Opinion ID: 1805723
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Lethal injection: The Need for Legislative Action

Text: However, as I suggested in my concurring opinion in Jones v. State, 701 So.2d 76, 80 (Fla.1997) (Harding, J., specially concurring), I urge the Legislature to revisit this issue and pass legislation giving death row inmates the choice between lethal injection and electrocution as the method of carrying out the death penalty. See Art. I, § 17, Fla. Const. (Methods of execution may be designated by the Legislature.); see generally, e.g., Ariz.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 13-704(b) (West Supp.1998) (defendant sentenced to death for offense committed prior to date of amended statute shall choose either lethal injection or lethal gas; execution by lethal injection if the defendant fails to choose method); Cal.Penal Code § 3604(b) (West Supp.1999) (same); S.C.Code Ann. § 24-3-530(A) (Law Co-op. Supp.1998) (election between electrocution and lethal injection; if defendant waives right of election, then penalty must be administered by lethal injection); Utah Code Ann. § 77-18-5.5 (1995) (election between firing squad and lethal injection; where no preference is stated, execution is by lethal injection); Va.Code Ann. § 53.1-234 (Michie 1998) (election between electrocution and lethal injection; lethal injection where prisoner fails to choose in timely manner); Wash. Rev.Code § 10.95.180(1) (1998) (death shall be inflicted by lethal injection unless defendant elects hanging). Florida death row inmates almost routinely challenge electrocution as a cruel or unusual method of punishment. See, e.g., Davis v. State, 742 So.2d 233 (Fla.1999), cert. denied, 68 U.S.L.W. 3136, ___ U.S. ___, 120 S.Ct. 13, 144 L.Ed.2d 817 (1999), and cert. denied, 68 U.S.L.W. 3136, ___ U.S. ___, 120 S.Ct. 13, 144 L.Ed.2d 817 (1999); Remeta v. State, 710 So.2d 543, 546 (Fla.), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1055, 118 S.Ct. 1383, 140 L.Ed.2d 526 (1998); Jones v. State, 701 So.2d 76, 80 (Fla.1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1014, 118 S.Ct. 1297, 140 L.Ed.2d 335 (1998); Stano v. Singletary, 692 So.2d 180, 181 (Fla.1997). Such challenges consume an inordinate amount of the time and resources expended by inmates' counsel, State counsel, and judicial personnel. Furthermore, each time an execution is carried out, the courts wait in dread anticipation of some unforeseeable accident that will set in motion a frenzy of inmate petitions and other filings. See Jones, 701 So.2d at 76 n. 1, 77 (discussing Pedro Medina's 1997 execution, where flames were seen near the headpiece of the electric chair and smoke emanated from under the headpiece; circuit court found that flame and smoke were caused by insufficient saline solution on the sponge in the headpiece of the electric chair); Buenoano v. State, 565 So.2d 309, 310-11 (Fla. 1990) (discussing flames and smoke that erupted from the headpiece of the electric chair during the 1990 execution of Jessie Tafero; investigation concluded that the irregularities in Tafero's execution were caused by the use of a synthetic sponge). It is my view that the Legislature can foreclose many of these claims by simply amending Florida's death penalty statute to provide that death sentences should be carried out by lethal injection unless the defendant requests execution by electrocution. See Fierro v. Terhune, 147 F.3d 1158, 1160 (9th Cir.1998) (finding that California inmates lacked standing to challenge constitutionality of execution by lethal gas and claims were not ripe for decision where the inmates had not chosen execution by lethal gas); Poland v. Stewart, 117 F.3d 1094, 1104 (9th Cir. 1997) (finding that similar challenge to identical Arizona statute was not ripe because inmate had not chosen lethal gas as method of execution). While an inmate's choice of electrocution would not constitute a waiver of his or her Eighth Amendment protections and would not foreclose a constitutional challenge to this method of execution, see LaGrand v. Stewart, 173 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir.1999), the alternative method of lethal injection would still be available even if a constitutional challenge of electrocution proved successful. See id. at 1149 (ordering that no inmates be executed by lethal gas and that inmate bringing challenge could not be executed pursuant to the existing death warrant which required execution by lethal gas, but also recognizing that warrant could be reissued in a form that does not require execution by lethal gas). Although not determinative of the Eighth Amendment claim, I find it significant that a number of other states that once relied on electrocution as the sole means of execution have now either entirely abandoned this method or offered an alternative. Nineteen of the states that currently permit capital punishment specified in 1970 that electrocution was the exclusive form of capital punishment. See Fierro, 865 F.Supp. at 1406. Today, of the thirty-eight states that permit capital punishment for the crime of first-degree murder, only four states rely on electrocution as the exclusive form of punishment. See Fla. Correct. Comm'n, 1997 Supplemental Report on Execution Methods Used by States at 48 (June 20, 1997) (on file with Library, Fla. Sup.Ct.) [hereinafter Commission Report]; Ky.