Petitioner
Willie Francis
Respondent
E. L. Resweber, Sheriff of St. Martin Parish, Louisiana, et al.
Petitioner's Claim
The petitioner, who had been sentenced to die by electrocution, had survivedthe state's first electrocution attempt; he contended that for the state to try to electrocute him again would be "cruel and unusual punishment" under theEighth Amendment, double jeopardy (being tried twice for the same crime) under the Fifth Amendment, and a violation of his right to due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment (since other prisoners only had to undergo one execution attempt).
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
James Skelly Wright
Chief Lawyers for Respondent
Michael E. Culligan, L. O. Pecot
Justices for the Court
Hugo Lafayette Black, Felix Frankfurter, Robert H. Jackson, Stanley Forman Reed (writing for the Court), Fred Moore Vinson
Justices Dissenting
Harold Burton, William O. Douglas, Frank Murphy, Wiley Blount Rutledge
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
13 January 1947
Decision
That the botched electrocution attempt on Willie Francis was not due to any malice or intentionality on the part of the state, and that therefore the decision to repeat the attempt did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment; since Francis was not being retried, the second execution attempt did not constitute double jeopardy; since Francis had not deliberately been singled out to receive two electrocution attempts, the second attempt did not violate hisright to due process; therefore, a second attempt at electrocution could proceed.
Significance
In this decision, the Court specified that electrocution in and of itself wasnot cruel or unusual punishment, a finding that has been used to deny otherprisoners' claims that electrocution is a particularly inhumane form of execution. Also in this decision, the Court stressed that the botched electrocution attempt did not result from deliberate action by the state; this finding was used to support a 1991 decision that corrections officials are liable for inhumane conditions in prisons only if the inhumane conditions are the directresult of the deliberate indifference of these officials.
Willie Francis, a 16-year-old African American resident of St. Martinville, Louisiana, was arrested for the murder of Andrew Thomas, the town druggist. Although Francis himself, as well as later commentators, claimed that Francis was innocent and that his counsel did not adequately represent him, Francis was found guilty of first-degree murder by an all-white jury and sentenced to death on 29 March 1946.
The state of Louisiana conducted its executions by means of electrocution, which had first been introduced in 1890 as a supposedly humane alternative to hanging. Defenders of electrocution held that the method offered the prisoneran instantaneous and painless death, so that death itself was the only penalty to be inflicted.
Many contemporary observers have challenged that belief, claiming that electrocution is frequently slow and painful, as well as unreliable, often requiring a second or even a third shock to be administered to the suffering prisoner. Thus, they claim, prisoners executed by electrocution face not only the punishment of death, but also the torture of being shocked and burned.
Execution was both unreliable and painful in the case of Willie Francis. According to official witness Harold Resweber:
A Cruel and Unusual Punishment?
The first attempt to electrocute Willie Francis had failed. Francis filed suit, claiming both that his original trial had been unfair, and that a second attempt to execute him would constitute cruel and unusual punishment, which isprohibited by the Eighth Amendment. Francis also argued that a second execution attempt would violate the double-jeopardy provision of the Fifth Amendment, which states " . . . nor shall any person be subject for the same offenceto be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . . " Finally, since no other prisoner was subject to two separate electrocution attempts, Francis argued that a second attempt would violate his right to due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Supreme Court was sharply divided on this issue. Four justices voted to uphold Francis's execution. Four justices voted to overturn it. The deciding vote was cast by Justice Frankfurter, who wrote, " . . . this Court must abstain from interference with State action no matter how strong one's personal feeling of revulsion against a State's insistence on its pound of flesh." In other words, Frankfurter wished personally to spare Willie Francis's life, buthe felt that the state of Louisiana did indeed have the right to execute Francis. With Frankfurter's vote, Willie Francis's death sentence was upheld, andhe was electrocuted a second time.
What Is the State's Responsibility?
