Thomas Hits Stevens for ‘Novel’ View on Cruelty of Execution Delays
Is a 29-year delay in execution “unacceptably cruel” and a constitutional violation?
Justices Clarence Thomas and John Paul Stevens sparred over the question in dueling opinions issued Tuesday on the Supreme Court’s refusal to review the case of convicted murderer Cecil Johnson.
The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times covered the clash, noting Stevens’ protest and a “spirited response” by Thomas. Johnson, convicted for three murders during a robbery, was executed early Tuesday after the Supreme Court denied a stay.
Stevens wrote (PDF) that Johnson bore little responsibility for the delay, and it was “unacceptably cruel” in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Johnson was convicted in 1981, Stevens said, but the state did not turn over exculpatory evidence until 1992.
Thomas countered with a concurrence (PDF) that said Johnson spent 29 years challenging his conviction and “now contends that the very proceedings he used to contest his sentence should prohibit the state from carrying it out.”
Thomas called Stevens’ Eighth Amendment view “novel” and said his colleague first suggested that delays may be unconstitutional 14 years ago. “I was unaware of any constitutional support for the argument then,” Thomas wrote. “And I am unaware of any support for it now.”
Thomas noted that Stevens criticized states last week for executing inmates before the appeals process is concluded. “In Justice Stevens’ view, it seems the state can never get the timing just right,” Thomas said.
