DOCSLIB.ORG

The Lethal Injection Quandary: How Medicine Has Dismantled the Death Penalty

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Lethal Injection Quandary: How Medicine Has Dismantled the Death Penalty Fordham Law Review Volume 76 Issue 1 Article 3 2007 The Lethal Injection Quandary: How Medicine Has Dismantled the Death Penalty Deborah W. Denno Fordham University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Deborah W. Denno, The Lethal Injection Quandary: How Medicine Has Dismantled the Death Penalty, 76 Fordham L. Rev. 49 (2007). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol76/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Lethal Injection Quandary: How Medicine Has Dismantled the Death Penalty Cover Page Footnote Arthur A. McGivney Professor of Law, Fordham University School of Law. B.A., University of Virginia; M.A., University of Toronto; Ph.D., J.D., University of Pennsylvania. I am most grateful to the following individuals for their contributions to this article: Ty Alper, Daniel Auld, David Baldus, David Barron, Ned Benton, Douglas Berman, Leigh Buchanan Bienen, John Blume, Edward Brunner, Peter Cannon, A. Jay Chapman, Eric Columbus, Stanley Deutsch, Richard Dieter, Lawrence Egbert, Watt Espy, Roberta Harding, Mark Heath, Fred Jordan, Natasha Minsker, Michael Radelet, Ellyde Roko, Ruth Wachtel, William Wiseman, and Arthur Zitrin. I give special thanks to Daniel Auld and Ellyde Roko for their superb efforts in collecting and analyzing the information on lethal injection protocols, and to Ellyde Roko for excellent research assistance. Jay Chapman generously and openly provided numerous articles, e-mails, telephone commentary, and private notes relating to the history of lethal injection and his particular role. Members of Fordham Law School's library staff--Laurence Abraham, Juan Fernandez, Todd Melnick, and Larry Reeves--gave wonderful expertise. Several individuals and organizations offered helpful information: Michelle Christ, Steve Hall, Rick Halperin, Gary Harrington, Charles Hoffman, Gavin Lee, Todd Maybrown, Eileen McNerney, Stephen Slater, and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP. Many prison officials and administrators throughout the country graciously provided their time and resources to describe the execution protocols and procedures that this Article discusses. The names and affiliations of these individuals are listed in this Article's Appendix. I thank Fordham Law School for research funding and the Fordham Law Review for outstanding editorial assistance. No individual or organization acknowledged in this Article necessarily supports the Article's interpretations or conclusions. Responsibility for any mistakes or misjudgments rests solely with the author. This article is available in Fordham Law Review: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol76/iss1/3 ARTICLES THE LETHAL INJECTION QUANDARY: HOW MEDICINE HAS DISMANTLED THE DEATH PENALTY Deborah W. Denno* On February 20, 2006, Michael Morales was hours away from execution in California when two anesthesiologists declined to participate in his lethal injection procedure, thereby halting all state executions. The events brought to the surface the long-runningschism between law and medicine, raising the question of whether any beneficial connection between the professions ever existed in the execution context. History shows it seldom did. Decades of botched executions prove it. This Article examines how states ended up with such constitutionally vulnerable lethal injection procedures, suggesting that physician participation in executions, though looked upon with disdain, is more prevalent-andperhaps more necessary-than many would like to believe. The Article also reports the results of this author's unique nationwide study * Arthur A. McGivney Professor of Law, Fordham University School of Law. B.A., University of Virginia; M.A., University of Toronto; Ph.D., J.D., University of Pennsylvania. I am most grateful to the following individuals for their contributions to this article: Ty Alper, Daniel Auld, David Baldus, David Barron, Ned Benton, Douglas Berman, Leigh Buchanan Bienen, John Blume, Edward Brunner, Peter Cannon, A. Jay Chapman, Eric Columbus, Stanley Deutsch, Richard Dieter, Lawrence Egbert, Watt Espy, Roberta Harding, Mark Heath, Fred Jordan, Natasha Minsker, Michael Radelet, Ellyde Roko, Ruth Wachtel, William Wiseman, and Arthur Zitrin. I give special thanks to Daniel Auld and Ellyde Roko for their superb efforts in collecting and analyzing the information on lethal injection protocols, and to Ellyde Roko for excellent research assistance. Jay Chapman generously and openly provided numerous articles, e-mails, telephone commentary, and private notes relating to the history of lethal injection and his particular role. Members of Fordham Law School's library staff-Laurence Abraham, Juan Fernandez, Todd Melnick, and Larry Reeves-gave wonderful expertise. Several individuals and organizations offered helpful information: Michelle Christ, Steve Hall, Rick Halperin, Gary Harrington, Charles Hoffman, Gavin Lee, Todd Maybrown, Eileen McNerney, Stephen Slater, and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP. Many prison officials and administrators throughout the country graciously provided their time and resources to describe the execution protocols and procedures that this Article discusses. The names and affiliations of these individuals are listed in this Article's Appendix. I thank Fordham Law School for research funding and the Fordham Law Review for outstanding