I was reading CNN's article on the execution of Clarence Ray Allen this morning when I noticed this quote. How bizarre is this:
Having suffered a heart attack back in September, Allen had asked prison authorities to let him die if he went into cardiac arrest before his execution, a request prison officials said they would not honor.
"At no point are we not going to value the sanctity of life," said prison spokesman Vernell Crittendon. "We would resuscitate him," then execute him.
posted by Your Friendly Neighborhood Clark Bar at 1/18/2006 09:40:00 AM
Subscribe to Tommy Lawyer
5 Comments:
apparently CNN inserted their own words in here: quote "We would resuscitate him," then execute him. unquote
Notice the "then execute him part is not the words of the prison spokesman. Of course they couldn't let a prisoner die of medical neglect before he his scheduled to be properly executed. Imagine what bad publicity that would be! just a counter argument here
Oh, I totally realize that they stuck the "then execute him" part in there. And I don't mean to imply that policy of resuscitating prisoners who have heart attacks is bizarre, but the fact that Crittendon actually said, "At no point are we not going to value the sanctity of life," in reference to a death row inmate is just a touch ironic.
is there some sort of logic beyond me in why he has to die when and how decided by a judge and not anytime or anyhow before then? would this deny the people the right to "do" it themselves and thus having "justice" implemented as required? I am going to spare you the bad press this whole thing is getting over her in europe..but I guess you might know already.
I quite like the touch of that -then execute him- addition.
I can almost imagine it being spoken in a soft matter-of-fact voice that would just underline the fallacy of the phrase reported, with no need to challenge it directly. let the man's words speak for themselves...
Technically he probably could force the prison to allow him to die--to put on the lawyer hat for a moment--but he couldn't simply voice that request to corrections staff while he's having a heart attack. Imagine if this guy still has an appeal of his sentence going, he makes his request and the prison honors it. The state could then be in the position where an angry family wants to know why the prisoner was denied treatment while at the same time, it is unable to show that such a request was ever made. This guy would need to get a "Do not resuscitate" order. I don't know of any rule or law that would prevent a prisoner from securing one, though I have to admit I haven't researched the issue any. But long story short, it's all the lawyers' fault. ;o)
Yeah, I doubt the Europeans are thrilled with the execution of a blind and deaf 70-year-old, especially when an Austrian citizen is the acting governor with the power to commute his sentence. But hey, bright side: Minnesota's one of non-death penalty states.
That's pretty extreme.
Post a Comment
<< Home