Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2007 10:28:59 GMT -6
It's probably here somewhere but I can't find it. Someone asked me why they are continuing to set dates for the DP when they may have to reschedule them again. They were speaking of course in regard to the lethal injection consideration by the SCOTUS. My question is, Does law require that the date be set by a set time after the last appeal? How does this work? And do the states do it differently? If you'd rather refer me to the answer that's fine too. Thanks for any answers....B
|
|
|
Post by Anony+ on Nov 15, 2007 12:55:10 GMT -6
It's probably here somewhere but I can't find it. Someone asked me why they are continuing to set dates for the DP when they may have to reschedule them again. They were speaking of course in regard to the lethal injection consideration by the SCOTUS. My question is, Does law require that the date be set by a set time after the last appeal? How does this work? And do the states do it differently? If you'd rather refer me to the answer that's fine too. Thanks for any answers....B Generally speaking, every state has different laws and guidelines governing the setting of execution dates. As far as still setting dates in light of the pending case in the Supremes, I think it's the state's ways of sorta saying f-you to those who challenge LI, and saying they're not going to stop the machinery of death until forced to stop.
|
|
|
Post by Ariel on Nov 15, 2007 13:00:04 GMT -6
'Generally speaking, every state has different laws and guidelines governing the setting of execution dates.
As far as still setting dates in light of the pending case in the Supremes, I think it's the state's ways of sorta saying f-you to those who challenge LI, and saying they're not going to stop the machinery of death until forced to stop.'
Yes, I'm sure you're right, Anony+. But why don't they just drop LI and execute by the traditional methods since none of them are facing a SCOTUS challenge?
|
|
|
Post by Anony+ on Nov 15, 2007 18:34:39 GMT -6
'Generally speaking, every state has different laws and guidelines governing the setting of execution dates. As far as still setting dates in light of the pending case in the Supremes, I think it's the state's ways of sorta saying f-you to those who challenge LI, and saying they're not going to stop the machinery of death until forced to stop.' Yes, I'm sure you're right, Anony+. But why don't they just drop LI and execute by the traditional methods since none of them are facing a SCOTUS challenge? Because most states would have to go through the whole legislative process to get another execution method on the books. That takes time.
|
|
|
Post by Lisa on Nov 15, 2007 18:41:41 GMT -6
'Generally speaking, every state has different laws and guidelines governing the setting of execution dates. As far as still setting dates in light of the pending case in the Supremes, I think it's the state's ways of sorta saying f-you to those who challenge LI, and saying they're not going to stop the machinery of death until forced to stop.' Yes, I'm sure you're right, Anony+. But why don't they just drop LI and execute by the traditional methods since none of them are facing a SCOTUS challenge? Because most states would have to go through the whole legislative process to get another execution method on the books. That takes time. Allison, why aren't the states setting dates that might possibly come after the USSC decision? Instead, they're setting dates that will have to be reset. This is what doesn't make sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by rick4404 on Nov 15, 2007 19:12:20 GMT -6
Generally speaking, each state is free to continue setting execution dates as it sees fit. Each state has its own laws and procedures on the subject. However, under the general rule of law, a state is not required to anticipate a stay of execution from any court. Not even the U.S. Supreme Court.
This means that states can continue to set execution dates until they are told by proper authority to stop. This is why we're seeing the Supremes stop nearly every pending lethal injection execution until such time as it renders its decision in the Kentucky cases. Rather than grant certiorari in each case; they're simply pending the appeals and putting them in abeyance. All it takes is one of the nine justices to stay an execution. Four justices are required to grant certiorari in a case.
