tennessee joins 36 other states in the use of lethal injection as a method of implementing the death penalty. However, the state has suspended executions due to the finding of 6th Circuit Court of Appeals U.S. District Judge Aleta Trauger ruling that this method is illegal as she said it was cruel and unusual.
Last Thursday State House Republicans asked Governor Bredesen to “vigorously pursue” and appeal Judge Trauger’s ruling. We also asked the Governor to request the Attorney General to file a “friend of the court” or “amicus curiae brief” supporting the state of Kentucky in the Baze v. Rees case. The Governor announced Friday that the state would appeal Judge Trauger’s decision. However, he said he did not have a role in filing a “friend of the court” brief to bring additional resources to the Kentucky case before the Supreme Court, as that was a decision of the state’s attorney general. This is despite the fact that the Kentucky case will have nationwide impact on the death penalty statutes of all 37 states like ours that use lethal injection as a method of carrying out their capital punishment law.
The General Assembly has made it clear in our state law that the death penalty should be carried out using any method that passes court scrutiny. The governor and the attorney general should be following the laws set out by the people’s representatives by using every legal resource available to us to pursue justice for those who are the victims of the very worst of the worst crimes committed in Tennessee.
It took four decades for Tennessee to implement our capital punishment law. Returning to a system that endlessly denies justice to the victims of heinous crimes is “cruel and unusual” to victims, their families and their friends. Those left behind because of the criminal’s actions suffer much pain and psychological trauma.
We owe it to the victims to utilize Tennessee’s full resources to join efforts to uphold our capital punishment law. I support due process and the rule of law in our state, but feel strongly that we must defend those who are defenseless, the victims whose life has been ended by a terrible and violent act.
Currently, Tennessee uses a three-drug cocktail of thiopental, an anesthetic, pancuronium bromide, a nerve blocker and muscle paralyzer; and potassium chloride, a drug to stop the heart. Judge Trauger’s decision states that lethal injection could “result in a terrifying, excruciating death.”
The judge maintained that Tennessee must adopt a valid method of execution in spite of new procedures adopted by the Tennessee Department of Corrections this year. This case interrupted plans to carry out the death sentence of Edward Jerome Harbison. Harbison was convicted in 1983 for brutally beating an elderly woman, Edith Russell, to death during a burglary.
The Tennessee General Assembly has worked to have a death penalty method that would pass court scrutiny when we passed lethal injection instead of electrocution. The action by Judge Trauger appears to demonstrate that possibly no method of capital punishment would be allowed by the courts, although we have hope that the U.S. Supreme Court will uphold the lethal injection method.
The high court will hear a challenge from two death row inmates in Kentucky—Ralph Baze and Thomas Clyde Bowling, Jr.—who sued Kentucky in 2004, claiming lethal injection amounts to cruel and unusual punishment and therefore violates the 8th Amendment of the U.S, Constitution.
Previously, the Supreme Court has never ruled whether the mix of drugs used in lethal injections violated the 8th amendment. They have however, made it easier for death row inmates to contest the lethal injection process used across the nation. Some of the questions presented are:
1. Does the 8th Amendment prohibit means for carrying out a method of execution that create unnecessary risk of pain and suffering as supposed to a substantial risk of the wanton infliction of pain?
Do the means for carrying out an execution cause unnecessary risk of pain and suffering in violation of the 8th Amendment upon a showing that readily available alternatives that pose less risk of pain and suffering could be used?
Does the continued use of the three-drug cocktail (like Tennessee’s) , either used individually or together, violate the 8th Amendment because this method can be carried out by using other chemicals pose less risk of pain and suffering?
The Kentucky case doesn’t seek to throw out the death penalty by lethal injection but wants changes in how it is given and new standards for courts to use to determine whether the punishment is constitutional. The Court has ordered final briefs be filed by December 28, 2007.
Next week, Monday and Tuesday , October 15 & 16 , the state legislature’s Special Joint Committee will meet to study “the Administration of the Death Penalty system in Tennessee”. Presentation topics include Tennessee’s Capital Case Process, and Evaluating Fairness and Accuracy in State Death Penalty Systems: The Tennessee Death Penalty Assessment Report. Tuesday’s topics include Lethal Injection Procedures and Status Report on Executions. These meetings are open to the public and begin on Monday at 1 pm to 3 pm in Legislative Plaza Room 12 and Tuesday morning at 9 am to 11 am. You may watch it on streaming video by going to the Tennessee General Assembly website.
Your concerns are important to me and I hope you will contact me anytime. My office number is 615-741-3893 and my email address is rep.debra.maggart@legislature.state.tn.us
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment