#The Atlantic Best of The Atlantic publisher The Atlantic * Subscribe * Search * Menu The Death-Penalty Feud at the Supreme Court * * * ____________________ (BUTTON) Close * Home * Latest * Most Popular * Magazine * Video * Photo * Writers * News * Politics * Business * Culture * Science * Technology * Health * Sexes * U.S. * Education * Global * Notes * Projects * Events * Books * Shop * Your AccountSign Out * Sign InSign Up [javascript] 2 Free Issues Try two trial issues of The Atlantic with our compliments. Claim now Follow * Facebook * Twitter * LinkedIn * Tumblr * Pinterest * RSS * App Store See our Newsletters > previousWhat the Fight for the Speakership Is Actually AboutHow California's Largest School District Blamed an 8th Grader for Her Rapenext story The Death-Penalty Feud at the Supreme Court The justices weigh a new set of cases and their implications for the Eighth Amendment and lethal injection. [lead_960.jpg?1444698658] Evan Vucci / AP We noticed that you have an AD BLOCKER ENABLED Please consider disabling it for our site, or supporting our work in one of these ways [large.jpg?1450107429] [large.jpg?1446761730] Subscribe Now > __________________________________________________________________ Sign up for The Atlantic Daily newsletter ____________________ [X] I want to receive updates from partners and sponsors. Sign up * * * * * * * * * Garrett Epps * Oct 13, 2015 * Politics Last week, Governor Mary Fallin of Oklahoma admitted that her state had misled the United States Supreme Court. __________________________________________________________________ Related Story [thumb_wide_medium.jpg] How a Victory for the Death Penalty May Hasten Its End __________________________________________________________________ In a brief statement issued hours before the scheduled execution of Richard Glossip, Fallin said that she was granting him a 37-day stay “due to the Department of Corrections having received potassium acetate as drug number three for the three-drug protocol.” The state last spring assured the Supreme Court that it stood ready to execute Glossip with a three-drug cocktail consisting of “midazolam, followed by vecuronium or recuronium bromide, then potassium chloride” a different drug with different effects. Glossip had challenged his planned execution on the grounds that the use of midazolam, a sedative, might not render him unconscious before the other two drugs are administered. That, he said, would make the execution “cruel and unusual” punishment, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. “Oklahoma’s lethal injection protocol is not cruel and unusual,” the state argued, “but rather the most humane form of execution available to the State.” A five-justice majority upheld the three-drug protocol Oklahoma said it was going to use. “We are not persuaded,” that the drugs at issue were likely to cause enough pain to render the execution “cruel and unusual,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority. After all, “12 other executions have been conducted using the three-drug protocol at issue here, and those appear to have been conducted without any significant problems.” Or maybe not so much. When the state told the Court about its “humane” procedures, it didn’t even know what three drugs it had on hand. Shortly before Glossip’s scheduled execution, in fact, Fallin learned that an autopsy showed Oklahoma had already used the wrong drug to execute another condemned inmate, Charles Warner, in January. Warner was originally a petitioner in Glossip’s case. The Supreme Court denied him a stay, then accepted the case after Warner had been killed. Justice Stephen Breyer, in a separate opinion for himself and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, announced in Glossip that, in his view, the death penalty could no longer be administered fairly, and thus was unconstitutional. That didn’t sit well with Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote in a separate opinion that Breyer’s “argument is full of internal contradictions and (it must be said) gobbledy-gook.” A week after Fallin’s revelation, the Court heard the first of the four death-penalty cases it has granted this term. The hard feelings in Glossip have apparently not healed. Kansas v. Gleason and Kansas v. Carr challenge Kansas trial judges’ instructions to two juries mulling death sentences for murderers. Under existing precedent, the jury is supposed to consider a statutory set of “aggravating factors,” which