editorial assistance. No individual or organization acknowledged in this Article necessarily supports the Article's interpretations or conclusions. Responsibility for any mistakes or misjudgments rests solely with the author. FORDHAMLA WREVIEW [Vol. 76 of lethal injection protocols and medical participation. The study demonstrates that states have continued to produce grossly inadequate protocols that severely restrict sufficient understanding of how executions are performed and heighten the likelihood of unconstitutionality. The analysis emphasizes in particular the utter lack of medical or scientific testing of lethal injection despite the early and continuous involvement of doctors but ongoing detachment of medical societies. Lastly, the Article discusses the legal developments that led up to the current rush of lethal injection lawsuits as well as the strong and rapid reverberations that followed, particularlywith respect to medical involvement. This Article concludes with two recommendations. First,much like what occurred in this country when thefirst state switched to electrocution, there should be a nationwide study of proper lethal injection protocols. An independent commission consisting of a diverse group of qualified individuals, including medical personnel, should conduct a thorough assessment of lethal injection, especially the extent of physician participation. Second, this Article recommends that states take their execution procedures out of hiding. Such visibility would increase public scrutiny, thereby enhancingthe likelihood of constitutionalexecutions. By clarifying the standards usedfor determining what is constitutional in Baze v. Rees, the U.S. Supreme Court can then provide the kind of Eighth Amendment guidance states need to conduct humane lethal injections. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 51 I. THE SEARCH FOR A MEDICALLY HUMANE EXECUTION ..................... 59 A. Before Lethal Injection ......................................................... 62 B. The Advent of Lethal Injection.............................................. 64 1. Oklahom a Roots ............................................................... 65 2. No Medical or Scientific Study ........................................ 70 3. Human Execution and Animal Euthanasia ...................... 75 II. WHAT DOES "PHYSICIAN PARTICIPATION" MEAN? ............ .. .. 77 A . Copying Oklahoma ................................................................ 78 B. Medical Associations Respond .............................................. 79 1. The American Medical Association .................................. 80 2. A Breach of Trust ............................................................. 83 C. PhysiciansStill Participate.................................................... 84 D. Physician Participationin Context ....................................... 88 III. THE IMPORTANCE OF PROTOCOL ...................................................... 91 A. Lethal Injection Statutes ......................................................... 93 B. The Public Availability of Protocols .................................... 95 C. Changes in Lethal Injection Protocols ................................... 96 IV. THE SEARCH FOR A HUMANE EXECUTION CONTINUES ..................... 101 A. The Supreme Court's Involvement ........................................... 102 2007] THE LETHAL INJECTION QUANDARY 51 B. The Ripple Effects of Nelson and Hill ...................................... 106 1. C alifornia ........................................................................... 107 2 . M isso uri ............................................................................. 10 8 3. N orth C arolina ................................................................... 111 4
Load more

Recommended publications
  • LETHAL INJECTION: the Medical Technology of Execution
    LETHAL INJECTION: The medical technology of execution Introduction From hanging to electric chair to lethal injection: how much prettier can you make it? Yet the prettier it becomes, the uglier it is.1 In 1997, China became the first country outside the USA to carry out a judicial execution by lethal injection. Three other countriesGuatemala, Philippines and Taiwancurrently provide for execution by lethal injection but have not yet executed anyone by that method2. The introduction of lethal injection in the USA in 1977 provoked a debate in the medical profession and strong opposition to a medical role in such executions. To 30 September 1997, 268 individuals have been executed by lethal injection in the USA since the first such execution in December 1982 (see appendix 2). Reports of lethal injection executions in China, where the method was introduced in 1997, are sketchy but early indications are that there is a potential for massive use of this form of execution. In 1996, Amnesty International recorded more than 4,300 executions by shooting in China. At least 24 lethal injection executions were reported in the Chinese press in 1997 and this can be presumed to be a minimum (and growing) figure since executions are not automatically reported in the Chinese media. Lethal injection executions depend on medical drugs and procedures and the potential of this kind of execution to involve medical professionals in unethical behaviour, including direct involvement in killing, is clear. Because of this, there has been a long-standing campaign by some individual health professionals and some professional bodies to prohibit medical participation in lethal injection executions.
