On Monday at 8:30 p.m., William Castillo - if he chooses - will die as punishment for murdering a Clark County woman 10 years ago.
If he decides there is merit in arguments that lethal injection is cruel and unusual punishment, he can choose to call off the execution and proceed with the seemingly endless number of appeals that would keep him alive for several more years.
That's a lot of choices for a person who gave Isabelle Berndt none. Is there any chance her death by tire iron was kind and painless?
Anti-death penalty groups are off base on this one. Is it really "unconscionable" to proceed with the execution that Castillo has asked for?
Does it really violate a right to life? Nevada law says if you commit certain crimes, you no longer have that right.
The measures the state is taking should address any concerns that Castillo is being executed against his will. He will be able to call off the execution until 20 minutes before it begins. They're even doubling the dose of the three drugs used in the execution in response to concerns that he will suffer.
The Supreme Court's ruling on the constitutionality of lethal injection will be important ... if there is truly a method that is not cruel and unusual it should be in use in every state that allows the death penalty.
But in this case, Castillo has decided that is irrelevant. He wants to die. All the legal muscle being brought to bear to prevent that would be better spent helping victims of people like Castillo.