Opinion ID: 1805723
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Electrocution Violates Evolving Standards of Decency

Text: Execution by electrocution as administered in Florida also violates the evolving standards of decency criterion for several reasons. First, this practice, which was inaugurated in New York more than a century ago as a humane alternative to hanging, has been abandoned by scores of states and is now the sole method of execution in only three other states. Electrocution was first adopted by a state as a method of execution in 1888 and last adopted in 1949, at which time twenty-six states used it; since 1949 (i.e., almost half a century ago), no state has adopted electrocution and twenty states have dropped it; of thirty-eight states that currently authorize execution, only six (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Nebraska, and Tennessee) require electrocution; of these six, two (Kentucky and Tennessee) have not executed any prisoners since the United States Supreme Court lifted its ban on capital punishment in 1976; four additional states (Arkansas, Ohio, South Carolina, and Virginia) offer electrocution as an option; of these four, one (Ohio) has not executed any prisoners since 1976.... Jones, 701 So.2d at 87 (Shaw, J., dissenting). [38] Second, execution by electrocution is practiced in no other country in the world: [O]f approximately 140 countries outside the United States that impose capital punishment, none impose electrocution; in short, only four governments in the entire world (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and Nebraska) impose electrocution exclusively.... Id. (emphasis omitted). As a postscript, I note that both the Humane Society of the United States and the American Veterinarian Medical Association condemn electrocution as a method of euthanasia for animals. See id. Third, other less cruel methods of execution are available; lethal injection is readily available (it has already been approved by the Florida Legislature [39] ) and is generally considered more humane. [40] And finallyand most tellingthe governmental body charged with oversight of Florida's execution apparatus, the Florida Corrections Commission, [41] has recommended that Florida switch from electrocution to lethal injection. In the wake of the botched executions of Tafero and Medina, the Commission undertook an exhaustive survey of execution methods in other states and reported to the Governor and Legislature: We found that almost all states have written procedures regarding the execution process, and that numerous states had recently changed to lethal injection from electrocution because it was considered to be a more humane method of execution. While the report notes problems encountered in the past with almost all methods of execution, including lethal injection, the Commission recommends that Section 922.10, Florida Statutes, be amended to allow lethal injection as an alternative method of execution, in addition to electrocution, for those persons currently on a sentence of death. Furthermore, for persons whose crimes are committed on or after the effective date of such legislation, lethal injection would be the only method of execution, thereby phasing out the use of the electric chair in Florida. The Florida Corrections Commission believes that Florida has an obligation to ensure that modern technologies keep pace with the level of competence in this area, and, just as changes have occurred in Florida's past in carrying out the death penalty, changes should again occur. Jones, 701 So.2d at 82 (Kogan, C.J., dissenting) (quoting letter from commission chairman) (emphasis omitted and added). Unfortunately, unlike the New York Legislature a century ago in Kemmler, the Florida Legislature has failed to heed the state's own experts and switch to the more humane method. VI. SOLE METHOD OF EXECUTION Section 922.10, Florida Statutes (1997), provides that a death sentence in Florida shall be carried out by electrocution: 922.10 Execution of death sentence; executioner.A death sentence shall be executed by electrocution. The warden of the state prison shall designate the executioner.... The warrant authorizing the execution shall be read to the convicted person immediately before execution. § 922.10, Fla. Stat. (1997). The statutory scheme makes no provision for an alternative method of execution, unless electrocution is declared unconstitutional. [42] Because electrocution is the sole means of execution approved for use at this time in Florida, the constitutional infirmities inherent in this method cannot be avoided by the availability of a more humane alternative: Florida's electric chair, by its own track record, has proven itself to be a dinosaur more befitting the laboratory of Baron Frankenstein than the death chamber of Florida State Prison. Because electrocution is the sole means of execution approved for use in Florida, the legislature has, so to speak, placed all its constitutional eggs in this one basket. As a result, any infirmity in this method cannot be mitigated at this time by the presence of an acceptable alternative. Such an all-or-nothing approach has proved fatal to the capital sentencing scheme in other states. Jones, 701 So.2d at 87-88 (Shaw, J., dissenting). Both the California and Washington legislatures attempted to circumvent this same problem by implementing a death penalty scheme that offered capital defendants a choice in method of execution. California's statutory scheme originally offered a choice in method (lethal gas or injection) but called for the default to fall to lethal gas. [43] After the federal circuit court declared the original scheme unconstitutional under the federal Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause because lethal gas is impermissibly cruel, [44] the state sought review in the United States Supreme Court. The California legislature promptly amended the statute to allow the default to fall to lethal injection. [45] Based on this legislative action, the United States Supreme Court vacated the circuit court decision and remanded for reconsideration. [46] Subsequently, a different capital defendant elected to be executed by lethal gas and then challenged that method anew. The circuit court reaffirmed its earlier ruling that execution by lethal gas is unconstitutional and enjoined the execution. [47] In the State of Washington, the legislature took a similar tack when confronted with an adverse court ruling concerning its official method of executiondeath by hanging. The Washington scheme originally had offered a choice (death by hanging or lethal injection), with the default falling to death by hanging. [48] After the federal district court ruled that hanging was unconstitutional if applied to an inmate who was obese, [49] the state appealed. The Washington Legislature promptly amended the statute to allow the default to fall to lethal injection, and the federal circuit court dismissed the appeal as moot. [50] VII. LETHAL INJECTION Although electrocution has been the sole method of execution in this state since 1924, the legislature recently passed legislation that does two things: (1) It provides that no sentence of death shall be reduced if a method of execution is declared unconstitutional; and (2) it authorizes the use of lethal injection if electrocution is declared unconstitutional. Section 775.082(2), Florida Statutes (1997), [51] has been amended to provide that no sentence of death shall be reduced to life if a method of execution is held to be unconstitutional: 775.082 Penalties; applicability of sentencing structures; mandatory minimum sentences for certain reoffenders previously released from prison. (1) A person who has been convicted of a capital felony shall be punished by death if the proceeding held to determine sentence according to the procedure set forth in s. 921.141 results in findings by the court that such person shall be punished by death, otherwise such person shall be punished by life imprisonment and shall be ineligible for parole. (2) In the event the death penalty in a capital felony is held to be unconstitutional by the Florida Supreme Court or the United States Supreme Court, the court having jurisdiction over a person previously sentenced to death for a capital felony shall cause such person to be brought before the court, and the court shall sentence such person to life imprisonment as provided in subsection (1). No sentence of death shall be reduced as a result of a determination that a method of execution is held to be unconstitutional under the State Constitution or the Constitution of the United States. § 775.082(1)-(2), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1998) (emphasis added). Although section 922.10, Florida Statutes (1997) (calling for execution by electrocution), [52] remains unchanged, chapter 922 has been amended to provide that if electrocution is held to be unconstitutional, then all capital defendants shall be executed by lethal injection: 922.105 Execution of death sentence by lethal injection if death by electrocution is declared unconstitutional; prohibition against reduction of death sentence as a result of determination that a method of execution is unconstitutional. (1) A death sentence shall be executed by electrocution pursuant to s. 922.10. If electrocution is held to be unconstitutional by the Florida Supreme Court under the State Constitution, or held to be unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court under the United States Constitution, or if the United States Supreme Court declines to review any judgment holding electrocution to be unconstitutional under the United States Constitution made by the Florida Supreme Court or the United States Court of Appeals that has jurisdiction over Florida, all persons sentenced to death for a capital crime shall be executed by lethal injection. (2) The provisions of the opinion and all points of law decided by the United States Supreme Court in Malloy v. South Carolina, 237 U.S. 180[, 35 S.Ct. 507, 59 L.Ed. 905] (1915), finding that the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United states Constitution is not violated by a legislatively enacted change in the method of execution for a sentence of death validly imposed for previously committed capital murders, are adopted by the Legislature as the law of this state. (3) A change in the method of execution does not increase the punishment or modify the penalty of death for capital murder. Any legislative change