    [Show full text]
  • Opinion 06-70026
    United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED REVISED JUNE 26, 2006 June 20, 2006 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Charles R. Fulbruge III FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Clerk No. 06-70026 LAMONT REESE, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus BRAD LIVINGSTON; NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division; CHARLES O’REILLY, Senior Warden, Huntsville Unit, Huntsville, Texas; UNKNOWN EXECUTIONERS, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court For the Northern District of Texas Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PATRICK E. HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judge: Proceeding under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Lamont Reese seeks a stay of his execution scheduled for June 20, 2006. He attacks the method of execution by injection as administered in Texas as cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. The suit does not challenge the conviction or sentence of death. I On December 8, 2000, following his conviction for capital murder in the 371st Judicial District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, Reese was sentenced to death. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed his judgment and sentence. Reese v. State, No. 23,989 (Tex. Crim. App. Nov. 6, 2002), cert. denied, Reese v. State, 123 S. Ct. 2581 (2003). Reese filed a state petition for habeas corpus on July 16, 2002, and a supplemental application on January 31, 2003. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied the petition. Ex Parte Reese, Nos. 55,443-01 and 55,443-02 (Tex. Crim. App. Apr. 30, 2003). Turning to the federal courts, Reese’s application for COA was denied by this Court on May 4, 2004.
    [Show full text]
  • Executive Clemency: the Lethal Absence of Hope
    American University Criminal Law Brief Volume 3 Issue 1 Article 1 2007 Executive Clemency: The Lethal Absence Of Hope Jonathan Harris Lothlórien Redmond Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/clb Part of the Criminal Law Commons Recommended Citation Harris, Jonathan, and Lothlórien Redmond. "Executive Clemency: The Lethal Absence Of Hope." Criminal Law Brief 3, no. 1 (2007): 2-15. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in American University Criminal Law Brief by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY: THE LETHAL ABSENCE OF HOPE1 Jonathan Harris* and Lothlórien Redmond** Executive clemency is an act by a governmental chief Section 2 of the Constitution.9 In 1833, Chief Justice John executive that relieves in whole, or in part, the consequences Marshall described the basis and scope of the Presidential par- resulting from a criminal conviction.2 Although not limited to don power in the following sweeping terms: death penalty cases, the concept of clemency is most common- ly associated with the decision by a sitting state governor A pardon is an act of grace, proceeding from the power whether to commute a sentence of death to a lesser sentence, intrusted with the execution of the laws, which usually to life imprisonment.3 It is in that context that this arti- exempts the individual, on whom it is bestowed, from cle examines the meaning and process of clemency.
    [Show full text]
  • Lethal Injection and the Right of Access: the Intersection of the Eighth and First Amendments
    San Jose State University SJSU ScholarWorks Faculty Publications, School of Management School of Management 1-1-2014 Lethal Injection and the Right of Access: The Intersection of the Eighth and First Amendments Timothy F. Brown [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/org_mgmt_pub Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Criminal Law Commons, Criminal Procedure Commons, First Amendment Commons, and the Law Enforcement and Corrections Commons Recommended Citation Timothy F. Brown. "Lethal Injection and the Right of Access: The Intersection of the Eighth and First Amendments" ExpressO (2014). This Unpublished Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Management at SJSU ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications, School of Management by an authorized administrator of SJSU ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Lethal Injection and the Right of Access: The Intersection of the Eighth and First Amendments By: Timothy F. Brown Introduction The Spring and Summer of 2014 have witnessed renewed debate on the constitutionality of the death penalty after a series of high profile legal battles concerning access to lethal injection protocols and subsequent questionable executions. Due to shortages in the drugs traditionally used for the lethal injection, States have changed their lethal injection protocols to shield information from both the prisoners and the public. Citing public safety concerns, the States refuse to release information concerning the procurement of the drugs to the public. Such obstruction hinders the public’s ability to determine the cruelty of the punishment imposed and creates the potential for unconstitutional execution.
