Tennessee's death penalty is back
Tennessee is set to resume the executions of people on death row, even as more Tennesseans express opposition to it. (Photo by)
Quietly, on Dec. 27, 2024, the Tennessee Department of Correction (TDOC) completed a multi-year lethal injection protocol review ordered by Gov. Bill Lee in 2022. The completed review marked the end of a pause Lee had placed on executions.
The ink was barely dry on TDOC's report when, on Feb. 14, the Tennessee Attorney General's Office asked the state Supreme Court to set execution dates for five of the 46 people currently on death row.
This all comes at a time when Gallup reports Americans' support for capital punishment is at a five-decade low, a drop in support that's evident even in red states. According to a 2022 Vanderbilt poll, a majority of Tennesseans now oppose the death penalty.
Tennessee's history regarding capital punishment is surprisingly progressive, and with no executions in five years, there's no reason the 2020 execution of Nicholas Sutton shouldn't be Tennessee's last.
Moments when Tennessee went against the grain regarding capital punishment include:
Tennessee became the first state in the nation to turn away from the traditional and mandatory death sentence for convicted murderers in 1838.
Tennessee was the only former Confederate state to abolish execution in the late 1800s. The state legislature formally ended capital punishment in 1915, reinstating it in 1919.
Tennessee had one of the longest pauses on executions in the nation, with no executions committed between 1960 and 2000.
In 1965, Gov. Frank Clement commuted the sentences of everyone on Tennessee's death row after a bill to abolish capital punishment was defeated by just one vote.
Tennessee became one of the first of four states to exclude the death penalty for those with intellectual disabilities in 1990.
Throughout the 2000s and 2010s, multiple moratoriums were placed on capital punishment while the state reviewed its execution protocols.
Why examine the history? Because it's not a foregone conclusion that just because Tennessee is a red state, its residents must sit idly by and condone state-sanctioned murder
Could I put an amendment on that bill (regarding methods of execution) that would include hanging by a tree?
– Rep. Paul Sherrell, R-Sparta, Feb. 28, 2023
Th death penalty is uncivilized in theory and unfair in practice. It must be opposed because:
It can result in the deaths of innocent people. The U.S. criminal justice system is deeply flawed and often makes mistakes. Since 1973, at least 200 people who were on death row were later exonerated. For every eight people executed in the U.S., one person sentenced to death is exonerated, meaning the system is only right 88% of the time. It's impossible to know how many innocent Americans have been executed before they could be exonerated, because courts don't entertain claims of innocence for dead people. But civil rights groups have gathered troves of evidence showing dozens of executed prisoners were innocent.
It is not an effective deterrent. The death penalty is often used as a political tool to create the illusion of being 'tough on crime' while doing nothing to address the underlying social and economic factors that lead to crime. The states with the highest murder rates all practice capital punishment. Meanwhile, Canada's murder rate is half what it was when our neighbors to the north abolished their death penalty in 1976.
It is applied unfairly. The death penalty is disproportionately imposed upon those whose victims are white, on offenders who are people of color, and on people who are poor and uneducated. In Tennessee, only 40% of homicides involve white victims, yet 74% of all death sentences are for those convicted of killing white people.
It is a blatant violation of one's Constitutional rights. The death penalty constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, a violation of the Eighth Amendment. According to the ACLU, 'It is cruel because it is a relic of the earliest days of penology, when slavery, branding, and other corporal punishments were commonplace. Like those barbaric practices, executions have no place in a civilized society. It is unusual because only the United States of all the western industrialized nations engages in this punishment.'
Though the death penalty feels as well-entrenched as ever and though Tennessee may soon return to executing prisoners, the practice is hanging on by a thread. In Tennessee and other red states, the only group still supporting capital punishment are conservatives.
Why are many conservatives quick to call out inefficiencies and errors in government, yet they're willing to back the government to the hilt when it comes to the life-or-death decision to carry out an execution? Many conservatives say the government is untrustworthy and makes mistakes all the time, but not on matters of capital punishment?
