• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Kill the Death Penalty

People are still making 8th amendment arguments and filing 1983 claims. I don't know if they were here but in general these are still used.
 
Been following the Glossip case for the better part of a year to eighteen months related to another death penalty case and this is certainly interesting. Midazolam's use in the cocktail is interesting given that it doesn't provide much upside and does have a decent amount of downside.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Been following the Glossip case for the better part of a year to eighteen months related to another death penalty case and this is certainly interesting. Midazolam's use in the cocktail is interesting given that it doesn't provide much upside and does have a decent amount of downside.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court didn't seem to think that was an issue
 
wfudkn said:
I'm not a death penalty scholar by any means, but what would have been the legal arguments for staying the execution. This doesn't seem to be a case where there is any doubt as to her involvement in the crime. Are people still making 8th amendment arguments?
Click to expand...

In the GA case, her execution was already called off once before because the drugs appeared cloudy, and they were going to conduct this execution with the same drugs. Also there was a bit of an interesting Eighth Amendment argument (that failed obviously) that the evolving standards of decency in this country didn't allow for a person who did not actually commit a murder to be executed while the actual killer was not sentenced to death.

And a third appeal in the case had to do with the fact that the warden of the prison prevented prison staff from submitting statements to the clemency board about Gissendaner (that presumably would have supported her), in apparent violation of Georgia law. The GA court ruled that because the clemency board had already made its determination, there was no remedy for that violation at this point

She got rejected by SCOTUS (and a number of other courts) three separate times last night, by my count picking up six votes in her favor between all the motions and courts
 
Last edited:
avalon said:
Gov. Mary Fallin issues stay of execution for Richard Glossip in final hour

She says the stay is related to the drugs used to execute, as opposed to the questions about his guilt. This was a surprise as she had earlier said she would not halt the execution. (A representative for the pope sent her a letter asking her to commute Glossip's sentence.)
Click to expand...

This is a clusterfuck. How do you get all the way to the day of execution and realize that you don't have one of the drugs you need? The protocol that they just got upheld by SCOTUS called for potassium chloride, and they got to the day of the execution and realized that what they have on hand is potassium acetate, not potassium chloride?? These are the people who are entrusted to humanely take the lives of someone else.

I actually did a little bit of digging through the record the other day, and there are a LOT of potential issues that combined seem to present at least plausible case that he is actually innocent, or at worst that he was denied a fair trial and received ineffective assistance of counsel. But unless something new happens in the next 37 days, doesn't look like he has any chance of prevailing as SCOTUS already rejected his final appeals before the stay

Some examples:

- The main thing implicating Glossip is the testimony of the guy who actually killed the victim. That guy, Justin Sneed, confessed to the murder on video and didn't mention anything about Glossip. It wasn't until later when a detective basically introduced to Sneed the idea that Glossip was involved that he fingered Glossip.

Glossip's first conviction was reversed a new trial was ordered because of ineffective assistance of counsel in part because his lawyer didn't show the jury the video of the first confession where Sneed didn't mention Glossip. Then, unbelievably, in his second trial, the lawyer did the exact same thing not showing the video - but this time the appeals court didn't reverse, calling it a litigation strategy decision.

- The prosecutor had a large pad of paper on an easel and as witnesses made statements implicating Glossip, he wrote these down on the papers and hung the papers around the courtroom. These then stayed hanging up in the courtroom throughout the trial, arguably tainting the jury by continuously exposing them to the statements. Glossip's attorney objected to this, and when the court allowed it, he asked the judge to preserve the pieces of paper in the record so that he would be able to show them to the appeals court. The judge refused to do that. Glossip's attorney then asked if he could take photos of how they were placed in the court room, again so there would be some record, and the judge got mad at him and basically told him to go pound sand.

Thus, there was no real way for the appeals court to review whether the placement of these papers could have been prejudicial to the jury. The appeals court unanimously agreed that the trial court should have preserved the papers in the record, but three of the five somehow held that not doing so was harmless error - though I'm not sure how they would have anything to base this on since there was no evidence preserved as to whether the papers caused harm or not.
 
Last edited:
MysteryMen said:
The Supreme Court didn't seem to think that was an issue
Click to expand...

Sure but plenty of scientists who are experts in the area advocate for a two-drug cocktail. It's not that three drugs automatically create a problem but it certainly increases the odds of something going wrong.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Been following the Glossip case for the better part of a year to eighteen months related to another death penalty case and this is certainly interesting. Midazolam's use in the cocktail is interesting given that it doesn't provide much upside and does have a decent amount of downside.
Click to expand...



could you briefly elaborate?
 
dmcheatw said:
[/B]

could you briefly elaborate?
Click to expand...

