Kim Jong Un's Uncle Executed in Second 'Purge'

In a case where a convicted prisoner is put on an electric chair, which malfunctions before the prisoner's execution, one of the critical questions raised is whether the prison should undergo the second 'execution' after the chair has been repaired. When answering this question, it is essential to evaluate a previous case of a similar nature that was decided in the Supreme Court within the United States. Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber , 329 U.S. 459 (1947) is a case in where Willie Francis was to undergo execution but was not because the electric chair malfunctioned; thus, raising the question of whether imposing a second attempt would violate the constitution (Wiecek 2001). Based on the ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the position that imposition of a second 'execution' would not violate the different sections of the constitution protecting the prisoner. The first argument that can be raised in seeking to suggest that the prisoner must not endure a second 'execution' is that this would translate to double jeopardy. Holland (2016) defines double jeopardy, which is a clause in the 5 th Amendment, a procedural defence that seeks to ensure that an individual is not punished twice for the same crime after a successful conviction or acquittal. In this case, the issue raised is the fact that the prisoner was punished the first time because he/she was strapped onto the chair. The fact that the chair may have malfunction resulting in him/her not dying ought to be considered as an unforeseen factor. However, this argument cannot be justified taking into account that the punishment for the prisoner was death by electrocution. The fact that he/she did not die indicates that he/she was not punished for the crime(s) committed; thus, meaning that he must endure a second 'execution.' Another key that can be raised in seeking to justify the fact that the prisoner ought not to be exposed to a second 'execution' is the fact that being strapped onto the chair for the second time would be considered an unusual punishment that is cruel. The particular punishment clause of the 8 th Amendment seeks to describe a sentence that can be regarded as being unacceptable taking into account that it is likely to cause pain, suffering, or humiliation for the prisoner (Reinert, 2015). In this case, it can be argued that the fact that the prisoner had been strapped onto the chair the first time was punishment enough; thus, meaning that him/her being strapped onto the chair the second time would result in harsh punishment. However, this argument can be countered on the basis that the expectation of the justice system is to administer punishments as they have been provided. It is from this perspective that the prisoner must endure the electric chair for a second time. Both arguments reflect on the 14 th Amendment, which is critical towards defining all legal procedures. The due process seeks to highlight the need for all legal requirements to be considered in ensuring that a prisoner's constitutional rights are protected at all times (Wiecek, 2001). The expectation is that this would mean that the prisoner’s rights may be violated through his/her second execution. However, the legal basis of the implementation has not been achieved even though the electric chair may have malfunctioned. Thus, this means that the prisoner must go through successful electrocution for the legal basis of the sentence to be considered, which means that indeed the prisoner is due for a second 'execution'.

References

Holland, B. (2016). What Are the Double Jeopardy Consequences of an Acquittal on a Related Conviction That Is Vacated: Bravo-Fernandez v. United States (15-537).  Preview U.S. Sup. Ct. Cas. ,  44 , 24.

Reinert, A. A. (2015). Reconceptualizing the Eighth Amendment: Slaves, Prisoners, and Cruel and Unusual Punishment.  NCL, Rev. ,  94 , 817.

Wiecek, W. M. (2001). Felix Frankfurter, Incorporation, and the Willie Francis Case.  J. Sup. Ct. Hist. ,  26 , 53.