Granting the government — which can and does make mistakes — the right to kill Americans means handing it immense power with little oversight, something conservatives are typically loath to do. With that in mind, one does not even need to engage in questions about the morality of delivering death as punishment for a crime because the answer to the previous question — can the government be trusted to administer death as punishment? — is no.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
33 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump EPA moves to repeal climate rules that limit greenhouse gas emissions from US power plants
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday proposed repealing rules that limit planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions from power plants fueled by coal and natural gas, an action that Administrator Lee Zeldin said would remove billions of dollars in costs for industry and help 'unleash' American energy. The EPA also proposed weakening a regulation that requires power plants to reduce emissions of mercury and other toxic pollutants that can harm brain development of young children and contribute to heart attacks and other health problems in adults. The rollbacks are meant to fulfill Republican President Donald Trump's repeated pledge to 'unleash American energy' and make it more affordable for Americans to power their homes and operate businesses. If approved and made final, the plans would reverse efforts by Democratic President Joe Biden's administration to address climate change and improve conditions in areas heavily burdened by industrial pollution, mostly in low-income and majority Black or Hispanic communities. The power plant rules are among about 30 environmental regulations that Zeldin targeted in March when he announced what he called the 'most consequential day of deregulation in American history.' Zeldin said Wednesday the new rules would help end what he called the Biden and Obama administration's 'war on so much of our U.S. domestic energy supply.' 'The American public spoke loudly and clearly last November,' he added in a speech at EPA headquarters. 'They wanted to make sure that … no matter what agency anybody might be confirmed to lead, we are finding opportunities to pursue common-sense, pragmatic solutions that will help reduce the cost of living … create jobs and usher in a golden era of American prosperity.' Environmental and public health groups called the rollbacks dangerous and vowed to challenge the rules in court. Dr. Lisa Patel, a pediatrician and executive director of the Medical Society Consortium on Climate & Health, called the proposals 'yet another in a series of attacks' by the Trump administration on the nation's 'health, our children, our climate and the basic idea of clean air and water.' She called it 'unconscionable to think that our country would move backwards on something as common sense as protecting children from mercury and our planet from worsening hurricanes, wildfires, floods and poor air quality driven by climate change.' 'Ignoring the immense harm to public health from power plant pollution is a clear violation of the law,' added Manish Bapna, president and CEO of the Natural Resources Defense Council. 'If EPA finalizes a slapdash effort to repeal those rules, we'll see them in court.' The EPA-targeted rules could prevent an estimated 30,000 deaths and save $275 billion each year they are in effect, according to an Associated Press examination that included the agency's own prior assessments and a wide range of other research. It's by no means guaranteed that the rules will be entirely eliminated — they can't be changed without going through a federal rulemaking process that can take years and requires public comment and scientific justification. Even a partial dismantling of the rules would mean more pollutants such as smog, mercury and lead — and especially more tiny airborne particles that can lodge in lungs and cause health problems, the AP analysis found. It would also mean higher emissions of the greenhouse gases driving Earth's warming to deadlier levels. Biden, a Democrat, had made fighting climate change a hallmark of his presidency. Coal-fired power plants would be forced to capture smokestack emissions or shut down under a strict EPA rule issued last year. Then-EPA head Michael Regan said the power plant rules would reduce pollution and improve public health while supporting a reliable, long-term supply of electricity. The power sector is the nation's second-largest contributor to climate change, after transportation. In its proposed regulation, the Trump EPA argues that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from fossil fuel-fired power plants 'do not contribute significantly to dangerous pollution' or climate change and therefore do not meet a threshold under the Clean Air Act for regulatory action. Greenhouse gas emissions from coal and gas-fired plants 'are a small and decreasing part of global emissions,' the EPA said, adding: 'this Administration's priority is to promote the