    [Show full text]
  • Read Our Full Report, Death in Florida, Now
    USA DEATH IN FLORIDA GOVERNOR REMOVES PROSECUTOR FOR NOT SEEKING DEATH SENTENCES; FIRST EXECUTION IN 18 MONTHS LOOMS Amnesty International Publications First published on 21 August 2017 by Amnesty International Publications International Secretariat Peter Benenson House 1 Easton Street London WC1X 0DW United Kingdom www.amnesty.org Copyright Amnesty International Publications 2017 Index: AMR 51/6736/2017 Original Language: English Printed by Amnesty International, International Secretariat, United Kingdom All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the publishers. Amnesty International is a global movement of 3 million people in more than 150 countries and territories, who campaign on human rights. Our vision is for every person to enjoy all the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights instruments. We research, campaign, advocate and mobilize to end abuses of human rights. Amnesty International is independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion. Our work is largely financed by contributions from our membership and donations Table of Contents Summary ..................................................................................................................... 1 ‘Bold, positive change’ not allowed ................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Truth About Physician Participation in Lethal Injection Executions*
    THE TRUTH ABOUT PHYSICIAN PARTICIPATION IN LETHAL INJECTION EXECUTIONS* TY ALPER** Recent court rulings addressing the constitutionality of states' lethal injection procedures have taken as a given the faulty notion that doctors cannot and will not participate in executions. As a result, courts have dismissed the feasibility of a remedy requiring physician participation, and openly expressed suspicion of the motives of lawyers who would propose such a remedy. This Article exposes two myths that have come to dominate the capital punishment discourse: first, that requiring physician participationwould grind the administrationof the death penalty to a halt because doctors cannot participate; and second, that advocating for such a requirement is a disingenuous abolitionist strategy as opposed to a principled remedial argument. As this Article demonstrates through a review of available research and recent litigation, doctors can, are willing to, and in fact do regularly participatein executions, though often not in the manner necessary to ensure humane executions. Lawyers for death row inmates have argued that skilled anesthetic monitoring by trained medical professionals is a necessary component of a constitutional three-drug lethal injection protocol. In response, state officials have strategically emphasized the positions of national medical associations (the ethical guidelines of which are not binding on doctors) and exaggerated their inability to * © 2009 Ty Alper. ** Associate Director, Death Penalty Clinic, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law. Thanks for their criticism and advice to Ginger Anders, Eric Berger, Tess Bolder, Jeff Brand, Laura Burstein, Deborah Denno, Richard Dieter, Laurel Fletcher, Christopher Lasch, Megan McCracken, Alice Miller, Jennifer Moreno, Erin Murphy, Charlie Press, Elisabeth Semel, Steve Shatz, Giovanna Shay, Tamar Todd, Kate Weisburd, Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • UNWILLING EXECUTIONERS? Where and Why Do Some Doctors Still Help Carry out the Death Penalty? Sophie Arie Reports
    DEATH PENALTY UNWILLING EXECUTIONERS? Where and why do some doctors still help carry out the death penalty? Sophie Arie reports ethal injection is now the main method of In 2009, death penalty opponent Sister Helen nection to their local prisons. In a rare report, in execution in China and the United States, Prejean, known for her book Dead Man W alking, 2006, Dr Atul Gawande, American surgeon and the two countries that execute the highest began campaigning for medical boards to dis- writer, gathered testimonies from some partici- numbers of people. But the widespread cipline doctors who participate in executions, pating doctors. Dr Carlo Musso, an emergency use of lethal injection—seen as a medical believing this could ultimately make lethal injec- doctor, confirmed that his practice had taken up L and therefore more humane method of execution tion no longer a feasible option for states. But an $18 000 contract (£11 000, €13 000) to pro- than hanging, shooting, or electro cution—has when medical bodies have attempted to strike off vide a medical presence at executions in Georgia. meant that doctors have become more actively or discipline physicians who have participated in He provided cardiac monitoring and determina- involved in carrying out the death penalty than executions, they have been over-ruled by courts tion of death. Other colleagues helped with intra- they were in the past. in the states concerned. venous access. “As I see it this is an end of life The medicalisation of executions has put Some states, such as Georgia and North issue, just as with any other terminal disease.
