In the case of State of Louisiana Ex Rel. Francis v. Resweber, , the U.S. Supreme Court was asked whether imposing capital punishment (the electric chair) a second time, after it failed in an attempt to execute Willie Francis in 1946, constituted either a violation of the double jeopardy clause of the 5th Amendment or the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the 8th Amendment of the United States Constitution, as made applicable to the State of Louisiana via the equal protection clause if the 14th Amendment.
Five of the justices held that it did not. Four of the justices argued in a scathing dissent that
- How many deliberate and intentional reapplications of electric current does it take to produce a cruel, unusual and unconstitutional punishment? While five applications would be more cruel and unusual than one, the uniqueness of the present case demonstrates that, today, two separated applications are sufficiently 'cruel and unusual' to be prohibited. If five attempts would be 'cruel and unusual,' it would be difficult to draw the line between two, three, four and five. It is not difficult, however, as we here contend, to draw the line between the one continuous application prescribed by statute and any other application of the current. Lack of intent that the first application be less than fatal is not material. The intent of the executioner cannot lessen the torture or excuse the result.
Francis would be executed again the following year, this time, for good.
External links
