« Notable echoes of Grants Pass reverberating throughout California | Main | Federal prosecutors finalizes plea deals with three 9/11 defendants for LWOP sentences »
July 31, 2024
South Carolina Supreme Court finds all three of state's execution methods to be constitutional
As reported in this local article, a "majority on the S.C. Supreme Court has ruled that allowing death row inmates the choice of the electric chair or firing squad to carry out their sentences does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment." Here is more about the ruling:
The decision, published July 31, comes several years after the state legislature introduced the two methods as an alternative to lethal injection, which was discontinued after the state Department of Corrections was no longer able to procure the lethal drugs necessary to carry out those sentences.
The law prompted an immediate legal challenge, with opponents of the death penalty arguing that both alternative methods were exceedingly painful and unusual in a country where executions have overall been declining. Today, just five states — Idaho, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Utah — deploy firing squads for executions, while the electric chair is currently used in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, South Carolina and Tennessee.
A Richland County court ruled in 2022 that both electrocution and the firing squad violated the South Carolina Constitution's provisions against cruel and unusual punishment.
Writing for the majority on July 31, Justice John Cannon Few wrote that the two methods could not be considered cruel and unusual because, rather than representing an effort to inflict pain, the execution methods represented the S.C. General Assembly's "sincere effort" to make the death penalty less inhumane while enabling the state to carry out its laws.
The full ruling in Owens v. Stirling, Opinion No. 28222 (S.C. July 31, 2024) (available here), which includes some partial dissents on certain execution methods, runs nearly 100 pages. Because there seems to now be only a few (if any) current US Supreme Court Justices eager to police state execution methods, these kinds of state supreme court rulings are nearly certain to be the last legal word on these matters for the foreseeable future.
July 31, 2024 at 02:06 PM | Permalink
Comments
You might find this interesting, Doug. Demonrat spawn getting rich because dad hates Trump.
https://www.declassified.live/p/judge-merchans-daughter-raked-in
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Jul 31, 2024 2:47:29 PM
I tend to keep my mouth shut here, but isn't that OT? I think, though, that it's definitely worth a post.
Posted by: rloquitur | Jul 31, 2024 3:18:02 PM
TarlsQtr IS federalist?
Posted by: Schmederalist | Jul 31, 2024 5:35:23 PM
I mean this with great respect Professor: you have lost all semblance of control over the comments, and therefore, your blog.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 31, 2024 7:25:17 PM
Anonymous: I have mentioned in other threads that I am considering shutting down all comments if they do not more consistently stay on-topic, productive and polite. But Iit still seems a number of folks want to use the comments for other purposes. So I may feel compelled to just turn them off. We’ll see if it gets to that point.
Posted by: Doug B | Aug 1, 2024 12:09:22 AM
How many times has Thomas and Alito been brought up for supposed “ethics scandals?”
Yeah, but that’s different. Lol
I made one comment, easily scrolled by. The four that follow are much more litter.
I say that Karens and Darrens are the problems.
Doug has always said he leans strongly towards free speech. His actions say otherwise. My comment attacked no one personally (THAT is the hill to die on, if you must).
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Aug 1, 2024 1:08:59 AM
Master Tarls: the main post had nothing to do with judicial ethics or the Trump trials or anything else related to your link. And the reference to "Demonrat spawn" seems like a personal attack, as well as effort to provoke an off-topic response.
I have repeatedly encouraged on-topic, productive and polite comments. As I recently explained to federalist, making off-topic and impolite comments often leads to others making impolite, unproductive, off-topic responses. Such a back and forth, in turn, crowds out efforts by others to have more on-point and more productive discussions. This is the 7th comment on this thread which has absolutely nothing to do with the main post, and that is exactly what I am eager to avoid.
Posted by: Doug B | Aug 1, 2024 7:57:50 AM
Doug,
What commenter was I personally attacking?
How many times has Alito and Thomas been mentioned on threads having nothing to do with them?
Your outrage, like theirs, is selective.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Aug 1, 2024 9:38:01 AM
This is a good thing. Let's start offing people in SC. But what is nonsense is that it took 100 pages to resolve this issue. My mom is suffering through end-stage cancer--if she's not entitled to a painless death, then why is a capital murderer. You don't want the big jab---don't commit a heinous crime.
Posted by: rloquitur | Aug 1, 2024 10:25:46 AM
Master Tarls: as I said, the reference to "Demonrat spawn" seems like a personal attack on the person you are referencing. That is not "no one," and it seemed like name-calling intended to provoke an off-topic response (which it did from multiple others).
I am not outraged at you or anyone else, I am just continuing to try to encourage on-topic, productive and polite comments. If that is of no interest to you, so be it. But if we do not have more on-point and more productive discussions in this space, I will just shut it down. All the time wasted with comments about comments are the very kind of unproductive time I seek to avoid with my general "no moderation" policy.
So, to keep repeating what should be a simple point, I encourage everyone to use this space for on-topic, productive and polite comments. If the significant number impolite, unproductive, off-topic responses continue, I will just shut down the comments.
Posted by: Doug B | Aug 1, 2024 12:01:21 PM
I think tlrsqtr raises a good point. It seems like there is a leftist tilt to this blog, which is fine, of course. Of course, if Merchan's daughter is making gobs of money in her fundraisers, it really is fair to call that out. But Prof. Berman, it seems that you would never do that in a million years. Your blog; your rules. But the criticism is fair.
