Thoughts on Executions

I realize I've been writing a lot about the death penalty and executions recently. I admit that I find the idea of a government executing someone to be a peculiar idea. In effect, the person has been judged to have been such a horrific person that he or she must be eliminated from this earth as punishment. Despite my fascination with the death penalty, I strangely do not have an opinion on it. I cannot say whether it is right or whether it is wrong. I know that the majority of the people in Tennessee, where I live, believe strongly in the death penalty. I know other states' populations do not. I know various countries across the world take their stances on the spectrum of approval and disapproval.

It seems that the death penalty is viewed by the public as punishment for past deeds, prevention of future bad deeds, and a way of compensating the remaining victims. In fact, direct to that last point, a family member of the victims of one of the Tennessee inmates scheduled for execution lamented about the delay of West's execution (it was delayed within 30 hours of the actual time set for the execution). He talked about how West had an initial trial and multiple appeals -- the relative was ready for the execution and for vengeance (made evident by the call for a death penalty two times over).

I do not believe the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for wrong-doing in most cases. To begin with, if our society is going to have the death penalty, I believe it needs to be saved for the most egregious cases. While that is what the statutes calls for, the death penalty is no longer saved for those egegrious cases, rather, it seems to be thrown around as an option in the midst of public furor. It is almost like it is a form of judicially-backed and -driven media hype. In addition, if the death penalty is going to serve as a punishment, then we had better be damn sure that the person committed the crime with the requisite intent to where the State is going to be responsible for permanently removing this person from society. I believe in the power of transformation, and I do not believe in issuing such a permanent damnation that eliminates the ability for such transformation. In addition, given that falliable people are the ones determining guilt and innocence and then the death penalty, I find the punishment to be too great where there are so many weak links in the chain leading to death.

As for the argument that the death penalty deters future crime, I think it is prudent to divide this argument into deterrent for the actual defendent and deterrent for potential defendents. Looking at the actual defendant, I see no added value from the dealth penalty that life in prison without the opportunity for parole would not have. If prisons truly work to reduce crime, then locking someone up for the rest of his or her life, should deter him or her from committing other crimes. The added punishment of death would not multiple the deterrent effect. Looking at defendants in general, and without any current research done on this, I'm inclined to say that the majority of the men and women on death row did not contemplate getting the death penalty when they acted. Rather, they acted without thoughts to the judicial consequences of their actions. I have no idea how many defendants chose to perpetrate their crimes of choice another way because of the death penalty, and I have a feeling that information will never be available for study.

I have no belief that the families of a victim will receive any sort of relief or closure from an execution. An execution only extends the chain of misery and dispair. It does not have ability to heal. It cannot -- it exists only because of anger and hurt. Again, I believe in the power of transformation, and I do not think such transformation can come from ending another's life. All too often, people pull out the Old Testament as support for their crusade to execute. I find that argument outdated and out of sync with the other positions those advocates take on other subjects.

With all of that said, I have worked on death penalty cases, and I believe in upholding the law, as it has been written. In Tennesssee, we have the death penalty for certain egregious cases. A jury of the defendant's peers found him or her guilty, and that same jury voted unanimously to apply the death penalty. Those findings by the jury carry signficant weight, and they are enough for me to work within the system created.

Update on Executions

As a follow-up to the posting about the recent Chancery Court decision involving the constitutionality of the State's execution methods, the Tennessee Supreme Court today issued four stays of execution for defendants Stephen Michael West, Billy Ray Irick, Edmund Zagorski, and Edward Jerome Harbison. Soon after the Chancery Court ruling was announced, the State filed a response that it had changed its execution policies to determined whether an inmate was rendered unconscious. The Courts deemed this insufficient, and it granted stays of execution while the defendants' attorneys present arguments or evidence to the trial court about the revised protocol. The trial court has been ordered to issue its decision within ninety days.

Coincidentally, this follows on the footsteps of Justice John Paul Stevens speaking out in a very public way about the decisions he helped create while on the US Supreme Court. He is known for speaking out against the death penalty, saying the Supreme Court's decisions had "dismantled death-penalty safeguards," which created a judicial system that is "shot through with racism, skewed toward conviction, infected with politics, and tinged with hysteria."

Let's see how this plays out . . . unfortunately, a man's life is on the line.

Additional pictures of the author and her scribes . . .

Ella, the author, on her flying carpet. She spends a lot of time chewing over ideas while on this carpet.

Caesar is head of security. He is extremely interested in criminal justice issues. His motto is "bite first, apologize later."

Silas is the local Reformed Druid high priest. He enjoys sleeping, performing ceremonies under oak trees, and running to the neighbor's house. Silas's legal interests include the first amendment and immigration law.

Buddy is the newest member to the writing team. He is fluent in Mandarin and Taiwanese, and he is very interested in immigration law.

Milo is the chief scribe. As you can see in this picture, he was getting ready to type out a post. He enjoys eating chicken jerky and bird-watching. He is a local hunter of mice, and he supports all second amendment rights (much to our chagrin). Milo is also a vocal advocate for nearly every issue, and he practices his oral argument skills at every chance he gets.