    [Show full text]
  • PHYSICIAN, DO YOUR DUTY: the OBLIGATIONS of PHYSICIANS in STATE EXECUTIONS by Tricia Griffin, MFA
    PHYSICIAN, DO YOUR DUTY: THE OBLIGATIONS OF PHYSICIANS IN STATE EXECUTIONS by Tricia Griffin, MFA Michael Morales was sentenced to death in 1983 for the premeditated rape, torture, and murder of 17-year old Terri Winchell (People v. Morales, 1989). Twenty-five years passed before Morales was finally scheduled for Abstract execution, which would have taken place on February 21, 2006, save for a successful appeal. A week before Morales was scheduled to die, his legal The most common arguments for team convinced a judge that the State of California’s lethal injection and against physician participation protocols could subject Morales to cruel and unusual punishment (Morales v. in state executions focus on the Hickman, 2006a). duty of the physician. This article evaluates these arguments using At the time, the standard protocol for lethal injections in California was a Kant’s duty-based approach to three-tiered process that began with the anesthetic sodium thiopental to ethical decision-making. It will render the inmate unconscious, followed by pancuronium bromide to show that all of the prevailing paralyze the inmate and halt breathing, and finally a lethal dose of potassium arguments end in a philosophical chloride to induce cardiac arrest (Schwarzenegger and Tilton, 2007, p. 1)1. stalemate. I will further argue that Morales’ legal team argued that if the initial dose of anesthetic did not it is past time for physicians to turn sufficiently induce unconsciousness, Morales could be awake during the two the question around and demand a final phases of the procedure. This would mean he could experience more substantive discussion about suffocation from the paralytic agent and extreme pain from the potassium the duty-based roles of every chloride.
    [Show full text]
  • Last State to Use Death Penalty
    Last State To Use Death Penalty HarryIsolable remains and eastwardly feastful and Bear Hispanic. never jollifies Zestful considering and post-obit when Esau Murdock disembowel face-lift her his adscripts colt. Fallen orchestrates Thurston orframe-up incages very out-of-hand. conceptually while History whose Capital Punishment in California Capital Punishment. Many prominent organizations and restore capital punishment quietly amending its protocol was permitted execution because that capital punishment from accepted his bicycle. Garrett argues, why now? But said last meal for death penalty today have access to uses a class. Arrangements will promptly comply with state. Capital Punishment The end of the recent penalty. Barr said in several of violent criminals most cases to state use death penalty, it take so much discretion of state currently administered equitably to death sentence for. Conviction and use? Florida state death penalty states. Not be executed by staff and are added or depraved manner designed to anchors on their last state to death penalty? Rescuers evacuate residents from their flooded homes in Bekasi on Feb. Supplementary Information in Federal Register documents. Statistical Brief Presents statistics on persons under sentence of death four year-end 2016. Federal executions have been exceedingly rare until recent decades. And that settle that rare are its more relate to convince a focus that mitigating factors justify a picture other hand death. The Department would then either distinct to hope its convenient system known an execution by that manner more than lethal injection or pay box the use over State however local facilities and gamble to beat the execution.
