South Carolina judge says firing squad, electric chair violate state constitution



A judge in South Carolina has ruled that two execution methods recently made available to death row inmates violate the prohibition against cruel, unusual, and corporal punishment codified in the state constitution.

On Tuesday evening, Judge Jocelyn Newman ruled that the firing squad and electric chair, two traditional means of execution which have fallen out of public favor in recent decades, could inflict severe pain and perhaps even a prolonged death, both of which could be considered "corporal" punishment.

As used in the state constitution, "corporal" refers not only to the body itself but to "mutilation of the body," Newman wrote in her ruling. This added protection against corporal punishment, she continued, offers "greater protections than those found in the Constitution of the United States," which bars only cruel and unusual punishment.

Last month, Newman presided over a lawsuit presented on behalf of four death row inmates in South Carolina — Brad Sigmon, Freddie Eugene Owens, Richard Moore, and Gary Dubose Terry — whose execution dates were looming and who were forced by the state to choose between the firing squad and electric chair since the drugs necessary for lethal injection have not been available in the state in nearly a decade.

During the four-day trial, Newman heard testimony from various witnesses who argued that a firing squad and electrocution both cause significant pain. Dr. Jonathan Arden, formerly of the medical examiner's office in Washington, D.C., stated the those who have been shot can experience excruciating pain for up to 15 seconds before they lose consciousness.

"In order for a volley of rifle shots to enter the front of the chest and impact and destroy the heart," Arden told the court, "there's a virtual guarantee that they will not only disrupt other soft tissues, which is a source of pain, but most importantly, they will break bones."

Arden also testified that the electric chair more or less amounted to "cooking" internal organs.

Despite testimony from witnesses who argued to the contrary, Judge Newman ultimately determined that the firing squad and the electric chair were both antiquated and inhumane forms of execution, a ruling which effectively forestalls executions for the foreseeable future. The state will likely appeal the decision.

Sigmon, Owens, Moore, and Terry were all convicted of at least one murder and sentenced to death between 1997 and 2002. South Carolina is one of just four states to authorize the use of firing squad in state executions and is one of eight states to permit electrocution. The last state execution in South Carolina took place in 2011.

Justice Clarence Thomas calls out SCOTUS for inconsistency on abortion and homicide for minors



Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas recently called attention to the Court's apparent double standard on the maturity of minors, questioning why the court believes teenagers are not fully culpable for homicide but should have an adult's full right to abortion.

In a footnote of his concurring opinion in Jones v. Mississippi, a juvenile sentencing case, Thomas observed, "When addressing juvenile murderers, this Court has stated that 'children are different' and that courts must consider 'a child's lesser culpability.'"

"And yet, when assessing the Court-created right of an individual of the same age to seek an abortion, Members of this Court take pains to emphasize a 'young woman's right to choose,'" Thomas wrote.

"It is curious how this Court's view of the maturity of minors ebbs and flows depending on the issue," he observed.

Justice Thomas, dropping this delicious footnote today in Jones v Miss. (a juvenile sentencing case)... https://t.co/JVHT30d0hK
— 𝘚𝘵𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘑. 𝘋𝘶𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘦𝘭𝘥 (@𝘚𝘵𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘑. 𝘋𝘶𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘦𝘭𝘥)1619100597.0

The Supreme Court's ruling in Jones v. Mississippi Thursday upheld a life without parole sentence for a Mississippi man, Brett Jones, who was convicted of stabbing his grandfather to death in 2004 when he was just 15 years old. Jones had challenged his sentence, arguing that recent Supreme Court opinions in Miller v. Alabama (2012) and Montgomery v. Louisiana (2016) required the judge who sentenced him to find that he was "permanently incorrigible" — incapable of rehabilitation — before sentencing him to life in prison.

In Miller v. Alabama, the court held that the Eighth Amendment's protection against "cruel and unusual punishment" prohibited mandatory minimum sentencing laws from requiring children convicted of homicide to be sentenced to life in prison without parole. In Montgomery v. Louisiana, the court held that the Miller ruling applied retroactively.

In a 6-3 decision, the court disagreed with Jones' argument, holding that a judge is only required to consider "an offender's youth and attendant characteristics" before handing down a life sentence without parole.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the majority opinion, writing the "argument that the sentencer must make a finding of permanent incorrigibility is inconsistent with the Court's precedents." He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett.

Justice Thomas wrote a concurring opinion in which he said he agreed with the court's decision but would have gone farther and outright overturned Montgomery v. Louisiana.

The liberal justices on the court dissented, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the minority, accused the Court of an "abrupt break" and an "abandonment" of the earlier precedents in Miller and Montgomery.

"The question is whether the state, at some point, must consider whether a juvenile offender has demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation sufficient to merit a chance at life beyond the prison in which he has grown up. For most, the answer is yes," Sotomayor wrote.

She said the Court's opinion "twists precedent," adding that "any doubts the Court may harbor about the merits of these decisions do not justify overruling them." She accused the majority of offering no justification for departing from the precedents in Miller and Montgomery.

"How low this Court's respect for stare decisis has sunk," she concluded.