My #amateur knowledge comes almost exclusively on the SCOTUS case about it last term, but basically midazolam is being used as a substitute for sodium thiopental, which is the drug in the cocktail that is supposed to render the person unconscious. But in normal medical practice, midazolam isn't really used for rendering people unconscious for surgery and there was an argument that it is not strong enough to do so. The doses being used in executions are many times higher than in medical practice, but there was evidence that midazolam has a low "ceiling effect", and so just because you are using high doses doesn't mean that it's more likely to render someone completely unconscious.

Complicating this is the fact that a paralytic is used in these executions, so if the midazolam doesn't make the person unconscious, he could just be lying there in excruciating pain but unable to move or show any indication that he is not unconscious.

The botched execution in Oklahoma last year used midazolam and the person woke up during the execution, though it's not clear how much midazolam actually made it into his system because the IV wasn't placed correctly.

Maybe Numbers has more to add
 
I do not support the death penalty anymore, and I think if we're going to do it we should use the guillotine and do it publicly so the citizenry is forced to witness what is being done in their name.

That said, it is common layman's knowledge that drugs used in surgical anesthesia put people to sleep painlessly and overdoses of those same drugs can, and do, kill people. Michael Jackson is a good example. Why are the states insisting on these three drug cocktails that have to be imported from Europe and cause such problems? Are there no anesthesia drugs manufactured in the US? Do the people that make whatever killed Michael Jackson refuse to sell it for executions? Just seems like a whole bunch of sound and fury over a problem that should be easy to solve (not that I want it solved).
 
Deacon923 said:
I do not support the death penalty anymore, and I think if we're going to do it we should use the guillotine and do it publicly so the citizenry is forced to witness what is being done in their name.

That said, it is common layman's knowledge that drugs used in surgical anesthesia put people to sleep painlessly and overdoses of those same drugs can, and do, kill people. Michael Jackson is a good example. Why are the states insisting on these three drug cocktails that have to be imported from Europe and cause such problems? Are there no anesthesia drugs manufactured in the US? Do the people that make whatever killed Michael Jackson refuse to sell it for executions? Just seems like a whole bunch of sound and fury over a problem that should be easy to solve (not that I want it solved).
Click to expand...

from what I've read a lot of the US drug companies refuse to sell drugs for use in executions.
 
I'll never understand how so many of the same people who are pro-life are in favor of capital punishment.
 
MysteryMen said:
My #amateur knowledge comes almost exclusively on the SCOTUS case about it last term, but basically midazolam is being used as a substitute for sodium thiopental, which is the drug in the cocktail that is supposed to render the person unconscious. But in normal medical practice, midazolam isn't really used for rendering people unconscious for surgery and there was an argument that it is not strong enough to do so. The doses being used in executions are many times higher than in medical practice, but there was evidence that midazolam has a low "ceiling effect", and so just because you are using high doses doesn't mean that it's more likely to render someone completely unconscious.

Complicating this is the fact that a paralytic is used in these executions, so if the midazolam doesn't make the person unconscious, he could just be lying there in excruciating pain but unable to move or show any indication that he is not unconscious.

The botched execution in Oklahoma last year used midazolam and the person woke up during the execution, though it's not clear how much midazolam actually made it into his system because the IV wasn't placed correctly.

Maybe Numbers has more to add
Click to expand...

This pretty much nails it. Just to add a little bit more to this and 923's post is that there is pretty close to a scientific consensus (at least for those who have weighed in specifically on cocktails to be used for injection) that a three drug cocktail is overkill. The reason the states went away from the traditional cocktail was sodium thiopental and pentobarbital became very difficult to obtain since European pharmaceuticals refuse to send any of these compounds to states for use and many Amerixan companies have begun to do the same. Similarly the DEA seized some of the sodium thiopental over the legality of their importation.

Eight states use a single drug method and pentobarbital by itself is used by some states (Arizona for instance). Something like 15 more will or would use this method but haven't had an execution in a while to do so.
 
From a more legal perspective one major issue with current jurisprudence is that in order to even get beyond the motion to dismiss stage (or more practically to get a preliminary injunction) on a method of execution eighth amendment claim, you have to plead and prove a known and available alternative which could be used. Essentially to prevail on that claim you have to almost literally tie and hang your own noose. That's a pretty unenviable position for the plaintiff to be in. The best state to bring a challenge on this ground in would seemingly be one where lethal injection is the only permissible means of execution (as far as I know states like Mississippi, Indiana, Kansas, Colorado, Nevada, maybe recently Idaho?)