    [Show full text]
  • A Systematic Examination of the Rituals and Rights of the Last Meal
    Mercer University School of Law Mercer Law School Digital Commons Faculty Publications Faculty 2014 Cold Comfort Food: A Systematic Examination of the Rituals and Rights of the Last Meal Sarah Gerwig-Moore Mercer University School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.mercer.edu/fac_pubs Part of the Criminal Law Commons, and the Criminal Procedure Commons Recommended Citation Sarah L. Gerwig-Moore, et al., Cold Comfort Food: A Systematic Examination of the Rituals and Rights of the Last Meal, 2 Brit. J. Am. Legal Stud. 411 (2014). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty at Mercer Law School Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Mercer Law School Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COLD (COMFORT?) FOOD: THE SIGNIFICANCE OF LAST MEAL RITUALS IN THE UNITED STATES SARAH L. GERWIG-MOORE1 Merceer University School of Law ANDREW DAVIES2 State University of New York at Albany SABRINA ATKINS3 Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz P. C ABSTRACT Last meals are a resilient ritual accompanying executions in the United States. Yet states vary considerably in the ways they administer last meals. This paper ex- plores the recent decision in Texas to abolish the tradition altogether. It seeks to understand, through consultation of historical and contemporary sources, what the ritual signifies. We then go on to analyze execution procedures in all 35 of the states that allowed executions in 2010, and show that last meal allowances are paradoxically at their most expansive in states traditionally associated with high rates of capital punishment (Texas now being the exception to that rule.) We con- clude with a discussion of the implications of last meal policies, their connections to state cultures, and the role that the last meal ritual continues to play in contem- porary execution procedures.
    [Show full text]
  • The Truth About Physician Participation in Lethal Injection Executions, 88 N.C
    NORTH CAROLINA LAW REVIEW Volume 88 | Number 1 Article 3 12-1-2009 The rT uth about Physician Participation in Lethal Injection Executions Ty Alper Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Ty Alper, The Truth about Physician Participation in Lethal Injection Executions, 88 N.C. L. Rev. 11 (2009). Available at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr/vol88/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Carolina Law Review by an authorized administrator of Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE TRUTH ABOUT PHYSICIAN PARTICIPATION IN LETHAL INJECTION EXECUTIONS* TY ALPER** Recent court rulings addressing the constitutionality of states' lethal injection procedures have taken as a given the faulty notion that doctors cannot and will not participate in executions. As a result, courts have dismissed the feasibility of a remedy requiring physician participation, and openly expressed suspicion of the motives of lawyers who would propose such a remedy. This Article exposes two myths that have come to dominate the capital punishment discourse: first, that requiring physician participationwould grind the administrationof the death penalty to a halt because doctors cannot participate; and second, that advocating for such a requirement is a disingenuous abolitionist strategy as opposed to a principled remedial argument. As this Article demonstrates through a review of available research and recent litigation, doctors can, are willing to, and in fact do regularly participatein executions, though often not in the manner necessary to ensure humane executions.
    [Show full text]
  • Crips, Ganglife, Redemption, & Tookie
    Page 1 of 5 AFRIKAN RESISTANCE, AFRIKAN LIBERATION 30 NOVEMBER 2005 FROM: MR. DAVEY D CNN ****************** CRIPS, GANGLIFE, REDEMPTION, & TOOKIE – CAN WE HAVE PEACE IN THE HOOD? by Davey D on Breakdown FM This is an insightful interview with former gang member/ Peace Warrior Aqueela Sherrill You can peep this interview here: http://odeo.com/audio/460407/view Former LA gang member AQEELA SHERRILLS was instrumental in the historic 1992 gang truce between the Crips and Bloods in the aftermath of the Rodney King Uprisings. In this interview he gives us a serious breakdown and understanding of what LA gang members are going through, how they see the situation surrounding Tookie and the on going efforts to bring about peace in the hood. Sherrill who is cited in Jeff Chang’s Hip Hop history book ‘Can’t Stop Won’t Stop’explains that he is runs a pro gang agency and expounds upon the fact that gangs have come to be surrogate parents for many over the years. He notes that many gang members are victims to larger enemies and societal ills like poverty and abuse at home. Aqeela talks about the abuse he suffered at the hands of an older brother who molested him. He explains that violation was something he picked up in prison and it resulted in Aqeela lashing out and becoming a hardened gang member himself. He talks in depth about the concept of reverence and healing and that a lot of work is needed to heal the deep wounds that have been inflicted by this country by those who live in the inner city.
    [Show full text]