the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant may ask the jury to consider “mitigating factors” (such as a defendant’s limited mental capacity or history of mental illness, a past history of abuse, or anything else—including the desirability of mercy—that his lawyers can think of). Unlike the prosecution, the defendant doesn’t have to prove that these factors exist “beyond a reasonable doubt,” and the jurors don’t have to find them unanimously. Many states, and the federal government, explain these different burdens to the jury; but the courts in Gleason and Carr did not. Since those decisions, Kansas has changed the “pattern instructions” used by its judges; the Kansas Supreme Court ordered the two courts to go back and resentence the defendants using these instructions, because, it said, the instructions used might convince jurors that the defendant also had a “reasonable doubt” burden. Soon after argument began in Kansas v. Gleason on October 7, Scalia used his best tell-frogface-to-pass-the-salt voice to ask Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt whether “Kansans, unlike our Justice Breyer, do not think the death penalty is unconstitutional and indeed very much favor it.” For that reason, he suggested (“I’m just speculating of course”) that the Kansas Supreme Court had actually lied by claiming that that the Eighth Amendment, rather than their own squishy liberal prejudices, required granting the defendants a new sentencing. Alito seemed to agree: “[P]resumably, the Kansas Supreme Court understood that it had the capability of basing its decision on Kansas law. But if it did that, it would have to take responsibility for the decisions in these cases, which involve some of the most horrendous murders that I have seen in my 10 years here.” The Kansas court, however, “didn't take responsibility for that. It said ‘it's the Eighth Amendment, and we have to apply the federal Constitution.’” On Tuesday, the Court will hear Hurst v. Florida, yet another challenge to Florida’s enthusiasm for the injection gurney. Even though the Supreme Court held 13 years ago that “aggravating factors” must be found by a jury, Florida’s Supreme Court validated a state system in which the judge, not the jury, finds the “aggravating factors”—and the jury’s verdict is, in fact, “merely advisory.” The “advisory” verdict also—unlike in the majority of states—need not be unanimous. The scandal of Batson is that courts tolerate the flimsiest explanations for seemingly clear use of race by prosecutors. After Hurst, the Court in November will hear Foster v. Chatman, which tests the Court’s requirement that all juries—in capital and non-capital cases—be selected without racial discrimination. That rule was announced three decades ago, in a case called Batson v. Kentucky. Under Batson, no party can use race as a basis for “peremptory strikes”—decisions by one side or other to exclude a potential juror. Ordinarily a lawyer need give no reason for a “peremptory”—it can be based on a gut feeling or a dislike of the social characteristics of a member of the pool. If the other party points to a racial pattern of “peremptories,” however, a court is supposed to hold a hearing at which the side using the strikes must explain a “neutral” reason for the strike. The scandal of Batson is that courts tolerate the flimsiest explanations for seemingly clear use of race by prosecutors. A minority juror may be too old, too young, over- or under-educated, a former crime victim, or a former criminal defendant; almost anything will do. Foster, however, seems to involve as smoky a gun as will ever be found. Tyrone Foster, an African American, was convicted in 1987 of capital murder for killing Queen Madge White, a white 79-year-old, as part of a burglary in Rome, Georgia. The prosecution had used its strikes to eliminate all four black potential jurors; when challenged, the state’s lawyers offered neutral explanations, and a Georgia trial court accepted them. In closing, the prosecution argued that the jury should order Foster put to death in order to “deter other people out there in the projects.” Seventeen years later, Foster’s lawyers won the right to inspect the prosecution’s notes—and what they found indicated that the “neutral” explanations were a sham. The word BLACK on each black juror’s form was circled; they were coded “B1,” “B2,” etc., and highlighted in green. One investigator wrote on the forms that “[i]f it comes down to