In upholding the right of Louisiana to electrocute Willie Francis a second time, the Court relied on the belief that the first failure had not resulted from any wrongdoing by the state. The Court compared the failure of the electric chair to another traumatic occurrence, such as a fire in the cell block. Even if Willie Francis's life had been threatened by such a fire, the Court argued, the state would have the right to execute him. It would be irrelevant that no other prisoner would have had to endure the trauma of undergoing firsta fire, then an electrocution.
The minority opinion on the Court disagreed. These dissenting justices claimed that the state had a special responsibility to execute Willie Francis properly, a responsibility far greater than their obligation to prevent a fire inhis cell block. The dissenting judges argued that if the state could not execute Willie Francis humanely, in one try, they did not have the right to subject him to a second electrocution--regardless of the reason that the first execution had failed.
At the time the decision was written, both the majority and the minority believed that Willie Francis's electrocution had failed for technical, unavoidable reasons. What neither side knew was that in fact, human error was involved.The two men responsible for Francis's execution had been drunk at the time and had improperly connected the electrical cables. As a result of their negligence, the electric chair did not work properly, and Francis was subjected toconsiderable pain.
A More Humane Method?
Certainly, the history of electrocution is full of instances in which the apparatus did not work properly, and prolonged jolts of electricity were required to kill the prisoner. In some instances, these failures resulted from humanerror, as apparently happened in Willie Francis's case. In other cases, thedifficulties simply resulted from the unreliability of electrocution itself.Human bodies differ, and differing amounts of electricity are required to putpeople to death.
Because so many people consider electrocution both painful and unreliable, ithas been challenged as a method of execution even when the challenger is notquestioning the state's right to execute someone. This is based on the Eighth Amendment's guarantee against "cruel and unusual punishment." As the Supreme Court found in an earlier case involving electrocution, In re Kemmler (1890), the Constitution prohibits such punishments as burning at the stake, disemboweling, hanging in chains, and breaking at the wheel "because they involve torture and lingering death." Electrocution, on the other hand, was specifically allowed in In re Kemmler because it did not seem to involve"more than the mere extinguishment of life."
Opponents to electrocution argued that electrocution does involve "torture and lingering death," and so it should be outlawed, just as burning at the stake has been. As detailed in a 1997 U.S. Department of Justice bulletin, 15 ofthe 18 states that executed prisioners used lethal injection.
Francis was also cited in a 1991 Court ruling concerning prison conditions. In that case, Wilson v. Seiter, the Court found that even if inhumane conditions did occur in a prison, correctional officials could be heldresponsible only if someone could prove that the conditions were the direct result of those officials' deliberate indifference. Just as in Louisiana exrel. Francis v. Resweber, the state was assumed to be free of responsibility for any cruel or unusual punishment that it did not intentionally cause.
Related Cases
When the Electric Chair Malfunctions
Executions in the United States have tended to take place according to five basic methods, in chronological order: hanging, firing squads, electrocution,lethal gas, and lethal injection.
The world's first electrocution, of William Kemmler at Sing Sing in 1890, wasindeed a horrific affair, but the problem had to do with incompetence on thepart of the executioner. The latter sent a 17-second jolt into Kemmler's body, but afterward Kemmler's heart began beating again. As the observers beganto panic, the executioner turned on 1,300 volts of current, and sustained itfor 70 seconds.
This time Kemmler was truly dead, and the electric chair became a part of theAmerican punitive system. But Kemmler's was not the last case of a failed execution. Besides the instance of Resweber, there was Arthur Lee Grimesin Alabama in 1954, whose electrocution took seven full minutes before he expired; and Fred Van Wormer in 1903, who began to move when he was already onthe autopsy table. Van Wormer died while guards were waiting for the executioner to return, but just to be on the safe side, they put his body back in thechair and administered another 1,700 volts.
Sources
Sifakis, Carl. The Encyclopedia of American Crime. New York: Facts onFile, 1982.
