Inter Lake editorial
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that lethal injection is not cruel and unusual punishment.
Unfortunately, that will not stop the American Civil Liberties Union from continuing its effort to prevent the execution of Ron Smith for the murder of two men in Flathead County in 1982. The ACLU challenge is based on an analysis of the Montana Constitution, not the U.S. Constitution.
Smith has escaped death many times since he took Harvey Mad Man and Thomas Running Rabbit into the woods and shot them because he wanted to know what it would feel like to kill someone in cold blood. Besides that wanton and brutal slaying, Smith's ability to thwart justice for more than 25 years by avoiding his punishment is the only thing "cruel and unusual" in his case.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court turned back the challenge to lethal injection on a 7-2 vote, saying the three-drug combination intended to sedate, paralyze and kill inmates was not cruel, even if it also was not perfect.
It is somewhat odd, however, that we need to even be debating this since execution itself was not considered "cruel and unusual" at the time of the writing of the U.S. Constitution, and lethal injection is society's response to complaints that other methods of execution such as hanging and firing squad lack dignity even if they are not cruel.
People who wonder what does constitute "cruel and unusual" punishment need only read the history of execution to get many examples. Crucifixion needs no introduction to Christians. It was practiced widely in the ancient world from Persia to Rome, and is still used in the Sudan. Disembowelment involves cutting vital organs out of a person's abdomen. Crushing speaks for itself, as does being buried alive. Other torturous deaths are less known, but equally hideous. Death by scaphism, for instance, means binding the naked prisoner in an enclosed space such as a rowboat and letting him linger on until he is eventually killed by dehydration, insect bites, infection, exposure or some combination thereof.
Knowing a bit of the history of execution, indeed, should convince anyone that lethal injection is not a "cruel and unusual" form of punishment. But of course it doesn't.
That's because opponents of lethal injection are really opponents of capital punishment. They don't really object to the form of the punishment, but to the idea of it. And that ultimately is an attempt to strip one of the primary powers of sovereignty from the people - the power to mete out justice in a manner deemed appropriate by our democratic institutions.
Of course, the people of a state or the people of this nation may choose legislatively to end capital punishment. Many states have done so. But it is best left up to the conscience of the people - rather than the vagaries of the courtroom - to decide morality, and the existence of capital punishment is largely a moral issue, not a legal one.
JB
Preposterous? "The death penalty is much more expensive than its closest alternative -- life imprisonment with no parole." -- from the Death Penalty Infomation Center. If you could just kill people without trials, witnesses, juries and appeals, I'm sure it would be much cheaper, but that is not the case. "Whether you're for it or against it, I think the fact is that Oregon simply can't afford it." -- James Ellis, Chief Criminal Judge Oregon
MrMark
C'mon, j0. Think a little bit here. Our wonderful judicial system should be able to figure that one out. If I can sit here and come up with the situations where one should be put to death, so should you and they. It would be reserved for situations where there is no doubt, leaving everything pretty much status quo. But still, we would be eliminating scum like photoguy mentioned and that clown that's sitting in our jail right now, waiting for a trial that is pretty stupid too, but that's our system. And Rob, to answer your question of who wants to be the executioner? Sign me up dude! Would love to pull the plug on these scum bags. I'd even wave goodbye!
MrMark
Rob, if it's obvious that someone killed someone, any idiot can prosecute. But then again, if it's obvious, why do we even waste time and taxpayers money having a trial to begin with?
Kalispell Native
Nobody knows how painful and cruel lethal injection is, because the subjects of our clinical trials don't live to report any findings.It's funny how conservatives pick and choose between when to bash U.S. Supreme Court decisions in the sacred name of "state's rights" (e.g., abortion), and when to trample state's rights in the proposition that the U.S. Supreme Court is the "highest law in the land." I've never understood how right-wingers who don't trust the government to do much of anything right somehow trust the government to kill only the guilty in determining who lives and who dies. The fact is, we've executed a few innocent people. That alone transforms what Frank calls the "moral issue" of capital punishment into a legal issue (equal protection under the law). As long as the Inter Lake trusts government enough to kill the right citizens, government's margin of error remains springboard to litigation.
mtboat
Kalispell Native: will you explain a little more on this- "It's funny how conservatives pick and choose between when to bash U.S. Supreme Court decisions in the sacred name of "state's rights" (e.g., abortion), and when to trample state's rights in the proposition that the U.S. Supreme Court is the "highest law in the land." I'm not sure I understand.
MrMark
C'mon, Rob. I asked a rhetorical question. My point is that our judicial system needs some revamping. And just what the hell does talking about Nuremberg and war have to do with this subject? And j0, the "scores of executions" that you speak of were mainly due to over zealous prosecutors, shoddy police work, paid under the table judges and stupid jury's. That is exactly why our judicial system sucks. If we had a system of professionals that take all of the facts into consideration and make their decision from that, and get rid of lawyers that are mainly there only for themselves and the money they are going to make, most likely we would put to death only the one's that truly deserve it. As long as there is any doubt, put him prison for life.