having to pick one of the black jurors, Ms. Garrett, might be okay.” In 2013, a Georgia trial court rejected the Batson claim. “[T]he notes and records submitted by Petitioner fail to demonstrate purposeful discrimination,” wrote the (elected) judge. That result shocks the conscience; true, the prosecution did not write on the forms “MAKE SURE TO EXCLUDE THESE JURORS BECAUSE THEY ARE B-L-A-C-K AND LET’S NOT WORRY ABOUT VIOLATING B-A-T-S-O-N,” but the notes show everything short of that. Whatever the justices decide, the “neutral” explanations in Foster seem a bit like assurances from Oklahoma; desperate attempts to shore up an institution that is in collision with what Chief Justice Earl Warren once called “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” Any criminal penalty that can’t be administered without the lies and incompetence that mark capital punishment today seems to me, well, cruel and unusual. * Continue Reading * Jump to Comments * About the Author * * * * * * * * Latest Video [thumb_wide_300.jpg?1452878691] Surviving Ebola in Sierra Leone A short film captures the day the West African nation was declared free of the disease. * Nadine Ajaka * 12:59 PM ET * Latest Slideshow [thumb_wide_300.jpg?1447874076] Peter Garritano In Photos: Inside the Internet Photographs of what “the cloud” actually looks like * Emily Anne Epstein * Jan 5, 2016 * About the Author * [headshot.jpg] Garrett Epps is a contributing editor for The Atlantic. He teaches constitutional law and creative writing for law students at the University of Baltimore. His latest book is American Justice 2014: Nine Clashing Visions on the Supreme Court. Most Popular Presented by * [javascript] Chuck Burton / AP Marco Rubio Sells Out His Principles + Peter Beinart In Thursday’s debate, the Florida senator proved willing to betray his core beliefs for a shot at winning over Trump supporters. It was a debate with several ugly moments. Chris Christie called President Obama a “petulant child” and vowed to “kick” his “rear end out of the White House come this fall,” evidently forgetting that the man he once hugged is leaving at the end of this year anyway. Ben Carson said “secular progressives” don’t know “there is such a thing as right and wrong.” Ted Cruz called Obama a “child” too. But the ugliest moments belonged to Marco Rubio. The junior senator from Florida sold his soul in North Charleston, South Carolina, for a shot at winning over the supporters of Donald Trump. It began early in the night when Rubio said, “Barack Obama does not believe that America is a great global power. Barack Obama believes that America is a arrogant global power that needs to be cut down to size.” These are lies. Since becoming a national political figure roughly a decade ago, Obama has uttered millions of words about America. In addition to his public statements, his private comments have made it into the media countless times. He’s never said anything remotely like what Rubio suggests. Continue Reading * [javascript] Patrick Fallon / Spectrum News The Mysterious Link Between Autism and Extraordinary Abilities + Linda Marsa Scientists are still puzzling out how savantism relates to a person’s likelihood of being on the spectrum. “It don’t mean a thing if it ain’t got that swing,” Rex Lewis-Clack croons, his head joyfully bobbing in time with the Duke Ellington standard. The 20-year-old musician accompanies himself on a grand piano, deftly striking the keys with a dexterity reminiscent of the Duke himself. Then he segues into an exquisitely executed rendition of Chopin’s Fantaisie Impromptu. Lewis-Clack has the sweet-faced, blonde good looks of a teen heartthrob. But the haunting melody that seems to flow from his fingertips is masterful. It fills the high-ceilinged living room of the Los Angeles beachfront condo he shares with his mother, Cathleen Lewis. After the last strains echo through the apartment, he rocks back and forth on the piano bench and flaps his hands in excitement, seemingly elated, and flashes a wide, triumphant smile. Continue Reading * [javascript] Chris Keane / Reuters Donald Trump's Finest Moment + Yoni Appelbaum The Republican frontrunner offered a stirring defense of New York, breaking from his usual form on a night when so much else seemed all too familiar. In a debate filled with barbs, put-downs, interruptions, and insults, Donald Trump didn’t separate himself from the rest of the field by being more combative or more outrageous—although at