Big Lizards:Blog:Entry “Three-Judge Monte”

« Shakespearian Epiphany | Main | Time To Ex-Specterate? »

April 26, 2006

Three-Judge Monte

Hatched by Dafydd

Want a preview of what the Supreme Court would be like if a Democrat won the presidency in 2008? Check out this gang-mugging of Florida Assistant Deputy Attorney General Carolyn Snurkowski and U.S. Justice Department lawyer Kannon Shanmugam. The subject: whether even lethal injection is too "cruel and unusual" a method of execution:

Several Supreme Court justices on Wednesday grilled state and U.S. government lawyers about whether lethal injections as currently administered for executions caused excruciating pain.

"Your procedure would be prohibited if applied to dogs and cats," Justice John Paul Stevens told Florida Assistant Deputy Attorney General Carolyn Snurkowski.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg also asked whether the method currently used involved the risk of a death row prisoner dying an excruciating death....

Several justices questioned whether the state had investigated the method of lethal injection to make sure it was administered in the most humane and painless way possible.

Justice Stephen Breyer said states could administer more sodium pentothal to ease the pain or could have a doctor present at the execution. "That doesn't seem too difficult," he told Snurkowski.

We notice which three justices constitute "several": Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer. Quelle surprise!

Breyer is being utterly disingenuous, of course. He knows very well that a requirement that a doctor be present at the execution -- thus assisting it, even if he never touches the condemned -- is the same as banning all executions... because doctors are absolutely forbidden by the code of ethics of the AMA to assist at executions in any way, and any doctor who did so would be in danger of losing his license to practice medicine. The most a doctor is allowed to do is to be brought in after the execution is over to examine the corpse and officially declare it dead.

Justice Breyer is well aware of this; he's not an utter fool. It's quite explicit in the American Medical Association Code of Medical Ethics:

E-2.06 Capital Punishment

An individual’s opinion on capital punishment is the personal moral decision of the individual. A physician, as a member of a profession dedicated to preserving life when there is hope of doing so, should not be a participant in a legally authorized execution. Physician participation in execution is defined generally as actions which would fall into one or more of the following categories: (1) an action which would directly cause the death of the condemned; (2) an action which would assist, supervise, or contribute to the ability of another individual to directly cause the death of the condemned; (3) an action which could automatically cause an execution to be carried out on a condemned prisoner.

Physician participation in an execution includes, but is not limited to, the following actions: prescribing or administering tranquilizers and other psychotropic agents and medications that are part of the execution procedure; monitoring vital signs on site or remotely (including monitoring electrocardiograms); attending or observing an execution as a physician; and rendering of technical advice regarding execution.

In the case where the method of execution is lethal injection, the following actions by the physician would also constitute physician participation in execution: selecting injection sites; starting intravenous lines as a port for a lethal injection device; prescribing, preparing, administering, or supervising injection drugs or their doses or types; inspecting, testing, or maintaining lethal injection devices; and consulting with or supervising lethal injection personnel.

By contrast, of course, the AMA has no policy against partial-birth abortion... even in the ninth month of pregnancy... though it does suggest that third-trimester abortions not be performed unless the doctor really thinks it necessary:

According to the scientific literature, there does not appear to be any identified situation in which intact D&X [partial-birth abortion] is the only appropriate procedure to induce abortion, and ethical concerns have been raised about intact D&X. The AMA recommends that the procedure not be used unless alternative procedures pose materially greater risk to the woman. The physician must, however, retain the discretion to make that judgment, acting within standards of good medical practice and in the best interest of the patient.

There appears to be no opportunity for a doctor to participate in an execution, however -- even if he really thinks it necessary.

We've been through this before:

February 15th, 2006 -- If I Should Ouch Before I Die

February 21st, 2006 -- Doctors Overturn Death Penalty

As a friend of mine used to say, "same car, different plastic."

This is the back-door method that the Left hopes to use to ban all executions -- regardless of the will of the people. The whole "Project Innocence" tactic turned out to be a big bust: they thought that if they could find even a single person executed who might have been innocent, then America would turn away from capital punishment in national revulsion.

