It looks like convicted murderer Michael Morales will live at least a year or two more thanks to judges who believe that the constitution's prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment" prohibits the causation of any pain before, during or after the execution procedure. I've already pointed out that I believe the judge was acting as a superlegislature when he arbitrarily changed the death penalty procedure and requirements, and called on California Attorney General Bill Lockyer to appeal this judge's ruling.

However, a couple more thoughts come to mind as I stew over this issue:

• One of the judge's newly-minted procedures requires a medical professional to be present and inject the supposedly consciousness-depriving chemicals. Medical professionals are balking at taking part because they (rightly or wrongly) see their participation in an execution as a violation of their oath to "first, do no harm." Fair enough. Maybe we can recruit some doctors from neighboring Oregon who see no problem with prescribing a lethal overdose of pain medication to help with suicides.
• Maybe this is an opportunity for the Supreme Court to do a little more of their recent forays into reliance on foreign law. If death penalty opponents are worried that lethal injections are a slow, painful death, then maybe we can do beheadings. After all, numerous Muslim nations use this method regularly, so you certainly couldn't argue that it is unusual, and in comparison to the slow death of lethal injections, it's much less painful.

Once again, the judiciary has gone freelancing. Hopefully with a more conservative Supreme Court that follows the letter of the law, this will pass quickly.