The U.S. Supreme Court clerk's office has undoubtedly been a busy place the last few weeks with defense attorneys filing applications for stays of execution, now that the court is routinely granting them particularly from states where the pending execution is to take place by lethal injection.
|
|
|
Post by Anony+ on Nov 15, 2007 20:03:05 GMT -6
Because most states would have to go through the whole legislative process to get another execution method on the books. That takes time. Allison, why aren't the states setting dates that might possibly come after the USSC decision? Instead, they're setting dates that will have to be reset. This is what doesn't make sense to me. Who knows when the decision will come down?? And I can speak specifically for Georgia -- the date has to be no sooner than 10 days and no later than 20 days after the signing of the order. So they can't set executions more than 3 weeks out......other states may have similar requirements. Really, the states setting the dates now are just bowing up, knowing they'll be shot down, but trying to display their prowess.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Nov 15, 2007 20:17:55 GMT -6
Allison, why aren't the states setting dates that might possibly come after the USSC decision? Instead, they're setting dates that will have to be reset. This is what doesn't make sense to me. Who knows when the decision will come down?? And I can speak specifically for Georgia -- the date has to be no sooner than 10 days and no later than 20 days after the signing of the order. So they can't set executions more than 3 weeks out......other states may have similar requirements. Really, the states setting the dates now are just bowing up, knowing they'll be shot down, but trying to display their prowess. I wonder what would happen if a state just went ahead and executed anyway despite the SCOTUS.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Nov 15, 2007 20:27:53 GMT -6
I wonder what would happen if a state just went ahead and executed anyway despite the SCOTUS. Nothing stops a governor from doing it. Nothing at all.
|
|
|
Post by Lisa on Nov 15, 2007 23:24:32 GMT -6
Allison, why aren't the states setting dates that might possibly come after the USSC decision? Instead, they're setting dates that will have to be reset. This is what doesn't make sense to me. Who knows when the decision will come down?? And I can speak specifically for Georgia -- the date has to be no sooner than 10 days and no later than 20 days after the signing of the order. So they can't set executions more than 3 weeks out......other states may have similar requirements. Really, the states setting the dates now are just bowing up, knowing they'll be shot down, but trying to display their prowess. I didn't realize the dates expired that soon. Now I understand.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2007 23:27:52 GMT -6
Allison, why aren't the states setting dates that might possibly come after the USSC decision? Instead, they're setting dates that will have to be reset. This is what doesn't make sense to me. Who knows when the decision will come down?? And I can speak specifically for Georgia -- the date has to be no sooner than 10 days and no later than 20 days after the signing of the order. So they can't set executions more than 3 weeks out......other states may have similar requirements. Really, the states setting the dates now are just bowing up, knowing they'll be shot down, but trying to display their prowess. Could there be deadlines involved in setting the dates? Perhaps meeting some procedural requirement for after appeals are completed? It does seem pretty useless otherwise at this point.
|
|
|
Post by Anony+ on Nov 16, 2007 6:34:56 GMT -6
Who knows when the decision will come down?? And I can speak specifically for Georgia -- the date has to be no sooner than 10 days and no later than 20 days after the signing of the order. So they can't set executions more than 3 weeks out......other states may have similar requirements. Really, the states setting the dates now are just bowing up, knowing they'll be shot down, but trying to display their prowess. Could there be deadlines involved in setting the dates? Perhaps meeting some procedural requirement for after appeals are completed? It does seem pretty useless otherwise at this point. No, no deadlines or time limits for the States. There are time limits, obviously, that the defendants have to follow. But none for the states.
|
|
|
Post by rick4404 on Nov 16, 2007 19:47:13 GMT -6
Who knows when the decision will come down?? And I can speak specifically for Georgia -- the date has to be no sooner than 10 days and no later than 20 days after the signing of the order. So they can't set executions more than 3 weeks out......other states may have similar requirements. Really, the states setting the dates now are just bowing up, knowing they'll be shot down, but trying to display their prowess. I wonder what would happen if a state just went ahead and executed anyway despite the SCOTUS. Well for one thing, there would be all legal and political heck to pay. The warden, the commissioner/director of corrections and whichever other official a judge would want to make responsible would be at least held in contempt of court. Possibly even worse, the executioners who actually did the deed in defiance of a legitimate court order could themselves be charged with murder. In other words, the matter would no longer be a legally-sanctioned exercise of the state. Instead it would become nothing more than a modern-day lynching. I would also think the deceased prisoner's family members would have grounds for one heck of a wrongful death lawsuit against the state.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Nov 16, 2007 20:00:48 GMT -6
I wonder what would happen if a state just went ahead and executed anyway despite the SCOTUS. Well for one thing, there would be all legal and political heck to pay. The warden, the commissioner/director of corrections and whichever other official a judge would want to make responsible would be at least held in contempt of court. Possibly even worse, the executioners who actually did the deed in defiance of a legitimate court order could themselves be charged with murder. In other words, the matter would no longer be a legally-sanctioned exercise of the state. Instead it would become nothing more than a modern-day lynching. I would also think the deceased prisoner's family members would have grounds for one heck of a wrongful death lawsuit against the state. But what if the state supreme court said "f%ck the SCOTUS" and gave the warden a court order to proceed. It might not be a "legitimate" court order, but you can't really blame the warden and executioners for that. I know it would never in a million years happen, and I'm not suggesting it should. But I wonder what they would do if TX said they were gonna juice someone next week regardless. I mean, would the feds send in the national guard to physically stop it from happening? I know it is just fantasy, but it would make for a compelling story!