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 431.220 (Michie Supp.1998) (establishing lethal injection as the sole means of capital punishment for defendants receiving death sentence on or after March 31, 1998, and giving the choice of electrocution or lethal injection to those prisoners sentenced prior to March 31, 1998); Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-23-114 (Supp.1998) (establishing lethal injection as the sole means of capital punishment for defendants receiving death sentence on or after January 1, 1999, and giving the choice of electrocution or lethal injection to those prisoners sentenced prior to January 1, 1999). In contrast, thirty-four states offer lethal injection either as a choice or as the exclusive form of punishment. See Commission Report at 48; Ky. Rev.Stat. Ann. § 431.220; Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-23-114. Clearly, the modern trend is towards rejecting electrocution as a method of capital punishment. In fact, in the 1997 report submitted to the Governor and the Legislature by the Florida Corrections Commission, the Commission recommended that Florida permit lethal injection as an alternative method of execution. See Commission Report at 28. Finally, it is important to note that several courts, including the United States Supreme Court, have held that it is not an ex post facto violation to apply a change in execution methods retroactively. See Malloy v. South Carolina, 237 U.S. 180, 185, 35 S.Ct. 507, 59 L.Ed. 905 (1915); Hernandez v. State, 43 Ariz. 424, 32 P.2d 18, 25 (1934) (upholding amendment to statute which changed method of capital punishment from hanging to lethal gas); De-Shields v. State, 534 A.2d 630, 639 n. 7 (Del.1987) (A statute which provides an optional method of death is not ex post facto legislation or an unlawful bill of attainder.); State ex rel. Pierre v. Jones, 200 La. 808, 9 So.2d 42, 46 (1942) (upholding amendment to statute which changed method of capital punishment from hanging to electrocution); State v. Fitzpatrick, 211 Mont. 341, 684 P.2d 1112, 1113 (1984) (upholding amendment to statute which allowed defendant to elect either lethal injection or hanging as the method of punishment); Woo Dak San v. State, 36 N.M. 53, 7 P.2d 940, 941 (1931) (upholding amendment to statute which changed method of capital punishment from hanging to electrocution); Ex parte Granviel, 561 S.W.2d 503, 510-11 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978) (upholding amendment to statute which changed method of capital punishment from electrocution to lethal injection); In re Personal Restraint of Benn, 134 Wash.2d 868, 952 P.2d 116, 149 n. 19 (1998) (Retroactive application of a change in the method of execution does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause where the change is to a more humane method.). In Malloy, the Supreme Court concluded that [t]he statute under consideration did not change the penalty-death-for murder, but only the mode of producing this.... The punishment was not increased.... 237 U.S. at 185, 35 S.Ct. 507. In Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 33 n. 17, 101 S.Ct. 960, 67 L.Ed.2d 17 (1981), the United States Supreme Court further explained its decision in Malloy, wherein the Court stated, In Malloy v. South Carolina, we concluded that a change in the method of execution was not ex post facto because evidence showed the new method to be more humane, not because the change in the execution method was not retrospective. (Citation omitted.) My research has not revealed a single state that has found the retroactive application of a more humane method of execution to be unconstitutional. This is true even though the sentence imposed specifically called for the previous method of execution. For all of the reasons expressed, I believe that the Legislature will only improve death penalty jurisprudence in Florida by amending our state's statute to permit inmates to choose between lethal injection and electrocution. This is the prudent and proper step for the Legislature to take. LEWIS, J., concurs. WELLS, J., concurring.