Saturday, 15 September 2007

THE FDLE guarantee does not exist in reality - The Florida Executions

In any event, the new protocols require that the Secretary of the Department of Corrections certify among other things that AThe Secretary will confirm with the team warden that . . . all team members and executioners meet all training and certification requirements as detailed in these procedures.@ PC-W Vol. III 449, protocol (15) (emphasis added).

The protocols assign an important role to two FDLE monitors. One is stationed in the executioner=s room and the other is in the execution chamber. Id. 441, Protocol (7).

Both are to keep a detailed log of what they observe.

Importantly, an independent observer from FDLE witnesses the mixing of the chemicals and preparation of the syringes and all the other equipment that will be used during the execution.

FDLE is an independent agency within the executive branch and as such performs an important oversight role. These functions can only be performed usefully by someone who knows what to look for.

Yet in response to a current public records request FDLE certified that it does not have anyone assigned to these roles and generally had no documentation responsive to any of Schwab's public records requests.

Among other things, Schwab requested copies of any FDLE protocols, written procedures, and checklists that would be used by the FDLE monitors.

None exist. PC-W Vol IV 645.

The request was also directed to communications between FDLE and the DOC or the Office of the Governor with regard to any such protocols and procedures that FDLE would followed.

None exist.

Nothing exists demonstrating that FDLE monitors have the qualifications to perform their duties, yet the Secretary certified on July 31 that the Department had available the personnel who have the qualifications, training and experience to carry out the execution procedures described in the protocols.

That certification is flatly contradicted by the certification provided by FDLE, and the contradiction supports the argument that written assurances by DOC must be verified.

No comments: