Really, They Should Have Wanted To Know

Here was the plan.

On June 6, a team of corrections officers were going to strap Abdul Awkal down to a table, stick needles in his arms, and pump him full of pentobarbital.  If all went smoothly (far from a sure thing, this was Ohio, poster-child state for incompetently carried out state killings), he'd be dead by 10:15 or so.  Maybe a couple of minutes later.

It was all a go.  The Supreme Court of Ohio set the date.  The Parole Board said to kill him.  The Governor signed off on it.

But there was this messy fact.  Awkal was nuts.  Seriously bonkers.  He didn't understand what was going on.  He was not, that is, legally competent to be executed.  Maybe.

They'd been arguing about this for a while, and Awkal's lawyers kept losing.  Until, with two days to go, the trial judge decided he should hold a hearing.

Awkal Probable Cause 

The problem is that a hearing takes time. Schedules have to be matched, witnesses called, rulings made.  And then there are appeals.  But Awkal was to be killed on the 6th.  Judge Friedman wanted a hearing.  But

HEARING TO BE SET SUBJECT TO AVAILABILITY OF EXPERT WITNESSES.

Really?  When?  After the killing?  Ordering a hearing is great, but once the Supreme Court sets an execution date, it's the only Ohio court that can stop it. So they went to the Supreme Court to get a stay. 

And the next morning, June 5, one day to go, the court told them to pound sand.

Awkal stay denied

It wasn't unanimous, but it didn't have to be.  No stay.  No continuance to find out if the Constitution allowed his execution.  Not our problem, said 5 of them.  Off with his head.

Which really might have ended it.  Except that Governor Kasich, whose record in these things is proving respectable, granted a reprieve.

Awkal warrant of Reprieve

Two weeks, he said.  Which would be Wednesday.

And Judge Friedman held his hearing.  The one to determine whether killing Awkal would violate the Constitution.  The one the Supremes were trying to stop by refusing a stay.  And the judge determined that, hey, you know what?

He's not competent and can't be executed.  Though that might change down the road.

Awkal Competency ruling

Except, you know, Friedman can't actually stop the killing.  Because, as I said, once the Supreme Court sets an execution date, it's the only Ohio court that can stop it. 

Which they did Monday afternoon.  With about 36 hours to go.

Awkal stay

And there it stays.  Unless and until his competency is restored.  Which it might be if they give him the right drugs. Or unless the court of appeals or the Supremes decide that Friedman got it wrong.  Which, since they didn't want to give him a chance to get it at all . . . .

Sigh.

Anyone mention that this is all pretty fucked up?

Still, no execution on Wednesday here in the Buckeye State.

Exhale.

Sure He's Crazy. What's Your Point?

There's lots of argument around the margins, but nobody much disputes the basic point.  Abdul Awkal is crazy as a bedbug. At least, he is when he's not on his meds.

Was he legally insane at the moment he killed his wife and his brother-in-law? Is he technically competent to be executed?* The answer to those questions, at least the answers accepted by judges and the Parole Board and, it would appear, Governor Kasich, are "No" and "Yes."  Not insane when he killed, competent to be killed.

So off with his head.

The Parole Board, as you know, voted two weeks ago that he should be killed. It wasn't unanimous (though at 8-1 it wasn't exactly a nail-biter, either), nor did it have to be.  It's not actually binding, either.  The Governor has to wait for the Board before he can grant clemency, but he has absolute authority to do what he wants regardless of what they say.**

Oh, sure, they said, he suffers from Schizoaffective Disorder, Depressive Type, and has hallucinations and delusions.  (For just one instance, at least some of the time he believes that he'll be executed at the direction of the CIA).

But the docs say that he knows (at least some of the time) that he'll be killed because he killed two people. Which is all that matters, really.

It's what makes him competent.

Something clearly different from sane.

Back in 2009, talking about the then-impending (and since carried out) execution of John Allen Muhammad by the people of the Commonwealth of Virginia, I wrote this.

There you have it. If you're crazy enough, we can't kill you. Unless you happen to be crazy in exactly the right way. And oh, yeah, unless it's politically expedient. 

Abdul Awkal is scheduled to be murdered next Wednesday, June 6, at 10 in the morning.

Yesterday the Governor signed off on it.

There's still time for him to change his mind.

Or for a court to intervene.

I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

------------------

*There's an actual standard for that, set out by Justice Powell in his concurring opinion in Ford v. Wainwright.

I would hold that the Eighth Amendment forbids the execution only of those who are unaware of the punishment they are about to suffer and why they are to suffer it.

**Governor Ted clearly felt free to do that, commuting death sentences they said should be carried out and killing those they said should get clemency.

Believe It . . . Or Don't

Three years now, I've been doing this.

896 posts.

God only knows how many half written and abandoned posts.

And so little changes.

Carlos DeLuna was executed in Texas in 1989.  He said he was innocent.  It was Carlos Hernandez  who did it. A team from Columbia University has now proved that to be true.  Unless you don't believe it.  Because proof, as I've said more than once, is what's found convincing to whoever. 

Cameron Todd Willingham was innocent, too. Except to those folks who don't believe it.

There are, of course, lots of others.

This morning, the Ohio Parole Board said that Abdul Awkal should be killed on June 6. Eight of them found the proof that he's a monster sufficiently convincing.

One of them, Ellen Venters, wasn't convinced.

Awkalclemency2012

Venters reviewed the same evidence, heard the witnesses speak, was present for the same arguments. 

It's that thing about proof. And believing.  

Of course, there's also that deep desire to kill.

What Awkal did is inexcusable.  That's the easy part.

But it's not all.

Except for 8 of them, the rest didn't prove anything.

For one it did.

Governor Kasich?