Willie Francis
Respondent
E. L. Resweber, Sheriff of St. Martin Parish, Louisiana, et al.
Petitioner's Claim
The petitioner, who had been sentenced to die by electrocution, had survivedthe state's first electrocution attempt; he contended that for the state to try to electrocute him again would be "cruel and unusual punishment" under theEighth Amendment, double jeopardy (being tried twice for the same crime) under the Fifth Amendment, and a violation of his right to due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment (since other prisoners only had to undergo one execution attempt).
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
James Skelly Wright
Chief Lawyers for Respondent
Michael E. Culligan, L. O. Pecot
Justices for the Court
Hugo Lafayette Black, Felix Frankfurter, Robert H. Jackson, Stanley Forman Reed (writing for the Court), Fred Moore Vinson
Justices Dissenting
Harold Burton, William O. Douglas, Frank Murphy, Wiley Blount Rutledge
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
13 January 1947
Decision
That the botched electrocution attempt on Willie Francis was not due to any malice or intentionality on the part of the state, and that therefore the decision to repeat the attempt did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment; since Francis was not being retried, the second execution attempt did not constitute double jeopardy; since Francis had not deliberately been singled out to receive two electrocution attempts, the second attempt did not violate hisright to due process; therefore, a second attempt at electrocution could proceed.
Significance
In this decision, the Court specified that electrocution in and of itself wasnot cruel or unusual punishment, a finding that has been used to deny otherprisoners' claims that electrocution is a particularly inhumane form of execution. Also in this decision, the Court stressed that the botched electrocution attempt did not result from deliberate action by the state; this finding was used to support a 1991 decision that corrections officials are liable for inhumane conditions in prisons only if the inhumane conditions are the directresult of the deliberate indifference of these officials.
Willie Francis, a 16-year-old African American resident of St. Martinville, Louisiana, was arrested for the murder of Andrew Thomas, the town druggist. Although Francis himself, as well as later commentators, claimed that Francis was innocent and that his counsel did not adequately represent him, Francis was found guilty of first-degree murder by an all-white jury and sentenced to death on 29 March 1946.
The state of Louisiana conducted its executions by means of electrocution, which had first been introduced in 1890 as a supposedly humane alternative to hanging. Defenders of electrocution held that the method offered the prisoneran instantaneous and painless death, so that death itself was the only penalty to be inflicted.
Many contemporary observers have challenged that belief, claiming that electrocution is frequently slow and painful, as well as unreliable, often requiring a second or even a third shock to be administered to the suffering prisoner. Thus, they claim, prisoners executed by electrocution face not only the punishment of death, but also the torture of being shocked and burned.
Execution was both unreliable and painful in the case of Willie Francis. According to official witness Harold Resweber:
. . . the electrocutioner turned on the switch and when he did Willie Francis' lips puffed out andhe groaned and jumped so that the chair came off the floor. Apparently the switch was turned on twice and then the condemned man yelled: "Take it off. Letme breath[e]."
A Cruel and Unusual Punishment?
The first attempt to electrocute Willie Francis had failed. Francis filed suit, claiming both that his original trial had been unfair, and that a second attempt to execute him would constitute cruel and unusual punishment, which isprohibited by the Eighth Amendment. Francis also argued that a second execution attempt would violate the double-jeopardy provision of the Fifth Amendment, which states " . . . nor shall any person be subject for the same offenceto be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . . " Finally, since no other prisoner was subject to two separate electrocution attempts, Francis argued that a second attempt would violate his right to due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Supreme Court was sharply divided on this issue. Four justices voted to uphold Francis's execution. Four justices voted to overturn it. The deciding vote was cast by Justice Frankfurter, who wrote, " . . . this Court must abstain from interference with State action no matter how strong one's personal feeling of revulsion against a State's insistence on its pound of flesh." In other words, Frankfurter wished personally to spare Willie Francis's life, buthe felt that the state of Louisiana did indeed have the right to execute Francis. With Frankfurter's vote, Willie Francis's death sentence was upheld, andhe was electrocuted a second time.
What Is the State's Responsibility?