Kalispell Native
Certainly, mtboat. Over the years I've seen conservatives bash Supreme Court decisions upholding legal abortion, legal flag burning, and legal gun control. Those conservatives argued that the Court infringed upon states rights. Now, in the particular death penalty decision that is the subject of this editorial, the Court applied a particular verdict to a particular state outside Montana. Montana's attorney general, who is defending Montana's capital punishment system in a current lawsuit, has already publicly explained how the Supreme Court decision affecting the other state is not binding upon Montana. Yet, Frank said in this editorial that it is "odd" the plaintiffs in Montana aren't dropping their lawsuit after the Supreme Court decision. It's really not odd at all, if you understand law or listen to Montana's attorney general.
MrMark
Rob, huh? What the F are you on dude? Would you please speak common folk instead of trying to make yourself sound so intelligent?
MrMark
x
DARC
I don't understand how our barbaric history means lethal injection isn't cruel and unusual? Yes, compared to disembowlment it's not cruel and unusual. Compared to a bullet in the head while the prisoner sleeps it is cruel and unusual. Nice try.
toadzilla
Good comment Narragansett... The only problem with the capital punishment is that it is allowed to be bogged down with streams of law suites by special interest groups. I think keeping a murder in prison with the threat of death for decades is cruel and unusual. Rob... the reason why capital punishment does not deter murderers is because it is not used often enough.
Bob
It seems pretty easy for all opponents of capital punishment to speak out against it but I have a question for all of you that do. What happens when it is your family or the people closest to you that are taken away from you whether it be in the most heinous way or not, either way senselessly? Are you going to still speak out against it then? I am not saying that revenge is the best answer but in hindsight of that, people commit more crimes today than ever before because the punishment is becoming less severe. Leniency only shows people that what they did was ok.
toadzilla
Grasshopper... Priceless! I'm still bursting with laughter!! Rob, sorry but you lost me at the end of your latest comment. I understand (and not because you used CAPS) your 'state' argument, but I'm thankful our Supreme Court Justices made the right decision and now I hope individual states will follow the Supreme Courts lead. I'm not sure about the latter part of your post, but the whole 'individual is primary' thought reeks of Secular Humanism; which on the contrary is very fascist.
JB
It's actually more expensive to carry out an execution than to keep an inmate alive.
MrMark
JB, right! You're going to try and get us to believe that a scum bag in prison for 30 years at about 30k a year is cheaper than ending his miserable life? And toadzilla, exactamundo buddy. If, once the p.o.c. is deemed guilty, and sentenced to die, he should be taken out immediately. It occurs to me that the opponents of capital punishment like to push the issue that there could be a reasonable doubt that the accused isn't really guilty and we might kill someone undeserving. We've all heard of it, and I suppose that a lot have been put to death that didn't do the crime. That's is too bad and is a testament to our shoddy judicial system! But for those, like that idiot that shot his "girlfriend" and then sat around in his house waiting for the swat team to haul his sorry ass out, get him into court and out of this world asap! Maybe the next person who is considering murdering someone will think twice.
MontanaJim72
I'm thinking that a sentence of cruel and unusual punishment would be more of a deterrent to people who feel the need to kill people. If I knew I was faced with a long painful death if I was found guilty of murdering somebody, (usually painful for them), I might be a very reluctant to pull that knife or shoot that gun. Maybe the best solution would be that the killer receives the same punishment as what he did to his victim. That would be retribution, and would probably help the families of the victims to know that he suffered like their relatives suffered.
faithful reader
Bob, your post was emotionally played, but the fact is that crime rates have been falling, not rising. People do NOT "commit more crimes today than ever before."
faithful reader
JB, what I think you mean is that it costs more to keep someone on death row than to have him serve a life sentence. It does not cost less to execute anyone.
BettyBoop
An Eye for an Eye!
bimmermt
How many of you are opposed to abortion? Another unwanted child born into an ignorant, ugly society. I have spent 37 years working with those unwanted children who quickly become outcasts in this supposedly generous, accepting Country. These criminals were once like you, innocent and vulnerable. Then the vicious cycle of degradation, poverty and violence attacks them in much the same way cancer cells attack the body. They have no defense system. They die, whether it comes from lethal injections, alcohol, or meth. We call them scum bags or trash. We "pray" for them to die. They get what they deserve. Truly, what they deserve is the conscience of humanity: family, food, shelter. A chance to become...
MrMark
bimmermt, I too feel for these kids who are cast offs. We should have a way to smack those "parents" up along side the head. However, most of these kids, at some point, have heard that murder is wrong. Along that way, they have also realized that, doing that wrong has little or no circumstance. Again I state, if we had more circumstance attributed to the wrong, maybe the statistics of "outcasts" that murder would start to diminish. And as for you, Narragansett, what if your family member had been murdered in a horrible fashion. Are you telling me that you wouldn't want ultimate retribution? If you say no, either you're Jesus or a liar. Please don't give us your holier that thou bs.
MrMark
oops...change that to than.
MrMark
Sorry Narragansett. I missed that connection. And I re-visited your post 2 above Rob's and had to laugh at your thought of the ACLU. Perfect!!
photoguy
What does it accomplish? Well in the case of a Texas man, that I watched on the Bio channel last night, it would have prevented 4 more people from being killed, this man killed three teen agers in 1966, was sentenced to death, the sentence was commuted to life in the 70's because the courts overturned the death penalty, and then he was paroled in the late 80's, well guess what, yup he started raping and killing again, taking 4 more known murdered people and there is now evidence, he did more than that, so in that case, the death penalty would have prevented him from killing 4 and possibly more people!