Anyone interested on this specific topic should read the recent Glossip decision, Baze v. Rees, and to a lesser extent Hill v. McDonough (although this is more procedural and deals with the proper vehicle for an 8th amendment claim).
 
MysteryMen said:
My #amateur knowledge comes almost exclusively on the SCOTUS case about it last term, but basically midazolam is being used as a substitute for sodium thiopental, which is the drug in the cocktail that is supposed to render the person unconscious. But in normal medical practice, midazolam isn't really used for rendering people unconscious for surgery and there was an argument that it is not strong enough to do so. The doses being used in executions are many times higher than in medical practice, but there was evidence that midazolam has a low "ceiling effect", and so just because you are using high doses doesn't mean that it's more likely to render someone completely unconscious.

Complicating this is the fact that a paralytic is used in these executions, so if the midazolam doesn't make the person unconscious, he could just be lying there in excruciating pain but unable to move or show any indication that he is not unconscious.

The botched execution in Oklahoma last year used midazolam and the person woke up during the execution, though it's not clear how much midazolam actually made it into his system because the IV wasn't placed correctly.

Maybe Numbers has more to add
Click to expand...

Thanks for taking the time to answer that. Having had it by IV during pre-op many times, I was curious as to what they used it for in executions. It's very potent but wears off very quickly. It would basically make you not care that you were about to die, but as far as inducing unconsciousness i would agree that it wouldn't be very effective.

I agree with all the problems mentioned. I don't understand who is doing these executions? All they really need to do is get an actual anesthesiologist and some type of opiate. You can't botch it, because if you do not only is the patient in no pain and passed out, but then you simply keep adding more until breathing stops. No need for any additional drugs and is actually very inexpensive.
 
I don't believe anesthesiologists are permitted to participate in capital punishment if they want to be certified by the ABA.
 
MysteryMen said:
This is a clusterfuck. How do you get all the way to the day of execution and realize that you don't have one of the drugs you need? The protocol that they just got upheld by SCOTUS called for potassium chloride, and they got to the day of the execution and realized that what they have on hand is potassium acetate, not potassium chloride?? These are the people who are entrusted to humanely take the lives of someone else.

I actually did a little bit of digging through the record the other day, and there are a LOT of potential issues that combined seem to present at least plausible case that he is actually innocent, or at worst that he was denied a fair trial and received ineffective assistance of counsel. But unless something new happens in the next 37 days, doesn't look like he has any chance of prevailing as SCOTUS already rejected his final appeals before the stay

Some examples:

- The main thing implicating Glossip is the testimony of the guy who actually killed the victim. That guy, Justin Sneed, confessed to the murder on video and didn't mention anything about Glossip. It wasn't until later when a detective basically introduced to Sneed the idea that Glossip was involved that he fingered Glossip.

Glossip's first conviction was reversed a new trial was ordered because of ineffective assistance of counsel in part because his lawyer didn't show the jury the video of the first confession where Sneed didn't mention Glossip. Then, unbelievably, in his second trial, the lawyer did the exact same thing not showing the video - but this time the appeals court didn't reverse, calling it a litigation strategy decision.

- The prosecutor had a large pad of paper on an easel and as witnesses made statements implicating Glossip, he wrote these down on the papers and hung the papers around the courtroom. These then stayed hanging up in the courtroom throughout the trial, arguably tainting the jury by continuously exposing them to the statements. Glossip's attorney objected to this, and when the court allowed it, he asked the judge to preserve the pieces of paper in the record so that he would be able to show them to the appeals court. The judge refused to do that. Glossip's attorney then asked if he could take photos of how they were placed in the court room, again so there would be some record, and the judge got mad at him and basically told him to go pound sand.

Thus, there was no real way for the appeals court to review whether the placement of these papers could have been prejudicial to the jury. The appeals court unanimously agreed that the trial court should have preserved the papers in the record, but three of the five somehow held that not doing so was harmless error - though I'm not sure how they would have anything to base this on since there was no evidence preserved as to whether the papers caused harm or not.
Click to expand...

No doubt here
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
I don't believe anesthesiologists are permitted to participate in capital punishment if they want to be certified by the ABA.
Click to expand...

that's really too bad, and that would explain all these ridiculous, amateur hr executions.
 
Oh also the reason people are making 8th amendment claims at this stage is generally because they've exhausted all other appeals so this is basically it for them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top