As ever, the Trump Justice Department demonstrates that it thinks the best way to defend the public from lawbreakers is to ignore the law. From the Kansas City Star:
A Kansas man executed Thursday by the U.S. government did not receive
proper notice of his new death date after his most recent execution
warrant expired, a death penalty expert said. Wesley Purkey, 68, was put to death at the Federal Correctional Complex in Terre Haute, Indiana, years after he admitted to killing 16-year-old Jennifer Long, a Kansas City teenager. The
question at hand isn’t whether Purkey should have been executed, but
rather if his death was constitutional, said Robert Dunham, executive
director of the Death Penalty Information Center. He
said the federal government’s decision to proceed with administering a
lethal injection to Purkey hours after the most recent attempt to stay
his execution was struck down was “extremely disturbing.”
Purkey’s attorneys had argued he was mentally unfit for execution
because he suffered from dementia. The execution was stayed until early
Thursday, when the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, cleared the
way for him to be put to death. ... Two days earlier, Purkey’s attorneys sent a letter to the Department of Justice
advising that the government must set a new execution date and “cannot
lawfully execute” their client after his execution warrant expired at
11:59 p.m EST on Wednesday. Purkey was put to death eight hours later. According to federal regulations, if an execution date passes, then the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons
will set a new date as soon as the stay is lifted. But this should be
done at least seven days before the new execution date, Dunham said. “To
say to somebody who is in the execution chamber, ‘good morning, we’re
going to execute you now,’ is not acceptable legal notice,” he said,
adding that due process requires Purkey and his attorneys be given time
to respond. “It’s behavior we haven’t seen before from any administration, Republican or Democratic,” Dunham added.
You won't be surprised to learn that the Supreme Court had to sign off on rubbing out a man who probably didn't understand what was happening or why. You won't be surprised to learn that this Supreme Court found that to be just fine. You won't be surprised to learn the vote was 5-4. You won't be surprised to learn who made up the Deadly Five.
Read more here: https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article244268387.html#storylink=cpy
Read more here: https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article244268387.html#storylink=cpy
Read more here: https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article244268387.html#storylink=cpy
I was going to say something snarky about why doesn't Catholic leadership say something. But turns out they did, along with 1000 priests, religious, Protestant, Jewish, and other religious leaders. Not to mention the USCCB issued its own statement.
Yeah, I don't get it. These people have been securely locked up for over 20 years. How does killing them now make us safer? I'm not going to shed tears over people who committed heinous killings and spewed hatred, but even murderers have the right to work out whatever salvation they can in God's own time.
For people who strongly support the death penalty, I would guess that the likely reaction to this story won't be, "We killed this guy without waiting seven more days? Outrageous!" It's more likely to be, "This scumbag murderer got to live for 20 years while his fancy-pants lawyers pursued multiple avenues of legal appeal? Outrageous!"
Fwiw, I do think it's a bad thing that the government, in its rush to execute this guy, ignored their legal requirements. If there are any inspectors general still employed by the federal government, this seems like an incident worthy of investigation.
Tom, I don't know whether the Supreme Court (and other appellate-level courts) review all the facts in evidence in making these decisions. Sometimes these appeals are restricted to narrow questions of process.
The process question his lawyer raised is that Purkey suffers from advanced Alzheimer’s disease, dementia, schizophrenia and brain damage and, therefore, was not mentally competent enough to be executed. Additionally he raised a question of whether the feds withheld evidence about Purkey's condition.
The mental question should have been raised in the sole execution I covered. The Commonwealth of Kentucky executed Kelly Moss for killing his stepfather and, maybe worse, then hiding in the outhouse at the "colored school." Kelly's mother said the old man deserved killing. Really, Kelly was convicted because he had a tendency to drink a few and tear up bars and the state troopers who arrived to subdue him. And because, under state law as it stood, it was either death for Kelly or eligibility for parole when he'd still be strong enough to bust up bars and troopers. The whole affair did not cover capital punishment with glory.
I was going to say something snarky about why doesn't Catholic leadership say something. But turns out they did, along with 1000 priests, religious, Protestant, Jewish, and other religious leaders. Not to mention the USCCB issued its own statement.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I don't get it. These people have been securely locked up for over 20 years. How does killing them now make us safer? I'm not going to shed tears over people who committed heinous killings and spewed hatred, but even murderers have the right to work out whatever salvation they can in God's own time.
ReplyDeleteFor people who strongly support the death penalty, I would guess that the likely reaction to this story won't be, "We killed this guy without waiting seven more days? Outrageous!" It's more likely to be, "This scumbag murderer got to live for 20 years while his fancy-pants lawyers pursued multiple avenues of legal appeal? Outrageous!"
ReplyDeleteFwiw, I do think it's a bad thing that the government, in its rush to execute this guy, ignored their legal requirements. If there are any inspectors general still employed by the federal government, this seems like an incident worthy of investigation.
Tom, I don't know whether the Supreme Court (and other appellate-level courts) review all the facts in evidence in making these decisions. Sometimes these appeals are restricted to narrow questions of process.
The process question his lawyer raised is that Purkey suffers from advanced Alzheimer’s disease, dementia, schizophrenia and brain damage and, therefore, was not mentally competent enough to be executed. Additionally he raised a question of whether the feds withheld evidence about Purkey's condition.
DeleteThe mental question should have been raised in the sole execution I covered. The Commonwealth of Kentucky executed Kelly Moss for killing his stepfather and, maybe worse, then hiding in the outhouse at the "colored school." Kelly's mother said the old man deserved killing. Really, Kelly was convicted because he had a tendency to drink a few and tear up bars and the state troopers who arrived to subdue him. And because, under state law as it stood, it was either death for Kelly or eligibility for parole when he'd still be strong enough to bust up bars and troopers. The whole affair did not cover capital punishment with glory.