This story about convicted killer, Michael Morales, and the failed attempts by California to have him put to death is yet another example of an out-of-control judiciary. An appeal filed by Morales claimed that he might suffer pain as a result of the lethal injection procedure that California uses to inflict the death penalty. The judge ordered that Morales should receive anesthesia and be ruled unconscious before the lethal cocktail could be delivered. But the anesthesiologist refused to go through with the procedure. That delayed the execution by a day and Morales was then to be given a lethal dose of barbituate which would take longer to kill him but would assure that he was unconscious before he began to die. But no medical personnel could be recruited to confirm his state of unconsciousness and so Morales is still sucking air. Im not sure I blame the medical personnel. Even if they suppport the execution, why should their participation in it be compulsory? It is something of a stretch to claim that this is what is required by the no "cruel and unusual punishment" clause of the constitution. I fail to see how one mans protection from cruel and unusual punishment compels a third man to participate in that punishment. I also fail to see how "feeling pain" in death constitutes something cruel and unusual when the convicted killer is guilty of a heinous crime during which the victim endured untold pain. While I agree that we should take all reasonable steps to keep executions humane--the precise and procedural measure of that should be legislative rather than judicial.