Comments on: US judges chide colleagues over execution concerns http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2012/05/18/us-judges-chide-colleagues-over-execution-concerns/ Your Inside Track to Arizona Politics Fri, 24 May 2013 00:49:52 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: proact http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2012/05/18/us-judges-chide-colleagues-over-execution-concerns/comment-page-1/#comment-72702 proact Wed, 23 May 2012 23:27:57 +0000 http://azcapitoltimes.com/?p=45942#comment-72702 Donna Leone Hamm, Thank you for properly informing the public and reminding those who determine who shall live and who shall die of the Constitution, which seems to have been tossed out of Arizona. Donna Leone Hamm, Thank you for properly informing the public and reminding those who determine who shall live and who shall die of the Constitution, which seems to have been tossed out of Arizona.

]]> By: Donna Leone Hamm http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2012/05/18/us-judges-chide-colleagues-over-execution-concerns/comment-page-1/#comment-72631 Donna Leone Hamm Sun, 20 May 2012 21:02:03 +0000 http://azcapitoltimes.com/?p=45942#comment-72631 In reading the above article, shouldn't the word "unconstiutional" in front of the words "pain" and"suffering" trigger a concern when considered by a group of judges? The defendant has already been found guilty. The execution is the punishment that has been ordered and has nothing whatsoever to do with the victims. It is the process by which the punishment will be carried out. Several years ago, I heard Justice Ryan, formerly of the Arizona Supreme Court, tell an audience that the "purpose of the (Arizona) Supreme Court is to protect public safety"" Sorry, Judge. As politely as I could, I reminded him,"No, the purpose of the Supreme Court is to protect individual rights." Including the rights of convicted criminals. That's how the Constitution is written, fellas. This issue has the same quality to it. If it quacks, it is a duck. If it is unconstitutional, then the Court needs to intervene without regard to whatever other emotional (or politically correct) issues are involved. That's why we have that lady with the blindfold and the evenly balanced set of scales. I am not uncaring about or unsympathetic to victims. Their suffering is unfathomable, especially in cases where the death penalty is invoked against the perpetrator. But we don't allow victims' families, the defendant's family or other biased individuals to set the sentence. And such individuals are not supposed to carry out the sentence either. If the method of execution is likely to cause "unconstitutional pain and suffering" then the Court must not try to figure out if the victim's family or representatives are feeling more pain than would be inflicted on the defendant by using cruel methods of execution. What an absurd -- and chilling -- ruling from the Court! In reading the above article, shouldn’t the word “unconstiutional” in front of the words “pain” and”suffering” trigger a concern when considered by a group of judges? The defendant has already been found guilty. The execution is the punishment that has been ordered and has nothing whatsoever to do with the victims. It is the process by which the punishment will be carried out.

Several years ago, I heard Justice Ryan, formerly of the Arizona Supreme Court, tell an audience that the “purpose of the (Arizona) Supreme Court is to protect public safety”" Sorry, Judge. As politely as I could, I reminded him,”No, the purpose of the Supreme Court is to protect individual rights.” Including the rights of convicted criminals. That’s how the Constitution is written, fellas.

This issue has the same quality to it. If it quacks, it is a duck. If it is unconstitutional, then the Court needs to intervene without regard to whatever other emotional (or politically correct) issues are involved. That’s why we have that lady with the blindfold and the evenly balanced set of scales.

I am not uncaring about or unsympathetic to victims. Their suffering is unfathomable, especially in cases where the death penalty is invoked against the perpetrator. But we don’t allow victims’ families, the defendant’s family or other biased individuals to set the sentence. And such individuals are not supposed to carry out the sentence either. If the method of execution is likely to cause “unconstitutional pain and suffering” then the Court must not try to figure out if the victim’s family or representatives are feeling more pain than would be inflicted on the defendant by using cruel methods of execution.

What an absurd — and chilling — ruling from the Court!

]]>