"No Justification," is the title of a New York Times editorial from Friday's paper.
Two years ago, when a splintered Supreme Court approved lethal injection as a means of execution in Baze v. Rees, Justice John Paul Stevens made a prophecy. Instead of ending the controversy, he said, the ruling would raise questions “about the justification for the death penalty itself.” Since then, evidence has continued to mount, showing the huge injustice of the death penalty — and the particular barbarism of this form of execution.
In the case of Jeffrey Landrigan, convicted of murder and executed by Arizona on Tuesday, the system failed him at almost every level, most disturbingly at the Supreme Court. In a 5-to-4 vote, the court’s conservative majority allowed the execution to proceed based on a stark misrepresentation.
And:
When Mr. Landrigan tried to ascertain its effectiveness for sedating him so he wouldn’t feel the pain of the other drugs, Arizona refused to divulge the information. After the state defied four orders from a federal district judge to produce it, the judge stayed the execution.
When the case got to the Supreme Court, the majority overturned the stay, saying there was “no evidence in the record to suggest that the drug obtained from a foreign source is unsafe.” There was no evidence — either way — because Arizona defied orders to provide it.
The court’s whitewash highlights the arbitrariness of Mr. Landrigan’s execution. Cheryl Hendrix, the retired Arizona judge who presided over his trial, recently said, “Mr. Landrigan would not have been sentenced to death” if she had been given the medical evidence of the defendant’s brain damage and other factors. Mr. Landrigan’s inept trial lawyer didn’t submit the evidence.
She no longer had the power to alter his fate, but, in an affidavit for the Arizona Board of Executive Clemency, Ms. Hendrix supported his plea to have his death sentence commuted to life. “Since the courts have not corrected this injustice,” she stated, “I am compelled to submit this declaration on Mr. Landrigan’s behalf.” The Supreme Court should have upheld the stay of execution and forced the state to deliver the information called for. It failed, shamefully.
In a comment posted at the Times website, Landrigan's niece Sheridan posted, "I am Jeff Landrigan's niece and I witnessed the very unnatural and bizzare act of his execution."
Nothing about that day on Oct 26th or the 20 years prior to that day were normal. Jefty (as our family affectionately knows him) was a very troubled soul for the majority of his life and there were many years in which I was very angry with him, yet somehow he was able to transform into a very loving and brave man for whom I am proud to say was a member of my family. There were so many things that went terribly wrong for my uncle, from the time he was conceived by two adults that continously abused drugs and alcohol, through his terrible representation for his conviction of murder.
And:
I will be forever grateful to the staff at the office of the Federal Public Defenders offices in Arizona for seeing and understanding my uncle's story and for treating him with the upmost respect. I learned a great many things from Jefty, the most valuable for me was to stay strong, never give up on someone, and to love unconditionally because we all hold value and self worth.
"Public outcry led to execution changes," is the title of Richard Ruelas' Arizona Republic news report in the Saturday edition.
The execution of an Arizona inmate Tuesday evening came after a brief battle in federal court over concerns that a drug used in the lethal injection might not be up to snuff, possibly causing convicted murderer Jeffrey Landrigan to suffer a cruel death.
Such concerns were why Arizona voters adopted lethal injection in the first place, in 1992. It happened after the gas-chamber execution of Donald Eugene Harding left witnesses shaken, including one television-news anchor who called it barbaric.
Harding's execution in April 1992 was the first in Arizona in 30 years.
Harding wanted to go quickly, according to witness accounts. He appeared to inhale deeply, breathing in the cyanide gas. He also defiantly raised his middle fingers in a final salute.
But Harding did not go quickly. His body convulsed, witnesses said, and he gasped and choked for 10 minutes.
Media representatives who witnessed the event held a news conference to describe what they saw. Cameron Harper, then a news anchor at Channel 3 (KTVK), said dogs were put to death more humanely than Harding was. He was not alone in his description of the execution or in decrying it. But his platform as an anchorman gave his words added weight.
James Clark posts, "Jeffrey Landrigan Executed by Arizona Amid Continued Secrecy," at Change.org.
At issue is not whether Great Britain, where Arizona apparently obtained its supply of the lethal injection drug, can produce high quality pharmaceuticals. The question is much more fundamental, having to do with whether this country actually values -- and is willing to uphold -- transparency in government.
Transparency is a hallmark of good government and vital for the people to hold their elected officials accountable. Perhaps nowhere is accountability by the people more necessary than when the state decides to take a life in the people’s name.
In Arizona, state law requires that the identity of executioners remain confidential for their own safety – a reasonable precaution. A wholly unreasonable precaution, however, is the idea that the manufacturer of the drug itself is also an “executioner” whose safety might be at risk if its involvement in executions were known, which has been the state's argument. Regardless, any assertions of confidentiality by the government have to be weighed against the constitutional rights of the people it represents. Before anyone can make fact-based arguments — from Landrigan’s attorneys to government officials — more must be known about the drug.
And there’s the rub with secretive government. The Supreme Court said the defense hadn't demonstrated that the drug was risky, but the defense never got to see the drug to find out. The federal judge who initially granted the defense’s request for a stay wrote that she was “left to speculate” as to the effectiveness of the drug; the Supreme Court, however, said speculation it might be harmful wasn't enough, missing entirely the fact that the basis for any non-speculative claims was being deliberately withheld.
It’s as if the court simply answered the wrong question. They asked themselves whether it’s safe to execute someone with this particular substance – whatever it is – and on the assurances of the state they concluded probably not. But they ignored completely the much more important question of whether it’s safe to allow the government to carry out executions in secret.
Earlier coverage begins with this post.
Comments