« Might Charles Koch put big money behind big reform of federal clemency process? | Main | New Deputy AG suggesting every too-long federal prison sentence hurts public safety »
June 2, 2015
California agrees to model new lethal injection protocol on whatever SCOTUS says is good enough
As reported in this local piece, headlined "California death penalty: state agrees to propose execution method," a state with a remarkable inability (and disinclination?) to get its machinery of death operational has now agreed that the Supreme Court's latest review of lethal injection will provide a script for its next efforts. Here are the details:
California's death penalty system, dormant for nine years, might soon move slowly toward resuming executions. As part of a court settlement reached on Tuesday, the state's corrections department agreed to unveil a new execution method by the fall that will be tied to the outcome of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling expected sometime this month in a challenge to Oklahoma's lethal injection protocol.
While California is still far from executing one of the 750 condemned killers on death row, the development marks movement on the issue for the first time in years. There are at least 17 inmates on death row who have exhausted their legal appeals and would be eligible for execution dates.
State prison officials resolved a lawsuit filed last year by the families of victims of condemned killers who argued the state has a legal obligation to implement an execution method. A Sacramento judge earlier this year found the state should be required to move forward in a case brought by two families, including former UCLA and NFL star Kermit Alexander, whose mother, sister and nephews were murdered 31 years ago by a man now on death row. Death penalty supporters have accused state leaders such as Gov. Jerry Brown and Attorney General Kamala Harris of dragging their feet in getting executions back on track. The state has not had an execution since 2006 as a result of legal challenges to its lethal injection method.
Several years ago, the courts invalidated one state effort to revise its three-drug execution method, prompting California to explore switching to a single lethal drug as other states have done. But the state had not made progress until Tuesday's settlement.
The Supreme Court is expected to clarify the legality of lethal injection methods in the case out of Oklahoma, which still has a three-drug procedure. Deborah Hoffman, spokeswoman for the California corrections department, confirmed that the prison system, which has been developing its regulations, will submit its new execution method within 120 days of the Supreme Court's ruling.
Lawyers for the families said it "made sense" for California to await that ruling. Kent Scheidegger, legal director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, said he expects the state to adopt a single drug method using a sedative he maintains can be obtained. However, states around the country, including California, have encountered problems securing supplies of execution drugs because drug manufacturers have refused to sell the drugs to prisons.
June 2, 2015 at 06:29 PM | Permalink
Comments
The fun thing is I am not going to be at all surprised if the state wins and the SCOTUS majority doubles down on what was said in Baze that it is incumbent upon the condemned to show that the proposed method is unacceptable before any stay is to issue. I've long thought that the federal stay in CA has not been showing proper respect toward Baze but since CA isn't really particularly interested in carrying out executions they haven't gone the appeals route.
The state court stays in CA are another matter entirely as I understand they are based on state administrative law rather than the 8th amendment. I really don't care all that much what state courts rule on state law matters as state law is generally far easier to change than federal constitutional rulings.
Posted by: Soronel Haetir | Jun 2, 2015 11:55:16 PM
"CA" not being too concerned here in some significant part means the people themselves who elected the governor and attorney general. When they wanted to push back, they did so a few decades ago. I also don't know what the case here will add. They might "double down" or simply say that the district court judge findings on the facts were reasonable enough without adding anything much to the greater question.
Posted by: Joe | Jun 3, 2015 10:14:43 AM
Joe, California rejected a proposition to end the death penalty in 2012, although the vote was close. The people elected Attorney General Harris, a staunch opponent of the death penalty, but elections of state officials rarely are decided on a single issue.
Posted by: Gary Hill | Jun 3, 2015 11:44:41 AM