Texas halts executions as lethal injections deemed 'unconstitutionally cruel'

[Honey]

An appeals court in Texas has stopped a scheduled execution of a Honduran man convicted of murder.



Lawyers for Heliberto Chi, 28, had asked the court for a reprieve in light of a US Supreme Court decision last week to review lethal injection procedures in Kentucky after two prisoners there argued the process was unconstitutionally cruel.
The injection procedures are the same in Texas. Chi would have been the 27th Texas prisoner to die this year in the United States' most active death penalty state.
Scroll down for more...
The death chamber: Lethal injections are now under review and some executions in Texas have been halted



"I'm grateful there's some measure of common sense descending on the great state of Texas," said Wes Ball, Chi's lawyer.
Texas Governor Rick Perry has said he believes the procedure is proper. The Texas Attorney General's Office has said it will review each case with an approaching execution date on a case-by-case basis.
Early last week, within hours of the Supreme Court announcement in the Kentucky case, the courts allowed Texas officials to execute Michael Richard for a murder 21 years ago.
But two days later, Carlton Turner Junior, condemned for fatally shooting his parents, was spared when the Supreme Court blocked his punishment.
The mixed messages left it uncertain if the Kentucky case would stall future executions in Texas.
Terence O'Rourke, a lawyer in the Chi case, was working with the government of Honduras to convince Perry and the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles they should spare Chi.
Until the lethal injection challenge surfaced, O'Rourke had focused on Chi's inability to contact someone from the Honduran government, a violation of an international treaty, after he was arrested for the 2001 slaying.
"I don't think they've actually taken seriously their responsibility to comply with international law," O'Rourke said of Texas.
He and several Honduran diplomats met with Perry's legal advisers to advocate a reprieve.
The board, however, voted Tuesday 7-0 against a request to commute the sentence, but a request to recommend a 180-day reprieve was much closer, failing by a 4-3 vote.
The International Court of Justice in The Hague, ruling in a suit Mexico filed against the United States, has said the convictions of about 50 Mexican-born prisoners violated the 1963 Vienna Convention because they were denied legal help available under the treaty.
President George W Bush then ordered new state court hearings for those prisoners based on the ruling, but his order applies only to imprisoned Mexican citizens. "There is an argument the case just applies to the country in front of it," O'Rourke said of proceedings before the Netherlands-based court.

Texas halts executions as lethal injections deemed 'unconstitutionally cruel' | the Daily Mail

[cbees_honey]

Oh and what these demons do is NOT "unconstitutionally cruel"?

[Sweetie]

I can't decide if I agree with the death penalty or not. In some cases I think they should be taken from the courthouse doors and shot on the spot, but then I think about it and wonder why it's okay for the state to kill but not a person.
It's something I have not been able to make a decision about for a long time. I even did a paper on it when I was in college but that didn't help me. lol

[McJag]

The State doesn't cold bloodedly kill-only after a jury convicts. That a vast difference from some loving couple who adopted a boy, gave him a happy home-or at least tried-then was slaughtered for their efforts by that same son. They got no jury,no lawyer,no chance to say good bye. THAT son is one missing his appointment with death right now. If you have pity or care ,please use it for the hapless victims who never got a vote.

[Sweetie]

Yeah, I know, that's part of what gets me, but death is death and killing is killing. I just don't think it's right for anyone to kill, whether it's the state or a normal Joe. BUT then you have crimes like you just stated and that makes me learn toward it.
So confused, I have been for many, many years.

[crumpet]

Yeah, I know, that's part of what gets me, but death is death and killing is killing
Some people just need killin'.

[Sweetie]

^That's exactly right, but if the state does it it's fine but if a citizen does it then it's murder. I just don't see why the state should have the power to take a life if I can't do it when someone rapes, murder or beats my child.
It just sounds weird to me and it gives the law more power than I think it should have.

[Grimmlok]

The law is a body of social rules with consequences. Whether that consequence reaches too far is another matter.

Frankly, if someone is a serial killer they obviously cannot function in society and actually harm it.

[Sweetie]

Yeah, I know that but as you can tell the law is a twisted thing. Most people in law enforcement, I find, are not very good people and the system it self isn't either.

[Tati]

I always wonder about all the people involved along the way to execution though. What about the guilt that the judge, the jurors, the police officers, the doctors, the prosecutors could all conceivably face if they know they were involved in ending someone's life? Not everyone who decides to be a prosecutor believes in the death penalty - and laws change, a state that never used to have the death penalty could introduce it after you're already a part of its system. And what if you're called to jury duty in a death penalty state? You may believe someone's guilty, but not that they should get the death penalty. It might not bother everyone, but it could really tear some people up.

I think it's very easy to say that we would like some criminals to be put to death, but I'd rather them rot in jail than have their death on someone's conscience who may not want it there.

[McJag]

^That's exactly right, but if the state does it it's fine but if a citizen does it then it's murder. I just don't see why the state should have the power to take a life if I can't do it when someone rapes, murder or beats my child.
It just sounds weird to me and it gives the law more power than I think it should have.

If someone rapes or murders your child, the state executes in your behalf. There is a vast difference in a private citizen vigilante and a trial with judge and jury of 12 reaching the same conclusion as you might have 20 seconds after. They weigh all the evidence with a cool head and make the decision. And no-it wouldn't bother me one bit to be on the jury or pull the switch-once I was convinced the evidence was there.Some people need killing. I expect the state to do that and relieve me of the temptation!

[MrsMarsters]

Well personally I do not look at child molestors, or serial killers as even being human, and apparently they do not either. They are not people, they do not belong in society. They are just about as useful as dogshit.

[Tati]

And no-it wouldn't bother me one bit to be on the jury or pull the switch-once I was convinced the evidence was there.

It might bother someone an awful lot though, and they might not have any say in the matter. I just don't see the point. I would think spending a lifetime in prison would bring far more misery then a quick death anyway.

[MrsMarsters]

I don't know, maybe it is a better justice, but if someone is as mentally deranged as some as these people, it might not faze them at all. Some people just really do not deserve to live, but then again who are we to argue who lives and who dies?..However the people that they emotionally,mentally, and physically murdered sure as hell did not get a say so either..It's tricky..but I can honestly say I am still FOR the death penalty. I think a prime example would be Couey, who abducted, raped, and buried alive a 10 year old girl, should be put too death. Why should they get the luxury of living..when that person they murdered or raped will never have the same life, or any life at all?

[southernbelle]

Some people need to be executed. They're a danger to society, and if released back into it they will continue to commit violent crimes without concern or remorse. I believe that when you savagely and intentionally take someone else's life, you forfeit your own "constitutionally protected right" to life. You can't take someone's life and then cry and bitch about how yours should be spared. I have NO pity for these thugs.