Supreme Court dives into execution case


The N.C. Supreme Court dove into the two-year stalemate in executions today by asking attorneys representing the state Department of Correction and the N.C. Medical Board to define what the state legislature meant in requiring that a doctor be present.

The debate over that word has created a de facto moratorium on executions in North Carolina. The correction department executes inmates on death row and is seeking to have a doctor take part in order to make sure the lethal injection is properly administered, Dan Kane reports.

That, the department contends, ensures that there has been no violation of Constitutional law against cruel and unusual punishment.

But the medical board contends that lawmakers only required doctors to attend to certify that an inmate was executed. Taking part in that execution, by monitoring an inmate's vital signs as correction officials want, would violate a doctor's basic mission to preserve life, the board has determined.

Several justices on the court peppered the attorneys with questions during the hour-long hearing.

More after the jump.

—————

Associate Justice Edward Thomas Brady very quickly challenged Todd Brosius, a medical board counsel, on the legislature's intent in having a doctor present.

"The physicians are trained to save people," Brosius said at one point. "They are not trained to kill people."

"Aren't they trained to detect pain and suffering," Brady asked.

But Brady and other justices also challenged state Assistant Attorney General Joseph Finarelli, who contended that lawmakers did intend for doctors to do more than attend and certify death.

The justices noted that state lawmakers had an opportunity with two bills filed last year to clarify the law. Neither chamber took up the legislation.

Some suggested that the legislature should be the ones to resolve the stalemate.

"Why don't we send this right over where it belongs?" Associate Justice Patricia Timmons-Goodson asked.

Finarelli said they certainly had that option, but he contended the current law supported his position.

You must be logged in to post a comment on this blog. If you already have an N&O online user account, click here to log in. Otherwise, click here to register (it's free!).