Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2007 18:26:55 GMT -6
As much as I detest U.S. District Court Judge Aleta Trauger's insistence on going against the will of the people of Tennessee by her little maneuver the other day (declaring the TN L.I. protocol unconstitutional), at least you have to hand it to her for not issuing a stay of Harbison's execution. She at least seems to understand Tennessee law. One Tennessee Supreme Court Judge understands it, too, although the rest of that group apparently does not. tinyurl.com/ywtzd4In his lone dissenting opinion following the Tennessee Supreme Court order delaying Harbison's execution for the umpteenth time, William Koch, Jr. wrote: "...Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-23-114(d) (2006) states: “In any case in which an execution method is declared unconstitutional, the death sentence shall remain in force until the sentence can be lawfully executed by any valid method of execution.” The import of this sentence is unavoidable. If execution by lethal injection is declared unconstitutional, the execution may proceed by electrocution. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee recognized this conclusion when it declined to grant a stay of execution in Harbison v. Little. The State is not without remedy in this case. Notwithstanding Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-23-114(d), the Governor of Tennessee may grant a temporary reprieve to allow the State time to determine the course of action it should take. Tenn. Const. art. III, § 6; Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-27-101 (2006). However, we judges must adhere to the otherwise valid statutes passed by the General Assembly. While postponing the execution date might be appropriate to enable the parties to address the application of Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-23-114(d), not requiring the parties to address Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-23-114(d)’s application to this case does a disservice to the General Assembly." (Emphasis added). You're doggoned right it "does a disservice to the General Assembly"! It's called "Legislating from the Bench" and "Thwarting the Will of the People." If I were a Tennessee resident, I'd be out in front of my Supreme Court today, picketing it.
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Sept 27, 2007 18:51:37 GMT -6
Consequences, as I stated on the Harbison thread in Specific Cases, I think the state has decided to challenge Traugher's opinion, which they would (I believe) lose standing to do if they executed Harbison by electrocution in October.
Additionally, I don't think the state cannot execute anyone by electrocution who was convicted after the state adopted lethal injection as the default method. If Traugher's decision is allowed to stand in Harbison, the state would eventually have to litigate the issues with the first person who cannot be executed by electrocution.
kma367
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2007 20:45:17 GMT -6
Consequences, as I stated on the Harbison thread in Specific Cases, I think the state has decided to challenge Traugher's opinion, which they would (I believe) lose standing to do if they executed Harbison by electrocution in October. Additionally, I don't think the state cannot execute anyone by electrocution who was convicted after the state adopted lethal injection as the default method. If Traugher's decision is allowed to stand in Harbison, the state would eventually have to litigate the issues with the first person who cannot be executed by electrocution. kma367 No, I think the Tennessee code is pretty clear about that. It doesn't require the conviction to be made after the default has dropped back to electrocution. That can occur beforehand, and apparently one TN SUpreme Court judge agrees.
|
|
forgesfire
Old Hand
The masses of humanity have always had to suffer
Posts: 546
|
Post by forgesfire on Dec 10, 2008 7:34:44 GMT -6
I think that if LI is ever held unconstitutional in Tennessee that Electrocution may be used.
|
|