ACLU Challenge Lethal Injection
Posted on July 22, 2006
The ACLU had earlier asked the Department of Corrections to supply details on the lethal injection process used in executions. The agency process, the ACLU said, is the “same protocol held unconstitutional as cruel and unusual punishment in other state and federal courts.”
The ACLU and others have already taken the case to the state Supreme Court, hoping to get a decision soon enough to block the Aug. 11 execution of David Dawson. The Supreme Court has given the state until Monday to file its argument.
Attorney General Mike McGrath has said he does not believe the groups have standing to file the case, since Dawson has fired his attorneys and expressed his desire to be executed.
On Friday, the ACLU said details of the Corrections Department’s lethal injection method show it uses a fast-acting barbiturate, a paralyzing agent and a large dose of sodium chloride to trigger a massive heart attack.
The danger is that a person may still be conscious when the heart attack is triggered, and be able to feel a great deal of pain even though they can’t move, the ACLU said.
The ACLU also questioned the qualifications of executioners to determine if the person to be executed has really been put under before the heart attack is triggered.
“No one would question the necessity of having a qualified anesthesiologist administer an anesthetic during surgery, but we don’t know the qualifications or training of the person giving the injection,” Scott Crichton, executive director of the Montana ACLU, said in a release.
The argument mirrors much of what the ACLU claimed in its case before the Supreme Court, where it said mounting evidence shows that lethal injection is painful and unconstitutional because it basically amounts to cruel and unusual punishment.
Earlier this week, Dawson filed his own brief in the case, saying he wanted to be put to death and asked the high court to disregard the ACLU’s argument.
“This is not being tied to a bumper of a car and drug until dead, this is go to sleep, don’t wake up,” he wrote in a typed brief to the court, referring to himself as the movant in the case. “Movant is therefore unconcerned with the method of execution and shouldn’t be forced to linger until an ‘appropriate’ method, one more suitable to the public taste can be found.”
Dawson was convicted for killing three family members that he held captive in a hotel room in 1987. He has been fighting for two years now to end his appeals and have his execution carried out. So why is the ACLU still fighting for his execution to be postponed. I think it is obvious that they are fighting for their own agenda. The ACLU has a history of being active in fighting the death penalty even when its assistance has not been wanted by the person up for execution.
Ever since 1965 when the ACLU came out officially against the death penalty they have been unwavering in their opposition. It really wouldn’t matter what method the state used to execute a criminal, the ACLU would oppose it. To the ACLU killing is wrong in all cases with the exception of abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia.
The American Civil Liberties Union believes the death penalty inherently violates the constitutional ban against cruel and unusual punishment and the guarantees of due process of law and of equal protection under the law. Furthermore, we hold that the state should not arrogate unto itself the right to kill human beings – especially when it kills with premeditation and ceremony, in the name of the law or in the name of its people, or when it does so in an arbitrary and discriminatory fashion.
Capital punishment is an intolerable denial of civil liberties, and is inconsistent with the fundamental values of our democratic system. Therefore, through litigation, legislation, commutation and by helping to foster a renewed public outcry against this barbarous and brutalizing institution, we strive to prevent executions and seek the abolition of capital punishment.
No matter what one thinks of the death penalty, the ACLU’s argument that it violates the Eighth Amendment is ridiculous. This is most likely why the Supreme Court has consistently and explicitly rejected the argument that the death penalty violates the Constitution.
The same persons who wrote the Eighth Amendment also expressly allowed for the death penalty; it was routinely used during their time. What was meant by “cruel and unusual punishment” was torturous and barbarous acts, such as disembowelment or breaking the wheel (smashing someone’s bones with a crowbar on a wheel). By denying these acts while permitting death by hanging, the Framers sought to distinguish between those forms of punishment in which pain was not incidental to the act (wanton punishment) and those in which it was. And recall that the Fifth Amendment bars the taking of life without due process of law, sugesting that if due process were provided, executions were acceptable. Twilight of Liberty
The only way that the ACLU’s argument that capital punishment violates the Bill of Rights is if one takes the view that the intentions of our founders doesn’t matter and that the Constitution is a “living document” that should change with the times. Of course the ACLU do believe this.
Regardless of your personal views on capital punishment, don’t be fooled by the ACLU’s ideology towards crime and punishment. Personally I believe that some people deserve to die for their evil crimes and it is on my personal conviction that I oppose the ACLU’s goals in this. It can not see beyond the rights of the accused and the convicted to even consider the consequences of its actions. The ACLU’s opposition to the death penalty is only one part of their larger flawed agenda in the realm of crime and punishment. Their opposition to the death penalty alone is not near as dangerous as their attitude towards criminal justice in general. Most reasonable people that oppose the death penalty would prefer life in prison with no chance of parole. The ACLU even oppose that.
Eliminate all prison sentencing from criminal judicial procedure except in a few “extreme” cases of utter incorrigibility-and only then as the penalty of last resort. Source
The cruel practice of partial birth abortion, where the baby’s skull is punctured and the brains sucked out, is a cause the ACLU find worthy. Just mark it down as a woman’s reproductive rights. Injecting a critically ill person with deadly chemicals in the cause of euthaniasia is another cause the ACLU champion. But to lethally inject a heinous criminal? Well, of course that violates the First Amendment.
It is obvious that this is part of a broader agenda for the ACLU to abolish all capital punishment. If the ACLU are successful in this case it will be one big step towards that goal.
Trackback URL
Comments
2 Responses to “ACLU Challenge Lethal Injection”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
Stop the ACLU blogburst
-
More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
Jay-
Excellent post! I despise the death penalty. I think that the Government shouldn’t be given the ultimate power of life and death over its citizens.
But excellent point on the ACLU’s lack of credibility concerning criminal punishment.
It was a very good post and hit a lot of key points that show the ACLU is using the courts to force it’s agenda on us.