North Carolina's Independent Weekly has, "Resume executions or keep the ban?" It's reported by Bob Geary.
The state Supreme Court heard arguments Nov. 18 in a case between the N.C. Medical Board and the N.C. Department of Correction over the meaning of a nearly century-old law requiring that a doctor be "present" during an execution. The fight between the two agencies, which began more than two years ago, has resulted in a virtual moratorium on executions; the last one took place in August 2006. A decision in the case is expected within a few months, but however it comes out, lawmakers and Perdue will decide the fates of 162 men and women on death row.
A Supreme Court ruling could open the execution floodgates if Perdue and the legislature want to make up for lost time. Conversely, the new governor—unlike outgoing Gov. Mike Easley—may choose to get behind the push for a formal moratorium on executions, as well as a legislative study of whether capital punishment can be handled fairly in this state.
In response to a question from the Indy, Governor-elect Perdue said in a statement that she supports the current moratorium while the court considers the case. "Once a decision is reached," she said, "I will direct the Department of Correction to proceed under an appropriate set of rules that abides by the Court's judgment."
And:
By the 2007 legislative session, the dispute over whether a doctor should take some role in executions beyond the legally required "presence" had snarled the process, creating what many termed a de facto moratorium that the General Assembly's Democratic leadership showed no interest in disturbing.
For nearly a century, since the state took control of executions away from the counties in 1909 and substituted the electric chair in Raleigh for courthouse hangings, the law has required that a physician be present at Central Prison. The question argued in front of the Supreme Court was whether the purpose of the law was merely to have a doctor on hand to certify death, or whether it should also mean that doctors—now that executions are by lethal injection—were available for some greater role.
The Medical Board, a state-created agency with the power to govern doctors' practices and discipline them for violating medical ethics, argues that physicians cannot ethically play any role in executions and were never expected to prior to the Easley administration. The board has ruled that any doctor doing so would be subject to punishment.
Arguing for the Department of Correction, Assistant Attorney General Joseph Finarelli maintained that from the beginning, a doctor's presence was required for humane reasons, not just to sign a death certificate. Since the advent of lethal injections, the doctor's role has expanded—under rules set out by DOC and approved by the Council of State—to include monitoring the prisoner's condition during the execution.
Earlier coverage of the issue in North Carolina begins with this post.
Comments