moments, he was clearly trying. Trump, instead, set himself apart by delivering a ringing defense of the “New York values” that Senator Ted Cruz accused him of embodying. “New York is a great place,” he said. “It's got great people, it's got loving people, wonderful people. When the World Trade Center came down, I saw something that no place on Earth could have handled more beautifully, more humanely than New York.” His tone turned somber: And the people in New York fought and fought and fought, and we saw more death, and even the smell of death—nobody understood it. And it was with us for months, the smell, the air. And we rebuilt downtown Manhattan, and everybody in the world watched and everybody in the world loved New York and loved New Yorkers. Continue Reading * [javascript] Lucy Nicholson / Reuters A Fairer System for Tipping + Anna Wood As long as American diners are paying gratuity, this is how it should be done. Consider two tables at a restaurant. One is a four-top of 30-something men. This is a prime table: They’re likely to order a lot, probably opting to tack on appetizers and beer, which means their check will yield a fairly high tip. Table two is a mother and her three young children. These customers, on the other hand, will be ordering kids’ meals and, one would assume, a lot less beer. Their check will be smaller, and so will their tip, even if the young children demand more attention than the 30-somethings. As a server, this system can be frustrating: Why should my earnings suffer because of who happened to sit in my section that night? I’ve worked in restaurants where the more senior servers always get the most desirable tables, and that’s aggravating for the rest of the staff, who also make $3 an hour and depend on tips to bring them up to a living wage. Inevitably, servers with slower sections will end up supporting their coworkers who are busier, but they never see compensation for that work. Continue Reading * [javascript] Scott Morgan / AP Memorandum: Is Ted Cruz Eligible for the Presidency? + Bryan A. Garner A legal scholar offers a thorough look at a complicated question This is a legal memorandum about a subject in the headlines—whether Senator Ted Cruz is eligible to be president. My wife Karolyne goaded me for the opinion last Sunday, and I wrote it over the course of the day. It’s exactly what I would have written if I’d been retained by a client to research the matter. I’m a law professor, but I’ve also been editor in chief of Black’s Law Dictionary since 1994, roles that have left me with an unusual collection of books. Some are exceedingly difficult to track down—which is probably why nobody else writing about the issue seems to have cited them. I’m a libertarian Republican—but I'm pretty apolitical. I’ve backed no presidential candidate in the current race. I’ve met Cruz only twice, but we haven’t seen each other or spoken in over two years. He didn’t ask for this opinion, nor have I communicated with him about it. Continue Reading * [javascript] Yuri Gripas / Reuters One President’s Remarkable Response to Terrorism + Uri Friedman “The people do not need to be afraid,” Indonesia’s Joko Widodo said. On Thursday, militants affiliated with ISIS set off a series of explosions in the Indonesian city of Jakarta, killing at least two civilians. The country’s president, Joko “Jokowi” Widodo, responded in a remarkable way. The New York Times has more: “We condemn actions that disrupt public security and disturb the peace of the people and sow terror,” Mr. Joko said. ... “I have instructed the police chief and the coordinating minister for political, legal and security affairs to pursue and arrest the perpetrators and their networks.” “The people do not need to be afraid and should not be defeated by these terrorist acts,” he added. “I hope that people remain calm because it is all controllable.” Continue Reading * [javascript] Chris Keane / Reuters The ‘New York Values’ That Donald Trump Supporters Love + Conor Friedersdorf Ted Cruz’s debate-night attack backfired on stage, but it was never going to convince Trump supporters. On Thursday, Senator Ted Cruz tried to undermine Donald Trump by declaring that he has “New York values.” The crowd of South Carolina Republicans laughed when Cruz declared that “most people know exactly what New York values are.” When pressed, he elaborated that while New York state has many wonderful people, “everyone understands that the values in New York City are socially