A humane death penalty?

EDITORIAL

A humane death penalty?

Wedenesday December 20, 2006








CALIFORNIA FINDS itself in the surreal situation of being forced to find humane ways to execute people.

Is such a thing possible?

Even as the state tries, the number of people on Death Row in California continues to grow. The number now stands at an astonishing 655 inmates -- most of them held in medieval conditions at San Quentin State Prison.

Finding a more efficient and less painful way to execute people -- who have typically committed atrocious crimes -- will do nothing to resolve the excruciatingly tough moral, legal and political issues that swirl around the issue of capital punishment.

Last week, U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel said the way California executes people is so flawed that, unless it is thoroughly reformed, he will declare it unconstitutional. He said current procedures "make it impossible to determine with any degree of certainty" if inmates are unconscious before being injected with the final two drugs designed to kill them. He has given the state 30 days to come up with a better plan.

The only positive aspect of all the legal maneuvering is that it has imposed an effective moratorium on the death penalty in California. We have argued before that the death penalty should only be applied if it is established that capital executions are "fair, just and accurate." That is precisely the charge of the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice, which was established by the state Senate two years ago.

California is not alone in grappling with these issues. This past week Gov. Jeb Bush, of all people, suspended the death penalty in Florida after a botched execution there.

As Judge Fogel said, our execution methods are "broken." It remains to be seen whether they can -- or should -- be fixe