I recently saw The Green Mile again (great film, BTW) and it got me thinking about capital punishment in the US.
What would happen if a condemned prisoner, on their way to execution, somehow managed to get a gun or a baton off one off the guards (or was able to use a martial arts manouevre) and killed someone?
Assuming the prisoner was subdued without being killed, would they be carted off to the death chamber and executed as scheduled, or would it all have to be rescheduled so there could be a trial for the murder of the other person?
What about if the prisoner got the stuffing beaten out of them during the subduing process - are they going to the hospital or the death chamber?
I figured there’s probably not a definitive answer to this, hence me putting the question in GD, but if one of the mods thinks it should be moved then by all means go right ahead.
ETA: Clicked “Post” too soon, so if one of the mods wants to amend the title as well, that’d be appreciated too…
Not quite the circumstances you describe, but IIRC there was a Texas convict on death row years ago who kept getting his execution date postponed because he assaulted various fellow inmates and officers, and may have even killed one. Subsequent due process required the delays.
Sorry I can’t come up with the details at the moment.
I can certainly believe that happened, but I don’t believe it was “required,” unless maybe by some internal policy. Just because a crime is committed doesn’t mean charges have to be filed. As I’m sure you know, crimes committed in prison are often dealt with by administrative procedures without charges, and those procedures could no doubt be waived.
It’s possible that Texas has prison policies or even statutes that require certain crimes be investigated or dealt with in a way that would preclude carrying out the already-planned execution, but my guess is it was a deliberate decision, not a requirement. Perhaps they believed that going through the due process procedures and having the execution delayed was something the perpetrator did not want, and would therefore discourage such behavior?
Murder (and other serious crimes) in prison are not handled by administrative procedures. Local sheriffs come in, gather evidence, interview witnesses and ‘people of interest’ and turn that info over to the DA. Whom I am sure would NOT be happy if the ‘person of interest’ happened to be executed before before he got a chance to weigh in on what he wants done with the case.
Fair enough; I wasn’t really thinking about murder, since you said it “may have” happened. I used to work in a correctional setting, and I’m pretty sure I heard of assaults being handled administratively, but I could be wrong at this point.
I read “Subsequent due process required the delays” as implying that there was a legal requirement (perhaps even a constitutional one, given the use of the phrase “due process”) that executing the prisoner would violate. My point was that there were presumably other reasons for wanting him to remain alive, such as the DA wanting a chance to weigh in (my example just happened to be a different one).
Any assaults with battery that cause significant bodily injury to another inmate get reported to the local police, as well as ANY assaults on staff. Some violations may not get reported to the police based on warden’s/security director’s discretion, but the concept of holding the inmate accountable for their behavior is strong in our system.
I would think that since another person had been killed there will be an investigation. I don’t think they’ll go ahead and execute the prisoner after he committed another crime.
They physically can, since they’re going to the execution chamber anyway, but it’d be interesting to know if they would - it’s not like there’s any doubt about what happened or who did it, for example.
The whole thing sounds like an administrative and legal and procedural nightmare, which is why I thought it would be an intriguing discussion topic.
It does not depend on the death penalty, either. It applies any time a prisoner has already received that jurisdiction’s maximum available sentence. I.e., in a state with no death penalty, what happens if a prisoner already sentenced to life without parole kills someone?
My WAG is that this would not be likely, and the prisoner would be killed right then and there.
ETA WAG #2: Prisoner is beaten unconscious, death penalty delayed for another trial, prisoner guilty of new murder, executed as planned with a delay. OK, I’m done guessing now, carry on.
I will certainly not argue with a man of your qualifications. What do you think about my WAG #2- the beaten unconscious part? (I’m not saying he wouldn’t deserve it. :eek:)
Even beating unconscious is not that likely, again due to paperwork reasons. It really is more convenient for Correctional Officers to use the ‘right’ amount of restraint/force, which is generally less than deadly or even so severe as to cause loss of consciousness. COs hate paperwork more than they do most inmates.
That’s the thing I was wondering about. I’d tell them to go ahead and fry that fucker but the judge is gonna be a problem they don’t want to deal with.
The problem with this line of thought is that you’re assuming that the condemned prisoner is in fact guilty of the assault/murder. Which is of course what the OP has posited, but how would we know at the time?
What if two guards are transporting the prisoner, and one guard assaults or kills the other, then says that the prisoner did it? It would be a pretty bad idea to kill a potential witness to a new crime just because he happens to have been convicted of a previous capital crime. So until there’s an investigation, he ought to be kept around.