liberal or pro-abortion or pro-gay marriage, focus around money and the media.” He added, “Not a lot of conservatives come out of Manhattan. I’m just saying.” How smug and confident he sounded making that attack. And no wonder. New Yorkers are socially liberal and more focused on money and media than the rest of the country. And Republican audiences have eaten up attacks on urban elites for years. Continue Reading * [javascript] AP/The Atlantic What ISIS Really Wants + Graeme Wood The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it. What is the Islamic State? Where did it come from, and what are its intentions? The simplicity of these questions can be deceiving, and few Western leaders seem to know the answers. In December, The New York Times published confidential comments by Major General Michael K. Nagata, the Special Operations commander for the United States in the Middle East, admitting that he had hardly begun figuring out the Islamic State’s appeal. “We have not defeated the idea,” he said. “We do not even understand the idea.” In the past year, President Obama has referred to the Islamic State, variously, as “not Islamic” and as al-Qaeda’s “jayvee team,” statements that reflected confusion about the group, and may have contributed to significant strategic errors. Continue Reading * [javascript] Stephanie Snyder / Chalkbeat Why Is the College-Application Process So Complicated? + Monica Disare One teen’s misunderstanding of the SATs made the application process far more overwhelming than it needed to be. Jamal Trotman is a star at Eagle Academy for Young Men in Brooklyn. He made the All-State football team and was a team captain. He wants to be a journalist, and he’s interned at NBC and at the investment firm Blackstone. His counselors say he’s a dedicated student and selected him to be his school’s spokesman at a college fair last fall. But his college options could be limited by a misunderstanding: He didn’t realize he needed to answer most of the questions on the SAT. Continue Reading * [javascript] Jorge Silva / Reuters Why Are So Many Zappos Employees Leaving? + Bourree Lam Last year, the company’s turnover rate was 30 percent. The online shoe retailer Zappos has always stood out for its unconventional human-resources philosophy. For nearly a decade the company has been making something it calls “The Offer” to new hires—an opportunity to take a $2,000 stipend instead of starting the job. The company prides itself on the attentiveness of its customer service and the devotion of its workers, and “The Offer” is an attempt to weed out those who aren’t thrilled about the work ahead. But now, one of the company’s unusual approaches has led to what’s being called a Zappos exodus, as 18 percent of the company's staff have taken buyouts in the last 10 months. That takes Zappos’ turnover rate for 2015 to 30 percent, which is 10 percentage points above their typical annual attrition rate. Continue Reading * [javascript] Dennis Hlynsky / The Atlantic / Pearson Scott Foreman / Wikimedia Commons Revealing the Hidden Patterns of Birds and Insects in Motion + A video shows the dreamlike voyages of starlings, water striders, and more. Watch Video * [javascript] The Most Powerful Images of 2015 + Greyson Korhonen and Alan Taylor A selection of the year's best photos Watch Video * [javascript] This Is What It's Like to Read Lips + Nadine Ajaka On the messy and imprecise process of using one sense to do the work of another Watch Video More Popular Stories Show Comments Subscribe Get 10 issues a year and save 65% off the cover price. [ld+json] ____________________ ____________________ ____________________ ____________________ [State_________________] __________ United States_______ ____________________ Order Now Fraud Alert regarding The Atlantic Newsletters+ * The Atlantic * [ ] The Atlantic Daily * [ ] This Week * [ ] This Month * [ ] New Photo Galleries * [ ] Top Videos This Week * CityLab * [ ] Today’s Top Stories * [ ] This Week's Most Popular Stories * [X] I want to receive updates from partners and sponsors. * ____________________ * Sign up Follow+ * Facebook * Twitter * LinkedIn * Tumblr * Pinterest * RSS * App Store About+ * Masthead * FAQ * Press * Jobs * Shop * Books * Emporium * Contact Us * Privacy Policy * Advertise * Advertising Guidelines * Terms and Conditions * Subscriber Help * Site Map Copyright © 2016 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All Rights Reserved. (BUTTON) Close Skip Ad >