But it turns out Americans are more sophisticated than Democrats thought. Most people already believe that innocent people have occasionally been wrongfully executed:

Caryl Chessman, executed in 1960 for being the "Red-Light Bandit," is probably one such; the evidence against him was pathetic, and his trial was a mockery of justice. Bruno Hauptmann, executed in 1936 for the kidnapping and murder of the Lindbergh baby, may well be another.

Alas for the anti-execution fanatics, citizens have already factored this likelihood into their support for the death penalty. They understand that justice is never perfect, and innocent people are convicted, sent to prison, and some even die in prison, only to be exonerated posthumously.

Sadly, some innocent people (at least innocent of the particular murder) have been executed... and others will surely be executed in the future. It's guaranteed. But more innocent people will die if murderers are not executed than the tiny number of innocents wrongfully executed... and Americans (unlike liberals) comprehend this fact.

The anti-execution Left finally understands that it will never turn Americans against the death penalty, or at least not in the forseeable future. So they turn to their most reliable weapon in their war against the people: the federal courts. They got hanging banned as a method of execution because it was "cruel and unusual;" it was replaced by Old Sparky, until that was banned; electrocution was replaced by the gas chamber -- until that, too was banned for causing pain.

The final replacement was lethal injection, the most gentle and painless method imaginable for putting a murderer to death. And now lethal injection is under the same assault... for the same reason: somebody might get hurt -- before he dies.

Fortunately, we have a breath of fresh sanity on the Court:

On the other side, Justice Antonin Scalia, a strong death penalty supporter, said the Supreme Court has never held that a state must use a method that causes the least amount of pain.

"Hanging was not a quick and easy way to go," Scalia said.

Perhaps this goes a long way towards explaining this disturbing trend on the Left. From RealClearPolitics Blog:

The Coordinated Attack on Scalia

As Ronald Cass wrote three weeks ago on RealClearPolitics, expect to hear the call for Justice Scalia to recuse himself to continue as liberals try and find ways to silence the conservative justice....

I hope conservative Republicans come to their senses -- and come back to the party. As much as they believe George W. Bush is not a conservative (and to be fair, he made it clear in 2000 that he was something related but different, a "compassionate conservative"), his judicial appointments have been stellar compared to those of his predecessor -- and compared to those we know would come from a Democratic successor.

And the worst possible thing we could do to promote a sane and rational judiciary (along with every other desirable policy, from less spending to border control to national defense) is help elect more Democrats to Congress... either by voting for them ourselves, or even by sitting home and sulking on November 7th.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, April 26, 2006, at the time of 5:12 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/704

Comments

The following hissed in response by: Bill M

"And the worst possible thing we could do to promote a sane and rational judiciary (along with every other desirable policy, from less spending to border control to national defense) is help elect more Democrats to Congress... either by voting for them ourselves, or even by sitting home and sulking on November 7th."
---------------------

Absoposolutely!

The stakes are just too high. This needs to be repeated loudly and often!

The above hissed in response by: Bill M at April 26, 2006 6:39 PM

The following hissed in response by: bpilch

The right is made up of lots of people that have different hot button issues. For some of the right to throw a hissy fit and stay home, will not advance their agenda and will hurt all of us. Personally, I don't care about abortion, but I was a strong supporter of Roberts and Alito. I am very fiscally conservative and wish Bush and the Republican leaders in Congress were more tightfisted. It is all a grand compromise, and for the far right to think they are being taken for granted like the Dems take the blacks for granted is plain wrong. It is not the right's god given right to govern, it has to be earned by cobbling together a majority and serving their interests better than the alternative. They are doing that. If anyone thinks their interests are better served by a Democratic majority or president, then stay home or vote that way. But otherwise, staying home, sulking, and forming the vocal opposition is what the loonies on the left do...

The above hissed in response by: bpilch at April 26, 2006 7:11 PM

The following hissed in response by: Mr. Michael

Frankly I understand the desire to stay home... when disgust for one politician so pervades your emotions, you just cannot find it in yourself to hold your nose and vote for the idjit in question. Or, as in my case, the Democrats have SUCH a stranglehold on the Congressional seats that playing the part of Don Quixote does not appeal.

But I agree with Dafyyd, the governance of our country is MUCH too important to indulge in nursing personal grudges. I cannot support my local GOP candidates becuase they are generally so bad as to be unelectable; why waste my time when even the message they DO manage to get out is lost in the wind?