Stay of execution in Tennessee -- Ruling on the Lethal Injection Process

Chancellor Claudia Bonnyman ruled on Friday that Tennessee's lethal injection protocol was unconstitutional. This is a huge ruling because it will ultimately delay two scheduled executions. Stephen Michael West was scheduled to be executed November 30, and Billy Ray Irick, who joined the case as a plaintiff, had his execution scheduled for December 7 (Pearl Harbor Day). Because of the ruling, a stay of execution was issued, and those executions may not be held on those days unless all appeals have been exhausted. At this point, the State will appeal, and it has 30 days to do so. Chancellor Bonnyman reasoned that the level of sodium thiopental, which causes unconsciousness, was insufficient and that the inmate was effectively suffocating to death while being conscious. She found that effect to violate the inmate's constitutional rights. Stay tuned . . .

For Tennessean article, see http://www.tennessean.com/article/20101120/NEWS03/11200332/2066

Inspiration for Serving Others

I've been reading Edward Kennedy's True Compass, which I highly recommend, and I was struck by the following passage, in which he describes the impact of his faith on his public role:

My own center of belief, as I matured and grew curious about these things, moved toward the great Gospel of Matthew, chapter 25 especially, in which he calls us to care for the least of these among us, and feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give drink to the thirsty, welcome the strange, visit the imprisoned. It's enormously significant to me that the only description in the Bible about salvation is tied to one's willingness to act on behalf of one's fellow human beings. the ones who will be deprived of salvation -- the sinners -- are those who've turned away from their fellow man. People responsive to the great human condition, and who've tried to alleviate its misery -- these will be the ones who join Christ in Paradise.

To me, this perspective on my faith has almost literally been a life-saver. It has given me strength and purpose during the greatest challenges I have faced, the roughest roads I've traveled.

I found that passage to be inspiring in my quest to serve others. So often, as life gets going, and task-lists grow by the hour, I tend to forget that I'm here to serve others. I pray that I am able to devote my life to serving others, as I have been called to do.

Exciting Run-In with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer

Well, I haven't been posting recently because I started a new job at the end of August 2010. I left private practice, and I joined a professor at Vanderbilt to help create a massive health care archive and case study. We have been giving presentations and trying to find funding for our project (I hope some comes soon!). So far, the response has been extremely positive, but we just need some real commitment in the form of money.

While in a meeting in the faculty lounge at Vanderbilt's Law School today, none other than U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer walked in! Of course, I had to leave the room so he could take a picture with a student, but I was within 10-12 feet of him. Amazing! He actually taught a class and gave a lecture, but seats to the lecture were by ticket only, and I certainly did not merit a ticket.

Clothing for the Courtroom

Today, Christina Brinkley posted an article on the Wall Street Journal's website about the proper clothing for court. See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704554104575435683853964588.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_US_News_6#articleTabs%3Darticle. In this article, she interviews judges and attorneys and makes her own observations about the proper attire for court. I know this has been a recent issue for the courts in Davidson County, Tennessee. The courts have instituted a dress code policy, and I have witnessed it being enforced. (In fact, one of the defendants I was in court representing was told to go home to put on long pants because he arrived in shorts.) The dress code for the Criminal Court is as follows:

Criminal Court of Davidson County

, Division III

Dress Code Policy

All individuals entering the courtroom shall be dressed appropriately, clean and neat. Dress, which is disturbing and distracting in court is inappropriate. Clothes and appearance must be safe and not disruptive to the judicial process. Remember you are appearing in a court of law.

1. Skirts, skorts, and shorts must reach and extend below the fingertip.

2. All pants must be worn at waist. No sagging or low riding.

3. Undershirts and tank tops, if worn, must be worn with another “cover-up”shirt. Shoulders, backs, chests, and midriffs must be covered.

4. No see-through type or suggestive clothing is to be worn. Undergarments may not be visible.

5. All shirts, with the exception of sweaters, sweatshirts, or vests must be tucked into pants, skirts, or shorts, including athletic jerseys.

6. Appropriate footwear must be worn at all times. No flip-flops or house shoes permitted.

7. Inappropriate head coverings such as bandanas, scarves, sweatbands, hats/caps, do-rags, or hairnets are not to be worn or seen. Hoods on lightweight garments or sweatshirts may not be pulled over the head. Sunglasses shall be removed in court.

8. Clothing that advertises substances (drugs, alcohol, tobacco products) or language or writing that is otherwise inappropriate or offensive (sex, profanity, racial or ethnic slurs, gang-related attire, etc.) may not be worn. Tattoos that display drugs, sex, alcohol, or tobacco products must not be seen at anytime.

9. Clothing that is intentionally torn in inappropriate places is prohibited.

10. For security reasons, chains, spiked accessories, and oversized jewelry are not permissible.

The Court reserves the right to modify this policy as necessary and reserve the right to determine what might be disruptive and unsafe.

If you are dressed in violation of this policy, you will not be permitted in the Division III courtroom or will be requested to leave.

(see http://ccc.nashville.gov/portal/page/portal/ccc/divThreeCourtProcedures/div3DressCode)

I think it is a reflection of the casual nature of our times and the pervasive "I don't care about authority or anything else" attitude that is being reflected in the courtrooms by what people are wearing. A courtroom is probably one of the most formal settings where most of these people will ever be. It is a shame to think that both attorneys, witnesses, and parties to cases think they can appear so casually. Now, I admit that I eschew wearing a suit jacket whenever I can . . . I feel very constricted in them, most of the time they don't fit me properly because I'm six feet tall, etc. However, I know that I need to wear a jacket when I go to court. It's part of the rules to play the "going to court game." I hope that the judges begin taking back the serious nature of their courtrooms and enforcing dress codes for everyone involved. It's one of those things like when you were a kid: if you have to get dressed up, you know it matters. That is the case with court, and we all need to be dressing for the part.