|
|
|
Post by rick4404 on Nov 17, 2007 13:45:07 GMT -6
Well for one thing, there would be all legal and political heck to pay. The warden, the commissioner/director of corrections and whichever other official a judge would want to make responsible would be at least held in contempt of court. Possibly even worse, the executioners who actually did the deed in defiance of a legitimate court order could themselves be charged with murder. In other words, the matter would no longer be a legally-sanctioned exercise of the state. Instead it would become nothing more than a modern-day lynching. I would also think the deceased prisoner's family members would have grounds for one heck of a wrongful death lawsuit against the state. But what if the state supreme court said "f%ck the SCOTUS" and gave the warden a court order to proceed. It might not be a "legitimate" court order, but you can't really blame the warden and executioners for that. I know it would never in a million years happen, and I'm not suggesting it should. But I wonder what they would do if TX said they were gonna juice someone next week regardless. I mean, would the feds send in the national guard to physically stop it from happening? I know it is just fantasy, but it would make for a compelling story! Man, that state supreme court would have the (unmentionables) to do that. It would essentially be legal and political suicide for the members of that court. As far as the national guard coming in; the "militia" of each state (national guard's legal term) comes under the direct jurisdiction of the governor of the state. Except during times when the guard troops have been mobilized for active duty service. Then those troops are under the jurisdiction of the President of the United States as the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces through the various channels and levels of command. I don't think SCOTUS has the legal authority to order the mobilization of national guard troops to prevent an execution from happening. Besides, all the warden would have to say is..."Oops. Our bad. We must have lost the stay of execution order...Too bad!" Basically, rather than a deliberate act, something like this would be the direct result of a breakdown in the chain of communications. There is an elaborate protocol in place on an execution day in most states. It starts with the attorney general's office which is involved in any last minute appeals that a condemned person's attorneys would care to file. In most states, if the attorney general is informed that a court of competent jurisdiction has issued a stay of execution, he or she then proceeds to inform the governor who in turn communicates with the appropriate official(s) of the department of corrections who then informs the warden to halt the execution. In states like Georgia in which the governor has no voice involving a pending execution, I would assume the attorney general would directly inform the proper prison authorities to stop the execution, rather than that information coming from the governor's office.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2007 20:29:16 GMT -6
'Generally speaking, every state has different laws and guidelines governing the setting of execution dates. As far as still setting dates in light of the pending case in the Supremes, I think it's the state's ways of sorta saying f-you to those who challenge LI, and saying they're not going to stop the machinery of death until forced to stop.' So why don't the sates select several executions methods but have a specified order: 1st hanging, 2nd - guillotine, 3rd - automatic firing squad (as developed in the late 1800s in OK. That way, if as occurred in Washington state, a Federal Judge said that because the prisoner had gained too much weight, he could not be hung. If a state had the other alternatives already approved, the state could then tell the prisoner, you are not too heavy for the guillotine. Yes, I'm sure you're right, Anony+. But why don't they just drop LI and execute by the traditional methods since none of them are facing a SCOTUS challenge? Because most states would have to go through the whole legislative process to get another execution method on the books. That takes time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2007 15:02:41 GMT -6
Thanks for the good answers.....
|
|