Posted by: rloquitur | Aug 1, 2024 12:17:21 PM
rloquitur: I would never dispute that my blog is "tilted" based on my viewpoints, interests and my time/resources. And if someone wants to call out Merchan's daughter in a post about judicial ethics or Trump's legal troubles, fine, that's at least reasonably on-topic. But notice how, in this thread, you provided the only on-topic comment, and that's now that's the only one of a dozen comments so far. If someone comes to the blog eager to see on-topic and productive comments about execution methods, they will not be able to get them here because the thread got off to an off-topic start.
Key point: I am not aspiring to be nor claiming to be a bias-free reporter/commentator on any topic. I actually think being bias-free is impossible, which is one reason I am a big fan of diversity and free speech. If you and Master Tarls are interesting in reading about law topics from folks with many different biases than me, I have an extended list of a number of other criminal law and general law blogs in the right side bar. And you and others are quite welcome to bring other perspectives (and links) into the comments. I just encourage you and everyone else to be on-topic, productive and polite in your commenting. I really do not think that is too much to request, though it sometimes seems in these partisan and toxic times that many are unable to disagree without being disagreeable.
Posted by: Doug B | Aug 1, 2024 12:36:15 PM
Fair enough, but let's face it---when the leftist say bad things, you are going to be a lot more solicitous. I honestly don't know why you care if there's a food fight in the comments section.
Posted by: rloquitur | Aug 1, 2024 12:39:00 PM
rloquitur: you are enouraged to point out any "leftist" you think should get less solicitous treatment. And please know that I am truly eager to ignore "food fights" in the comments. But in recent weeks I have received manydirect emails, as well as seeing multiple comments here, complaining in various ways about the "gross food" getting splattered around (and how that keeps people from engaging in on-topic, productive comments). And more than a few people I respect have said they will no longer visit the blog because of the toxicity of the comments (though I always wonder why these folks just don't click through).
When I create a sandbox, and people keep pissing in it while others keep complaining about all the piss, I am ever tempted to just cover up the sandbox. But I am going to keep try to encouraging more castle-building rather than pissing, even though I realize both castles and piss lcan ook "biased" to many.
Posted by: Doug B | Aug 1, 2024 1:00:59 PM
Dammit Doug, this is ridiculous. Why are you reticent to shut the commenting function down?
Posted by: Anonymous | Aug 1, 2024 2:54:25 PM
Doug,
The problem is you are making someone responsible for what others do. It’s not my responsibility how others respond to my comment. As was clear in another thread, I can stay on topic, be polite to other commenters, and still get criticized. They want the veto more than milquetoast commentary.
The most abusive comment in the entire thread was “troll,” and I didn’t use it. Yet, I got your attention.
“ But in recent weeks I have received manydirect emails, as well as seeing multiple comments here, complaining in various ways about the "gross food" getting splattered around (and how that keeps people from engaging in on-topic, productive comments).”
This is a lie by the emailers. Nothing “keeps” them from responding and engaging. Fed owns every comment he makes. They should be forced to own their own decisions whether to comment or not.
“And more than a few people I respect have said they will no longer visit the blog because of the toxicity of the comments (though I always wonder why these folks just don't click through).”
Yeah, your instinct is correct here. You should have gone with it. We aren’t talking about people like MAGA or blah, who comment nothing but BS, but someone (fed) who brings just as much good insight as anyone.
I’m not inclined to be blackmailed by you or anyone. I’ll sleep just fine regardless of your decision.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Aug 1, 2024 3:05:23 PM
Anonymous--why do you care? Are you one of those "civility" people? Well, there are times when a biting comment is fair comment on something.
Posted by: MAGA2024 | Aug 1, 2024 4:03:47 PM
Anonymous: I am reticent to shut down the comments because I remain (foolishly?) hopeful they can be more on-point and productive.
Master Tarls: I am puzzled by your concern about "blackmail" or even about holding folks "responsible" for something. I am simply seeking to encourage more on-topic, productive comments (and, ideally, to avoid wasting ever more time policing/moderating/discussing the nature of the comments).
Lots of folks (myself included) --- past and present, and surely future --- fail to always author comments that are on-topic and productive, but it would be heartening to see if the percentage of on-topic, productive (and polite) comments can be significantly increased. Perhaps it cannot, which will make me more inclined to shut down the comments. Perhaps it can, which will make me more inclined to leave the comments open.
Again, I am not seeking to blackmail or hold anyone responsible for anything, just trying to encourage more on-topic, productive comments for the benefit of everyone who cares about the sentencing topics that I care to blog about. Those eager to discuss other topics have a host of other fora for discussions of other topics.
Posted by: Doug B | Aug 1, 2024 4:22:40 PM
Anonymous stated: “Dammit Doug, this is ridiculous. Why are you reticent to shut the commenting function down?”
This is the “logic” of this blog now.
We literally have a commenter begging for the blog to have no comments because he does not have the self-control to do the obvious, skip the comments completely. Pretend they are not there and it will literally have the same impact on his life.
In the spirit of Doug’s wish for community and kumbaya, I’ll say it’s absolutely brilliant logic. Genius level thinking. The mind of Anonymous was touched by the spirit of God because only He could inspire such magnificence.
And Justin Trudeau is definitely absolutely positively NOT Fidel Castro’s son. It would be partisan and a personal attack to think such a thing.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Aug 4, 2024 5:41:01 PM
And the desire to “shut the commenting function down” when comments can be merely not read, and Doug’s willingness to entertain the idea, does NOT indicate hatred towards the general premise of free speech. Anonymous is the opposite of a budding tyrant, of course.
“If I could teach the world to sing, in perfect harmony…”
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Aug 4, 2024 5:47:40 PM