My alternative is to go National. As an informed voter, I can discover which Republican candidates could use some extra cash... and it's legal for me in Seattle to support, say, Mr. Steele over in Maryland. That way I KNOW that my money will have a strong effect, help roll back the Socialists, and help America.

I encourage EVERYBODY to find at least one Senator and one Houser to support from outside thier own state. Yes, "All Politics Is Local" is the accepted truism, but your Federal laws are enforced locally. We can influence them through ANY of the National Congress members, and there are perfectly acceptable ways to help those who support your views. Even if they have to support them from across the country.

The above hissed in response by: Mr. Michael at April 26, 2006 11:30 PM

The following hissed in response by: nk

I realize that it was not your main point, but was Justice Stevens being disingenuous? That is mostly the way pets are "put to sleep" -- either with a curare-derived injection which paralyzes their lungs causing them to suffocate or a decompression chamber which does the same thing. I wish I could see into the heads of death-penalty opponents who have such empathy for the murderer but do not seem to show any for the horror, pain, fear and despair of the victims or of the victims' families' loss of a parent, child, sister or brother.

The above hissed in response by: nk at April 27, 2006 5:37 AM

The following hissed in response by: Kent

"And the worst possible thing we could do to promote a sane and rational judiciary (along with every other desirable policy, from less spending to border control to national defense) is help elect more Democrats to Congress... either by voting for them ourselves, or even by sitting home and sulking on November 7th."

This might be a reason to continue supporting Bush, except for two little words:

Harriet Miers

The above hissed in response by: Kent at April 27, 2006 10:21 AM

The following hissed in response by: Mike Wood

Legally authorized execution. That means a doctor cannot attend at an abortion either.

The above hissed in response by: Mike Wood at April 27, 2006 11:46 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Kent:

This might be a reason to continue supporting Bush, except for two little words:

Harriet Miers

So you're saying she turned out to be a really bad judge, and you were quite upset with her rulings?

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh at April 27, 2006 12:33 PM

The following hissed in response by: Big D

Is there a way to measure pain reliably? Skull electrodes or whatever? Dafydd, you're a sci-fi kinda guy, help us out here. Wouldn't that be better than having the doctor standing around saying "Yeah, he might be experiencing some pain." My dentist certainly never seems to know (or care) about my pain. Speaking of the dentist, is being executed by lethal injection more painful than having a tooth drilled? If not, how is it cruel or unusual?

This is a liberal trend. "If we can only show the public the truth, the real truth, it would change their minds." The corollary is that they are always right, and that any moral human would agree with them. Of course they discount the concept that a) most people may already know the truth and don't agree with them, or b) most people don't care.

Dying hurts. Get over it.

The above hissed in response by: Big D at April 27, 2006 12:58 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Big D:

Is there a way to measure pain reliably?

Well no, because what you'd really have to be measuring is a person's tolerance for pain. Actually, I think the worst part of being executed (for me, at least) wouldn't be the physical pain; it would be the existential terror of knowing I was being strapped down to be killed, and I was helpless to stop it.

Perhaps the Democrats would only support execution if the condemned had no idea he was going to be executed... if he were tried in secret by some star-chamber proceeding (preferably in absentia, otherwise he might guess the outcome based on how his defense went), sentenced sub rosa, and if one day, someone just slid up behind and capped him.

Is that what they're angling for?

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh at April 27, 2006 2:30 PM

The following hissed in response by: Big D

I think you are right. "Do not struggle. We are only taking you to the showers...." Evil laugh.

There was a line from somewhere "Bad enough you are trying to kill me, but what really pisses me off is your telling me about it..."

The above hissed in response by: Big D at April 28, 2006 10:56 AM

The following hissed in response by: cdquarles

I know this is late (computer and ISP trouble), but...

Death is painless, dying, OTOH, may or may not be painless. An execution can be painless. Render the criminal unconscious prior to inducing irreversible cessation of metabolism. IMO, that's too good for the kind of human depravity that deserve the justice of capital punishment. These folks grievously harmed another, usually conscious, person. They should have their life taken in the same manner.

The above hissed in response by: cdquarles at May 18, 2006 12:14 AM