Idaho halted the execution of serial killer Thomas Eugene Creech on Wednesday after medical team members repeatedly failed to find a vein where they could establish an intravenous line to carry out the lethal injection. Creech, 73, has been in prison half a century, convicted of five murders in three states and suspected of several more. Creech, one of the longest-serving death row inmates in the U.S., was wheeled into the execution chamber at the Idaho Maximum Security Institution on a gurney a
  • admiralteal@kbin.social
    19·
    7 months ago

    And the way they determine “unusual” is by doing this absolutely ahistoric, arbitrary polling of current policy. They cherry pick whatever statistics serve the politics of the person writing the decision.

    e.g., when ruling whether it was “unusual” to execute people with cogitative disabilities (Atkins v. Virginia), they did a tally of how many states allowed execution in these cases vs did not but deliberately omitted how many states do not allow ANY executions. Then concluded that slightly more states allow executions of the mentally unfit than don’t even though it was absolutely incontestable fact that the vast majority of states did not allow this kind of execution.

    Ignore that the ruling technically banned those executions… because it factually didn’t, since it left it up to states to define cognitive disability however they pleased and the behavior of the kill-happy states was not affected by the ruling.

      • admiralteal@kbin.social
        1·
        7 months ago

        Here’s what the segregationist William Rehnquist wrote, joined by Scalia and Thomas.

        The Court pronounces the punishment cruel and unusual primarily because 18 States recently have passed laws limiting the death eligibility of certain defendants based on mental retardation alone, despite the fact that the laws of 19 other States besides Virginia continue to leave the question of proper punishment to the individuated consideration of sentencing judges or juries familiar with the particular offender and his or her crime

        I agree with JUSTICE SCALIA, post, at 337-338 (dissenting opinion), that the Court’s assessment of the current legislative judgment regarding the execution of defendants like petitioner more resembles a post hoc rationalization for the majority’s subjectively preferred result rather than any objective effort to ascertain the content of an evolving standard of decency.

        This was 2002. Do the math. Why is it, you suppose, that 18 + 19 didn’t equal 50? Because the other 13 states do not allow the death penalty. So according to Scalia, the fact that 18 states have laws against execution convicts who are not mentally fit to stand trial and an additional 13 do not allow execution period is not enough to prove that the current “standard of decency” is not to execute in these cases. It’s fucking asinine.

        He also implies that the fact that the majority cited amicus briefs from European lawmakers, religious institutions, and scientific public opinion polls is somehow a demerit to their decision and not a valid way to determine what the current public sentiment is towards the issue.

        It’s a perfect case study in how the conservatives on the court operate. Have always operated. Will always operate. They just lie, cheat, steal, and do whatever they want. They sort of failed in this case, but if they could’ve gotten the votes they absolutely would’ve pushed this forward as part of the case law. It was an attempt to flatly fabricate

        • BolexForSoup@kbin.social
          1·
          7 months ago

          the execution of defendants like petitioner more resembles a post hoc rationalization for the majority’s subjectively preferred result rather than any objective effort to ascertain the content of an evolving standard of decency.

          Couldn’t agree more. That is so messed up.