Close Menu
    Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
    Return to Fordham Law School
    X (Twitter) Facebook LinkedIn Instagram RSS
    Fordham Law News
    • Home
    • Law School News
    • In the News
    • Fordham Lawyer
    • Insider
      • Announcements
      • Class Notes
      • In Memoriam
    • For the Media
      • Media Contacts
    • News by Topic
      • Business and Financial Law
      • Clinics
      • Intellectual Property and Information Law
      • International and Human Rights Law
      • Legal Ethics and Professional Practice
      • National Security
      • Public Interest and Service
    Return to Fordham Law School
    X (Twitter) Facebook LinkedIn Instagram RSS
    Fordham Law News
    You are at:Home»Faculty»Ohio Inmate to be Executed ‘Again.’ How Botched Executions Shape Death Penalty Debate

    Ohio Inmate to be Executed ‘Again.’ How Botched Executions Shape Death Penalty Debate

    0
    By on March 17, 2016 Deborah Denno, Faculty, In the News

    Deborah Denno was quoted in Yahoo News about an Ohio Supreme Court ruling that a state prisons agency can attempt to execute a man again after a failed first attempt by lethal injection.

    One legal expert denounced Wednesday’s ruling, saying there is no legal precedent for it. Given the number of failed and drawn-out executions since 2009, as well as issues obtaining drugs, Broom may now be in a worse position.

    “I find that unacceptable. First of all there’s no precedent that because the drugs didn’t make it into his system that that would be the basis for deciding that this wasn’t an attempted execution,” says Deborah Denno, the Arthur A. McGivney Professor of Law at Fordham University in New York.

    The majority opinion cited the Willie Francis case (Francis v. Resweber) as precedent for Ohio to attempt an execution of Broom for a second time, but Professor Denno disagrees.

    The Willie Francis case was an execution in 1946, where the executioners failed to generate a strong enough electrical current, leaving Mr. Francis able to walk away from the electric chair. The case then went to the Supreme Court in 1947, where the justices ruled in favor of allowing the state of Louisiana a second chance to electrocute Francis, which was successful.

    “That’s a Supreme Court Case in 1947, before the Eighth Amendment ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ clause even applied to states,” Denno says. “The cruel and unusual punishment clause didn’t even apply to states until 1962 in this country.”

    Read the full article.

     

    Share. Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr Email

    Related Posts

    Dan’s Papers: Prof. Jerry Goldfeder on How Lawyers are Becoming Bigger Players in Elections

    Dan’s Papers: Prof. Jerry Goldfeder on Voters Being Urged to Change Registration to Vote in Mayoral Election

    Above the Law: Prof. Thomas Lee on the Validity of Justice Department’s Misconduct Complaint Against U.S. District Court Chief Judge

    Comments are closed.

    • The Big Idea
    August 5, 2025

    The Big Idea: Who Counts (and Who Doesn’t) in the U.S. Census 

    March 31, 2025

    The Big Idea: Local Politics, Reform Prosecutors, and Reshaping Mass Incarceration

    March 3, 2025

    The Big Idea: Forced Labor, Global Supply Chains, and Workers’ Rights

    November 6, 2024

    The Big Idea: Partisanship, Perception, and Prosecutorial Power

    READ MORE

    About

    Fordham University - The Jesuit University of New York

    Founded in 1841, Fordham is the Jesuit University of New York, offering exceptional education distinguished by the Jesuit tradition to more than 15,100 students in its four undergraduate colleges and its six graduate and professional schools.
    Connect With Fordham
    © 2025 ThemeSphere. Designed by ThemeSphere.

    Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.