public health or welfare through energy dominance and independence secured by using fossil fuels to generate power.' The Clean Air Act allows the EPA to limit emissions from power plants and other industrial sources if those emissions significantly contribute to air pollution that endangers public health. If fossil fuel plants no longer meet the EPA's threshold, the Trump administration may later argue that other pollutants from other industrial sectors don't either and therefore shouldn't be regulated, said Meghan Greenfield, a former EPA and Justice Department lawyer now in private practice. The EPA proposal 'has the potential to have much, much broader implications,' she said. Zeldin, a former New York congressman, said the Biden-era rules were designed to 'suffocate our economy in order to protect the environment,' with the intent to regulate the coal industry 'out of existence' and make it 'disappear.' National Mining Association president and CEO Rich Nolan applauded the new rules, saying they remove 'deliberately unattainable standards' for clean air while 'leveling the playing field for reliable power sources, instead of stacking the deck against them.' But Dr. Howard Frumkin, a former director of the National Center for Environmental Health and professor emeritus at the University of Washington School of Public Health, said Zeldin and Trump were trying to deny reality. 'The world is round, the sun rises in the east, coal-and gas-fired power plants contribute significantly to climate change, and climate change increases the risk of heat waves, catastrophic storms and many other health threats,' Frumkin said. 'These are indisputable facts. If you torpedo regulations on power plant greenhouse gas emissions, you torpedo the health and well-being of the American public and contribute to leaving a world of risk and suffering to our children and grandchildren.' A paper published earlier this year in the journal Science found the Biden-era rules could reduce U.S. power sector carbon emissions by 73% to 86% below 2005 levels by 2040, compared with a reduction of 60% to 83% without the rules. 'Carbon emissions in the power sector drop at a faster rate with the (Biden-era) rules in place than without them,' said Aaron Bergman, a fellow at Resources for the Future, a nonprofit research institution and a co-author of the Science paper. The Biden rule also would result in 'significant reductions in sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, pollutants that harm human health,' he said.
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
General Trump has entered the fray and this is just the beginning
Donald Trump has long had a keen fascination with swashbuckling generals from the Second World War. His rally speeches are peppered with anecdotes about General Douglas MacArthur and he used a clip from one of his favourite war movies to open his event at Manhattan's Madison Square a week before last year's election. 'Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser,' says George C Scott, playing Gen George Patton in the 1970 movie Patton. What could be more Trumpian? The president's first administration was packed with generals and retired generals. Mr Trump made no secret of his admiration for their can-do attitude and straightforward command structure until, that is, he soured on their adherence to rules and legal norms. This time around, his flood-the-zone strategy of bamboozling the media and Democratic opponents with a constant stream of executive orders, public comments, and proclamations could come from one of Patton's real-life quotes: 'As long as you attack them, they cannot find the time to attack you.' This week, Mr Trump is leaning into his role of commander-in-chief in a much more literal sense. He has deployed active service personnel as an arm of domestic policy to back his massive deportation push. As protests grew in response to immigration raids around Los Angeles, he took the highly unusual step of deploying National Guard troops at the weekend despite the opposition of the California governor. On Tuesday he used a speech honouring soldiers to defend his decision against charges it was a politically motivated stunt. 'Generations of army heroes did not shed their blood on distant shores only to watch our country be destroyed by invasion and third-world lawlessness,' he said at the army base in Fort Bragg, North Carolina. A day later, the first of 700 Marines arrived in Los Angeles. And he has left open the possibility of going even further, using the Insurrection Act, which authorises the president to deploy military forces on American soil to suppress domestic violence in certain scenarios. 'If there's an insurrection, I would certainly invoke it. We'll see,' he said from the Oval Office. And then there is Saturday's military parade. More than 100 military vehicles and thousands of soldiers are set to roll or march down Constitution Avenue in front of the White House. Black Hawk and Apache helicopters will fill the skies. It will be the $50 million fulfilment of a dream Mr Trump has had since 2017, when he was a guest of Emmanuel Macron, the French president, at a Bastille Day parade. Hundreds of troops marching down the Champs-Élysées beneath plumes of red, white and blue smoke trailing behind fighter jets, left a deep impression on Mr Trump. 'It was one of the greatest parades I've ever seen,' he later said. 'We're going to have to try and top it.' A parade during his visit to China in 2017 also got the Trump seal of approval. He called it 'magnificent'. Then, he was quietly advised then that it would not be appropriate to parade the nation's military might through the capital. But like so much of his thwarted first-term agenda, he has spent the past four years staffing up with officials who can make his dreams come true. Officially, Saturday's parade will mark the 250th birthday of the army. And it doesn't hurt that it falls on the 79th birthday of Mr Trump. Critics say he is abusing the nation's armed forces for his own ends. 'He views the military as political props,' said John Bolton, who worked as Trump's national security adviser in his first term before falling out with him. 'He thinks they make him look good.' The event could serve another purpose, illustrating how Mr Trump is bringing the nation's biggest and strongest institutions into line. And as commander-in-chief he is the one to call the shots, illustrating his hold on power. Members of Washington's diplomatic corps will be in the audience on Saturday. 'He just likes the pomp and circumstance,' said one, speaking on condition of anonymity. 'I don't see an attack on democracy. Mr Trump looks around at other leaders and thinks that this is the sort of thing that a head of state gets.' In the meantime, polls suggest a limit to what he can do as commander-in-chief. A new YouGov survey found that 47 per cent of Americans disapprove of deploying the Marines to Los Angeles, with only 34 per cent approving, despite other polls showing that voters approve of the broader deportation operation. And while legal scholars will debate whether Mr Trump's decision to deploy troops stands up to scrutiny, and whether it breaches a federal law, the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which prevents the use of American forces to enforce domestic laws, the president sees things in black and white. He knows where the battle lines are drawn as he made clear in his Fort Bragg speech. He used highly partisan language to slam the Los Angeles protesters and to champion the armed forces. 'They're heroes. They're fighting for us,' he said. 'They're stopping an invasion, just like you'd stop an invasion.' His armed forces are all part of Mr Trump's us-against-them view of the world. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump proposes axing all climate rules for power plants
The Trump administration is moving to ax all climate rules alongside Biden-era and pollution rules for power plants. The moves come as the Trump administration looks to promote a fossil fueled future — and are expected to worsen global warming and air pollution. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to find that power plants' greenhouse gas emissions 'do not contribute significantly to dangerous air pollution' and therefore should not be regulated. In effect, this proposal would overturn Biden-era rules that required existing coal and new gas plants to capture at least 90 percent of their carbon emissions and tighten restrictions on coal plants' releases of mercury and other toxic metals. The climate rule that the Trump administration is proposing to ax would have prevented 1.4 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions between the years 2038 and 2047 – emissions equivalent to taking more than 300 million gas-powered cars off the road for a year, according to Biden-era projections. EPA administrator Lee Zeldin, in a written statement, accused the previous administration of trying to regulate fossil fuels 'out of existence.' 'According to many, the primary purpose of these Biden-Harris administration regulations was to destroy industries that didn't align with their narrow-minded climate change zealotry,' he said. Together, these rules have been criticized as being designed to regulate coal, oil and gas out of existence.' The administration's moves were criticized by environmental advocates, who said they would both worsen climate change and expose Americans to more air pollution. 'The Trump EPA is recklessly disregarding its responsibility under our nation's clean air laws to protect the American people from mercury, arsenic and climate pollution from industrial smokestacks,' Vickie Patton, general counsel of the Environmental Defense Fund, said in a written statement. The administration appears to be going further than even the first Trump administration on power plants. During Trump's first tenure, the EPA put forward weakened power plant rules that would be easier to comply with, while now it is proposing to stop regulating planet-warming emissions from the sector entirely. Updated at 3:37 p.m. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
