home

6th Circuit Splits on Lethal Injection Litigation

Via Sentencing Law and Policy:

The capital drama in Tennessee (background here and here) took another turn this morning as the Sixth Circuit in Alley v. Little, No. 06-5650 (6th Cir. May 16, 2006) (available here) refused to reconsider its decision to lift a district court stay based on a lethal injection claim. Five of the 12 voting judges dissented in a potent and brief opinion authored by Judge Martin. Here are portions of Judge Martin's dissent:....

Lethal injection litigation also led to a stay of execution in Texas.

< New Report on Crack-Powder Disparity | Tribe: Bush Stomps on Fourth Amendment >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    A challenge to lethal injection has also resulted in putting a halt to aCalifornia's plans to step up the pace of executions. The tide is slowly turning.

    Re: 6th Circuit Splits on Lethal Injection Litigat (none / 0) (#2)
    by HK on Tue May 16, 2006 at 10:47:06 AM EST
    A stay of execution in Texas? Definitely something to hold the front page for! I've been pondering all aspects of this issue quite a lot lately. I know that in the US prospective jurors are not considered for capital cases if they are anti-death penalty. This naturally creates a predisposition towards a certain type of outcome. What I've been wondering is, are judges permitted to sit who are anti-death penalty? Indeed, are any judges anti-death penalty, given that their job is to follow specific guidlines that may require them to impose such a sentence? If it is the case that not just jurors but also judges are leaning in one direction from the outset, surely this creates a system in which once a certain degree of culpability is proven, the death sentence is a forgone conclusion. It also means that any attempt to challenge the death penalty will be shot down in flames - as detailed above. To me this means that there isn't a lot of room for change in the existing set-up. Nobody has any inclination to try alternative sentences or reconsider the methods used and consequences for society of the death penalty; thus the status quo is maintained. Would be interested to hear the thoughts of someone with more knowledge about this aspect of the US legal system.