In upholding the right of Louisiana to electrocute Willie Francis a second time, the Court relied on the belief that the first failure had not resulted from any wrongdoing by the state. The Court compared the failure of the electric chair to another traumatic occurrence, such as a fire in the cell block. Even if Willie Francis's life had been threatened by such a fire, the Court argued, the state would have the right to execute him. It would be irrelevant that no other prisoner would have had to endure the trauma of undergoing firsta fire, then an electrocution.
The minority opinion on the Court disagreed. These dissenting justices claimed that the state had a special responsibility to execute Willie Francis properly, a responsibility far greater than their obligation to prevent a fire inhis cell block. The dissenting judges argued that if the state could not execute Willie Francis humanely, in one try, they did not have the right to subject him to a second electrocution--regardless of the reason that the first execution had failed.
At the time the decision was written, both the majority and the minority believed that Willie Francis's electrocution had failed for technical, unavoidable reasons. What neither side knew was that in fact, human error was involved.The two men responsible for Francis's execution had been drunk at the time and had improperly connected the electrical cables. As a result of their negligence, the electric chair did not work properly, and Francis was subjected toconsiderable pain.
A More Humane Method?
Certainly, the history of electrocution is full of instances in which the apparatus did not work properly, and prolonged jolts of electricity were required to kill the prisoner. In some instances, these failures resulted from humanerror, as apparently happened in Willie Francis's case. In other cases, thedifficulties simply resulted from the unreliability of electrocution itself.Human bodies differ, and differing amounts of electricity are required to putpeople to death.
Because so many people consider electrocution both painful and unreliable, ithas been challenged as a method of execution even when the challenger is notquestioning the state's right to execute someone. This is based on the Eighth Amendment's guarantee against "cruel and unusual punishment." As the Supreme Court found in an earlier case involving electrocution, In re Kemmler (1890), the Constitution prohibits such punishments as burning at the stake, disemboweling, hanging in chains, and breaking at the wheel "because they involve torture and lingering death." Electrocution, on the other hand, was specifically allowed in In re Kemmler because it did not seem to involve"more than the mere extinguishment of life."
Opponents to electrocution argued that electrocution does involve "torture and lingering death," and so it should be outlawed, just as burning at the stake has been. As detailed in a 1997 U.S. Department of Justice bulletin, 15 ofthe 18 states that executed prisioners used lethal injection.
Francis was also cited in a 1991 Court ruling concerning prison conditions. In that case, Wilson v. Seiter, the Court found that even if inhumane conditions did occur in a prison, correctional officials could be heldresponsible only if someone could prove that the conditions were the direct result of those officials' deliberate indifference. Just as in Louisiana exrel. Francis v. Resweber, the state was assumed to be free of responsibility for any cruel or unusual punishment that it did not intentionally cause.
Related Cases
- In re Kemmler, 136 U.S. 436 (1890).
- Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976).
- Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U.S. 242 (1976).
- Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262 (1976).
- Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U.S. 361 (1989).
- Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (1991).
When the Electric Chair Malfunctions
Executions in the United States have tended to take place according to five basic methods, in chronological order: hanging, firing squads, electrocution,lethal gas, and lethal injection.
The world's first electrocution, of William Kemmler at Sing Sing in 1890, wasindeed a horrific affair, but the problem had to do with incompetence on thepart of the executioner. The latter sent a 17-second jolt into Kemmler's body, but afterward Kemmler's heart began beating again. As the observers beganto panic, the executioner turned on 1,300 volts of current, and sustained itfor 70 seconds.
This time Kemmler was truly dead, and the electric chair became a part of theAmerican punitive system. But Kemmler's was not the last case of a failed execution. Besides the instance of Resweber, there was Arthur Lee Grimesin Alabama in 1954, whose electrocution took seven full minutes before he expired; and Fred Van Wormer in 1903, who began to move when he was already onthe autopsy table. Van Wormer died while guards were waiting for the executioner to return, but just to be on the safe side, they put his body back in thechair and administered another 1,700 volts.
Sources
Sifakis, Carl. The Encyclopedia of American Crime. New York: Facts onFile, 1982.
User Comments Add a comment…