to the method of execution for the crime of capital murder does not violate s. 10, Art. I or s. 9, Art X of the State Constitution. . . . . (6) Notwithstanding s. 775.082(2), s. 775.15(1)(a), or s. 790.161(4), or any other provision to the contrary, no sentence of death shall be reduced as a result of a determination that a method of execution is declared unconstitutional under the State Constitution or the Constitution of the United States. In any case in which an execution method is declared unconstitutional, the death sentence shall remain in force until the sentence can be lawfully executed by any valid method of execution. § 922.105, Fla. Stat. (Supp.1998) (emphasis added). The question posed in the present case is whether retroactive application of these statutory changes violates ex post facto principles. I conclude that it does not, based on Malloy v. South Carolina, 237 U.S. 180, 35 S.Ct. 507, 59 L.Ed. 905 (1915). There, South Carolina sought to apply its newly enacted method of execution, electrocution, to a defendant whose crime had been committed before the effective date of the new statute. The statute in effect at the time of the crime had called for death by hanging. The United States Supreme Court held that retroactive application of the more humane method of execution did not violate ex post facto concerns. I would apply Malloy to the present case and allow Provenzano's sentence to be carried out by lethal injection. [53] VIII. CONCLUSION Execution by electrocutionwith its attendant smoke and flames and blood and screamsis a spectacle whose time has passed. The fiery deaths of Jesse Tafero and Pedro Medina and the recent bloody execution of Allen Lee Davis are acts more befitting a violent murderer than a civilized state. The color photos of Davis depict a man whofor all appearances was brutally tortured to death by the citizens of Florida. Violence begets violence, and each of these deaths was a barbaric spectacle played by the State of Florida on the world stage. Each botched execution cast the entire criminal justice system of this stateincluding the courtsin ignominy. The United States Constitution stands before the world not as a dark testament to wanton, state-sponsored violence and mutilation, but ratherin the spirit of the founding fathersas an enduring beacon of light and hope and justice. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that a principal purpose of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause is to protect the dignity of society itself from the barbarity of exacting mindless vengeance. Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399, 410, 106 S.Ct. 2595, 91 L.Ed.2d 335 (1986). Our Constitutionthis nation's sacred charter abides as a paragon of all that is good and decent in the law, a shining example for the world to follow. Only three other states in the union Alabama, Georgia and Nebraskacontinue to follow Florida's lead in requiring electrocution as the sole means of execution. Scores of states have abandoned this practice. No other country in the world uses electrocution as a means of execution. The State's own preeminent experts in this fieldi.e., DOC's advisory committee have recommended that Florida forsake this outdated practice in favor of lethal injection. There comes a time when the Constitution must say enough is enough. I would direct that the sentence in the present case be carried out by lethal injection as prescribed by statute. ANSTEAD, J., concurs. (POST-EXECUTION PHOTOS OF ALLEN LEE DAVIS ARE APPENDED TO THIS DISSENTING OPINION OF SHAW, J.) ANSTEAD, J., dissenting. I concur in the scholarly opinions of Justice Shaw and Justice Pariente. I also commend the opinion of Chief Justice Harding which, while contrary to my own on the constitutional issues in question, makes out a compelling case for abandoning electrocution as a method of enforcing the death penalty. The views of the Chief Justice, Justice Shaw, and Justice Pariente are deeply rooted in the jurisprudence of the U.S. Supreme Court and of this Court. Perhaps no jurist has more eloquently made the same point than our own Justice Ervin in his dissenting opinion in this Court's landmark case of State v. Dixon : The nation's highest court recognizes we have come a long way from the rack, the drawing and quartering, the headsman's axe, the public executions, the hanging judge-from cruel and unusual punishments. We can little afford to turn back because it is clear to thinking people that brutality and cruelty at the hands of government soils the fabric of an enlightened nation. Governments are constantly under scrutiny-constantly gauged by a nation's thinking people in terms of whether they are enlightened and humane; of whether they are still instruments of oppression, perpetuators of archaic punishments to allay the fears and passions of privileged groups. State v. Dixon, 283 So.2d 1, 23 (Fla.1973) (Ervin, J., dissenting). Justice Ervin's words seem perfectly suited to today's debate on whether the continuing use of the electric chair constitutes cruel or unusual punishment. His words also strike a chilling chord today because we are presented with a record and graphic evidence, including photographs, of the horror of Florida's most recent use of the electric chair.