Executions and the Council of State
As was reported earlier this week, the Council of State is going to take on North Carolina’s thorny execution debate Tuesday.
The specific problem in this context involves what role, if any, the law requires health care professionals play in the death of an inmate.
The Council of State agenda came out today with two items specifically related to the execution debate attached:
- Click here for the first form. It appears to be a brief explaination of the court order that sent it to the COS.
- Click here for the other form. Appears to be the not protocol that the COS will be asked to adopt on Tuesday.
This is one of those serious discussions where you had to inject politics in the discussion. Yet, this is very definitely going to be a decision with political consequences.
The Council of State is made up of the 10 North Carolina Officials elected statewide. There are no legislative leaders on the council.
Although this is a decision that could have consequences for any of the 10 as they seek re-election or election to other offices, three have more skin in the game than others.
Both Lt. Gov. Beverly Perdue and Treasurer Richard Moore are likely – read: all but declared – candidates for governor in 2008, so the political ramifications may most immediately affect them. AG Roy Cooper will almost certainly face a re-election challenge in 2008.
All three are Democrats and in the simplest possible terms, all three face the following choice from a political perspective:
- Establish their law-and-order credentials and sign off on the new execution protocol. This would win points with conservative dems and some Republicans but alienate some voters in the activist Democratic base.
- Vote against the execution protocol and open themselves up to criticism that they are soft on crime and criminals. This would win them points with the activist base but open them up to attack from the philosophical right.
Of course, one hopes that all 10 folks concerned are making the choice that they believe is righteous and that somehow the aggregate of those 10 reactions lead to an overall decision that is correct, whatever that may be.
But I’m not quite naïve/optimistic enough to think that politics will be ignored.
Comments (1)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Nor am I. An excellent post, Mark. Thank you for the protocol.
The protocol, if approved, still puts a physician in the middle . . . and ignores established cannons of medical ethics.
I am reliably informed that the NC statute requiring a physician to be present at an execution dates back to 1909 . . . long before doctors were "injected" into the procedure by lethal injection.
The law requiring a doctor's presence (presumably to prevent cruel and unusual suffering) . . . now contradicted by the Medical Board's position that a physician cannot participate in any way . . . is a bad law.
If we're going to "inject" politics, then perhaps the Council of State should put this matter where it belongs . . . in the lap of the legislature.
Too bad the NC Medical Board did not have the courage or political cahoones to do that.
If this exercise in side-stepping proceeds as I expect it will . . . as a politically expedient whitewash over a bad law . . . I can smell the legal challenges and lawsuits.
Posted on February 3, 2007 11:12 PM