The US Supreme Court stayed the execution of a Texas inmate - Carlton Turner - so that he would not be executed pending resolution of a current case involving the constitutionality of the lethal injection protocol used in Kentucky (but either identical or similar to the one used in Texas). This is worth noting because the Court did not stay the execution of a Texas inmate earlier this week who was in the same position (his execution was carried out on the same day that the Court granted review).
Hmm....Did the earlier inmate not raise the issue by some procedural faux pas -- one that cost him his life? Did the earlier inmate deserve to die - by whatever means were in use, regardless of its constitutionality? Did the Supreme Court believe that Texas would stay the executioner's hand out of respect - knowing that the Court was taking a case involving the allegedly defective protocol? (a miscalculation by the Court that cost someone their life).
I'm going to have to read a bit more before deciding whether there is a rational distinction between the treatment of these inmates, but the Court's action seems to be inconsistent. Not a good way to start the October term, IMO.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment