In the latest effort to delay his execution, death row inmate Charles Russell Rhines is asking the court to let him choose the drug that the state will use to kill him as retribution for killing a man in a Rapid City doughnut shop in 1992.
Hmm… Rhines already got to choose a knife to kill one defenseless man; does he really deserve to choose the instrument of death for another?
I know, I know, the argument is moot. I maintain that we shouldn’t be killing anyone. When we strap Rhines down and inject him with poison next week, we (all of us, the entire statewide community that allows killing in our name) will commit our 21st such grave moral error.
But let us for a moment assume that the state has adopted just punishments. Do convicted criminals retain any right to choose their punishment, or the means by which that punishment will be carried out? If the law, created by political deliberation, applied and scrutinized by due process, deems the administration of a certain drug to be the proper punishment for a certain crime, does any individual retain a right to choose a punishment different from that prescribed by law?
Perhaps the answer lies in the sort of case-by-case justice we trust judges to apply. But before you get to the specifics of this punishment for this convict for this really heinous crime, consider the question in general: what rights do convicts retain in choosing their punishment?
Prison Without Punishment
Germany allows inmates to wear their own clothes, cook their own meals, and have romantic visits. Could that work in the United States? In many states prison seems to be more about citizens getting revenge against lawbreakers and making them suffer, than about anything else.
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/09/25/prison-without-punishment
Interestingly, killing is biblically moral if you can avoid false positives.
Killing an innocent man, however, represents the destructive power of a black hole with respect to morality.
Therefore, since it is too risky, the state should not use the death penalty.
Assuming that the state could have 100% accuracy in determining who deserves the death penalty, the criminal should not be able to choose the method.
Being forced to be in South Dakota should be punishment enough for anyone, especially with the condition of the state and environment under 40 years of wingnuttery.
I doubt anyone ever comes up with a completely safe, humane death for death row inmates. And with drug cocktails , using inmates as guinea pigs sounds cruel. OTOH, law enforcement made a drug bust and took in enough fentanyl to kill everyone in Ohio. Yikes.
I thought fellows and gals on the row of death got to pick the method, like hanging, electrolysis, beheading or firing squad, in addition to the leaching of poison into their bodies.
grudznick would add “goon squad” to the options, and have that be the default option if the criminal doesn’t choose when offered the menu.
From what I have gathered this pending death is wrong as is abortion. Both is the loss of a soul. Next time anyone belles up with God tell us what that deity thinks
Interesting example from Germany, Porter… but even there, the law sets the parameters for the punishment, not the convicts, right?
Yes.
Cory, you picked an appropriate macabre subject for Halloween!
If the state had a list of medically approved (yikes!) fatal drugs for inmates to choose from, I’d say yes. SD has no such arrangement so no, he cannot choose.
Best option? Life in prison. We wouldn’t be hearing about this murderer any longer, the state wouldn’t be spending all this money in court, it would be all over and done with 20 years ago and the victim’s family wouldn’t have to keep hearing about this guy.
Yes Death row inmates should have a choice of their death.
Electric chair
Firing squad
Lethal injection
Or
Parachute drop sans parachute
If the question is whether Rhines should have the benefit of a statutory right, then the answer is yes.
http://www.startribune.com/south-dakota-inmate-seeks-delay-to-choose-own-execution-drug/564062812/
So to rephrase Cory’s question slightly, perhaps we should be asking:
If we are talking about what the statutes ought to be, however, then one has to remember the 8th Amendment’s command “nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted” and decide whether any particular method of execution, say drawing and quartering, is “cruel and unusual.” If so, and unless we desire to repeal this part of the 8th Amendment, then it would make sense to allow the prisoner to reject that method of execution. And ultimately, the question of whether to use an “ultra-short-acting” drug is really a question of whether this method satisfies the prohibition of our 8th Amendment.
As for Rhines, he surely should be entitled to whatever statutory options the legislature has granted someone in his circumstances. Otherwise, why not just bludgen him to death in his cell without any legal process and get it over with?
Debbo, does any other state allow such choice by death-row inmates?
Robert, why should we allow that choice? Are there other situations in which we allow convicts such choice of punishment? What end does such choice serve?
Ah, there’s the statute—SDCL 23A-27A-32.1:
I was wondering why I wasn’t hearing “cruel and unusual” arguments, and this appears to be it. If I understand from BCB’s comment correctly, the defendant isn’t really questioning whether drug X violates the 8th Amendment; the defendant is simply arguing for application of statute… at which point I’m wondering why there’s even a court challenge?
If the state’s preferred execution drug, pentobarbital, is only a short-acting drug (and I don’t need a pharmacologist to tell me that; dumb old Google verifies that classificaiton pretty quickly) and the condemned man wants ultra-short-acting thiopental or methohexital, then there’s no debate: the law says he gets one of those ultra-short-acting drugs.
But now that BCB has pointed out the statutory background of the argument, I wonder about the statute. The change came in 2007 HB 1175, backed by Governor Rounds and AG Larry Long. Pre-2007, the statute said, “The punishment of death shall be inflicted by the intravenous administration of a lethal quantity of an ultra-short-acting barbiturate in combination with a chemical paralytic agent and continuing the application thereof until the convict is pronounced dead by a licensed physician according to accepted standards of medical practice.” 2007 HB 1175 changed the method of execution to “intravenous injection of a substance or substances in a lethal quantity. The warden, subject to the approval of the secretary of corrections, shall determine the substances and the quantity of substances used for the punishment of death.” HB 1175 also added the convict choice… but I wonder: was the choice given in recognition of some fundamental right of prisoners to have some say over their punishment? Was it given to prevent one avenue of appeal and allow inmates to have the execution the jury thought they’d get when they were convicted?
What if the makers of those other fast acting drugs refuse to allow them to be used in executions? Does the prisoner go free?
Yes, Mr. H. As grudznick pointed out at 18:11 blog time yesterday.
Mr. Mike, if he wants a drug and it’s not there then they set him loose in Iowa with a goon squad on his trail.
grudznick … As strange as you are, for some reason that term “goon squad” always makes me chuckle a bit. I guess I’m a little strange, too. It was a goon squad that used to chase Popeye the Sailor, until he ate his spinach and saved Olive Oyle.
PS = the G in 5G stands for goats
Cory, the change was made to avoid any ex-post-facto argument against application of the change in the manner of execution to using an “intravenous injection of a substance or substances in a lethal quantity.” To the extent that this made the punishment by death more severe, such a change could not be constitutionally applied to a person sentenced to death before the change, which is what occurred in Rhine’s case. The Ex-Post-Facto Clause prohibits increasing the punishment for a crime after the crime has been committed.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/ex-post-facto-law#targetText=Ex%20post%20facto%20law%2C%20law,substantially%20disadvantageous%20to%20the%20accused.
Hence, rather than acting out of sympathy or some belief that a condemned prisoner should have the right to choose the method of execution, enactment of this “choice” statute was simply facing the reality that the legislature lacked the power to force a condemned person to submit to a more severe method of execution after the crime was committed.
Interesting prospect, Mike, that the execution of a prisoner could be left in limbo by the unavailability of poison. No statute would trigger release; I assume the prisoner would just remain on death row until the state could secure a legal poison or until nature denied us the satisfaction of killing the man ourselves.
The court ruled against Rhines today, not on the merits but on res judicata, saying the court ruled pentobarbital an ultra-short-acting in 2011 and Rhines should have appealed then.
Charles Rhines is scheduled to be executed on Monday Nov. 4 at 1:30 pm (CST).
Roger Cornelius – sad we have to go through the execution of a human being .. but sometimes I think it’s justified.
Just found this and I think it is interesting…. https://www.vox.com/2019/11/4/20947647/execution-anti-gay-charles-rhines
Some Jurors admitted Rines being gay shaped their judgment for the death penalty.
Rines was an absolute pile of garbage of a human being. He seemed without remorse and then “forgave” the parents of the boy he killed for hating him. Up until the end, he seemed incapable of showing empathy.
That being said: god, I hope the death penalty is eliminated as an option sooner rather than later.
Is an island available… a la Papillion style? I know Australia is off the table, but there has to be another uninhabited place we can send these people to eek out an existence without pulling the trigger ourselves. Make sure there is food and water and let them live (or die) the way God intends. We’ve spent money on dumber things.
John, We tried that. Got Australia.
And New Jersey.
da da CHING!
Nyuk nyuk.
an absolute pile of garbage still has constitutional rights. A segment of the population has been misinformed about prison life.
I never said he didn’t, Mike. I’d prefer he not be put to death at all.
Dicta, I never even insinuated you said he doesn’t deserve rights. I just pointed that out. As a human with rights he should not have had his fate in the hands of prejudiced jurors.
As for the death penalty, I usually favor abolishing t, but, then I realized it is an important tool in wiping out wingnut corruption in states and the kremlin annex in DC.
I agree with Dicta. Rhines’s vile final words are unworthy of hearing… but we still have no business killing restrained criminals, even the most vile.
grudzie, electrolysis rarely results in death, lol. Did you do that on purpose? :-)