A few weeks ago we wrote about the problems states are having in getting the drugs needed to carry out lethal injections.
Over the last 24 hours, headlines have emerged around the country and the world about Oklahoma’s drug secrecy and their most recent botched execution attempt.
Background:

In Oklahoma two executions were forthcoming and the state was scrambling for drugs.  With plans to use a new three drug cocktail and no public information about the drug suppliers, the lawyers of both death row inmates filed lawsuits to find out what would be used to kill their clients.
Last month, the Oklahoma Supreme Court issued a stay on the executions until they could rule on the secrecy of drugs matter.  The following day, Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin overruled the Supreme Court and allowed the executions to move forward.
The executions were scheduled for April 29^th and in a rare occurrence, would take place on the same day.  However, only one would end up happening and it went terribly wrong.
Shortly after the first drug was administered, the doctor on site deemed the inmate unconscious and told them to move forward with the second and third drugs.  In short order the inmate started moving around, tried to sit up and screamed out.  As prison officials tried to figure out what was going on, they realized that his vein had burst and without knowing how much of the lethal drugs the inmate had received, decided to stop the execution.  The inmate ended up dying of a heart attack and the second execution was postponed.
In the wake of this tragedy the country has responded with renewed skepticism of the death penalty:

• The Denver Post called this “another blow for the death penalty.”
• The White house weighed in saying the execution was conducted “inhumanely.”
• Colorado Governor Hickenlooper said this might make people change their opinions about capital punishment.
• Some folks are wondering if this is the end of death penalty?

This is not the first time an execution has been botched.  In the last year, experiments with new drugs have led to inmates screaming out and convulsing on the table.  The inability to acquire drugs has also prompted some states to discuss reinstating other forms of execution such as the electric chair and firing squad.
It has also brought up the very issue of the death penalty as cruel and unusual punishment.  If drugs are acquired in secret and being used without any clue as to their effectiveness, can we call the execution pain free, safe or moral, or have we crossed the line into violating the 8^th amendment?  Is it not time for our nation and our state to stop and look at this unnerving amount of cruelty and decide if the whole immoral, unequal, and expensive system is worth it at all?
For more information on the Oklahoma Execution:
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_25658033/oklahoma-prepares-execution-2-inmates?source=rss

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/30/us/oklahoma-executions.html

May 1, 2014
DENVER – Why Marriage Matters Colorado, the broad coalition working to secure the freedom to marry for all committed couples, today recognized the one-year anniversary of the enactment of Colorado’s civil unions law, which went into effect on May 1, 2013. This milestone comes on the heels of oral arguments for the Utah and Oklahoma marriage cases before the U.S. 10^th Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Denver. The outcome in those cases could bring the freedom to marry to Colorado.
“While we applaud this anniversary as Colorado’s first step in protecting all families, we also knew that civil unions were just that – an important first step,” said Dave Montez, Executive Director of One Colorado, one of the lead organizations of Why Marriage Matters Colorado, along with ACLU of Colorado and Freedom to Marry. “With 61% of Coloradans behind the freedom to marry, we know that people understand that nothing compares to marriage in protecting couples and their families.”
Montez went on to cite the U.S. Supreme Court’s Windsor decision last June that provided federal recognition of married gay and lesbian couples. While not specifically addressing marriage nationwide, the decision nonetheless has led to several federal court rulings that found denying committed couples the freedom to marry is unconstitutional. Seventeen states plus Washington, D.C. now have the freedom to marry for same-sex couples.
“When civil unions took effect last May, we knew this law would extend many key protections to families like ours and that it was an important move forward,” said Sarah Musick, who entered into a civil union with her partner Erika in Colorado Springs last year. “However, there’s no substitute for marriage, which guarantees that we can be there for each other and our family during times of greatest need. Like thousands of other couples across our state, we simply want to be able to make a lifetime commitment to each other and be responsible for one another – in front of our own friends and family, here in the state we call home.”
“One year ago, I had the honor of officiating about a dozen civil union ceremonies the night this law first took effect in Colorado,” said Nathan Woodliff-Stanley, Executive Director of ACLU of Colorado. “I will never forget the faces, the emotions, the joy. But civil unions are still not marriage. As an ordained minister, I look forward to having the ability to marry loving, committed couples who belong together and deserve full equality under the law.”

Why Marriage Matters Colorado is broadening the dialogue with Coloradans about why marriage is important to same-sex couples and their families and why it is consistent with the values of liberty and freedom. More information on this statewide initiative – which is being spearheaded by leading statewide LGBT advocacy group One Colorado, ACLU of Colorado, and Freedom to Marry – can be found here: www.whymarriagematterscolorado.org

DENVER - 4/30 - Earlier today, Denver County Sheriff Gary Wilson announced that Denver will join the growing number of Colorado counties that have decided over the last two days to stop honoring immigration detainers from federal authorities that request that a person be held in jail for up to six days after they would otherwise be released.

Yesterday, the ACLU of Colorado sent letters to every sheriff in the state calling into question the legal authority under Colorado state law to detain people at the behest of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).  Sheriffs from around the state have responded by announcing that they will no longer honor the holds.  As of today, Denver joins Boulder County, Mesa County, Routt County, Jefferson County, Grand County, and San Miguel County.

Statement of ACLU of Colorado Public Policy Director Mark Silverstein

“For several years, the ACLU of Colorado has urged Colorado law enforcement to stop holding persons in custody on the sole authority of an immigration detainer sent by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).  Today, we are happy to announce that several counties, including Denver, have decided over the last 48 hours to reject ICE requests to detain residents without criminal warrants or legal justification.

“The cascade of recent decisions by Colorado sheriffs reflects good judgment that getting involved in immigration enforcement undermines community trust in the police and makes everyone less safe.  Local law enforcement’s top concerns should be community trust and public safety.  Victims and witnesses of crimes should not fear calling the police, but that’s what happens when the community fears that contact with law enforcement can be the first step in a seamless transfer to jail and then to immigration proceedings.

“An ICE detainer is not a warrant; it is not approved by a judge.  It does not mean that there has been a finding about the person’s immigration status.   It does not even mean that ICE has probable cause to believe the person is deportable.  Indeed, ICE makes mistakes—it has regularly issued detainers against citizens or legal residents and denied liberty to people who are not deportable.

“When ICE asks a sheriff to hold a prisoner for up to six extra days, the agency is essentially asking the sheriff to make a new arrest.   And Colorado law just does not provide authority to sheriffs to make that arrest.   Peace officers in Colorado have authority to deprive persons of liberty when there is probable cause to believe they have committed a crime.   Remaining in the country in violation of federal immigration laws is not a crime.   Colorado law does not provide sheriffs any authority to deprive persons of liberty because the federal government suspects they may be subject to civil immigration enforcement proceedings.

We applaud Denver’s decision, as well as the growing number of Colorado sheriffs who are making the same decision.  We expect this rapidly developing trend to continue, and we encourage every county in the state to join in rejecting federal immigration detainers."

Read the ACLU letter to Colorado Sheriffs here.