home

Why Not One Drug for Lethal Injections?

The New York Times reports that states are rescheduling executions now that the Supreme Court has ruled in Baze v. Rees that the three drug cocktail used by states does not violate the 8th Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

The Fourth Circuit has a new challenge on its hands.In Emmett v. Johnson, Emmett is arguing that the way in which Virginia administers the drugs is unconstitutional because unlike Kentucky and other states, it doesn't allow enough time for the first drug, which anesthetizes and renders the inmate unconscious, to take effect before administering the other two drugs which cause pain. To make it worse, when there seems to be a problem with the first drug, rather than giving more of the drug, Virginia increases the doses of the pain-causing second and third drugs, but not the first.

In its brief (available here pdf) Emmett's lawyers make the argument that there is a painless way to kill someone with just one drug: [More...]

the best and most feasible alternative procedure to eliminate this risk is to move to a protocol that uses only a single, massive dose of thiopental, pentobarbital, or some other barbiturate to cause death.

While the issue was raised in Baze, the Supreme Court refused to consider it because it hadn't been raised or considered by the lower courts in Kentucky.

As to the three drugs,

Under the three-drug method, the first drug is designed to anesthetize the inmate, the second to paralyze him, and the final drug to stop the heart and bring on death. That is the general approach used by all but one of the states that still have the death penalty.

Emmett also argues that in Virginia, a review of the 70 cases of execution by the three drug cocktail shows many instances of incompetence:

The brief argued that the evidence shows that members of the state’s execution team “have performed incompetently,” including a lack of understanding of how the drugs work, mistakes in inserting IV needles to deliver the drugs, team members’ inability to properly observe the inmate during the process, a lack of more dosage of thiopental if IV failure occurs, and a ban on all spoken communications among the team members as the process goes forward.

The first inmate scheduled for execution following Baze v. Rees is Earl Lynd in Georgia. His execution date is next Tuesday.

Arguments in the Emmett case will be heard Wednesday, May 14.

< For Expectations, Zogby Should Be the Clinton's Choice | Rezko: Government to Rest Case Monday, Defense by Wednesday >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    So the spectators don't see (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Arabella Trefoil on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:27:03 AM EST
    an ugly death. When I've had to had pets euthanized, I've stayed with the animals as the injections were administered. Watching a death from a single large dose of barbituates is painless for the animal (as far as we know) but very uncomfortable to watch. The animal goes into contortions and makes noise.

    Spectators would be upset by seeing this. My bet is that they chose a drug "protocol" based on minimizing discomfort to onlookers. Execution by lethal injection is not a clinical procedure. It is barbaric.

    Vets have a drug (none / 0) (#8)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:24:01 AM EST
    that kills instantly; the vet picks up a leg, gives the shot, the dog relaxes and dies.  Only one vet I  have gone to used that method; two have used one shot to paralyze or knock out, and another to kill.  Those two vets are on my never-use-again list.  If, as I suspect, the drug goes directly to the heart, there seems to be no pain.  Maybe the people administering the final shot in an execution do not want the prisoner to be able to use his eyes?

    Parent
    I've always said... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by kdog on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:30:30 AM EST
    that if we insist on allowing the state to kill people, a lethal dose of morphine or heroin is the most humane way to do it.

    If it's too hard on the onlookers, tough.  Killing shouldn't be easy.

    You are right (none / 0) (#3)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:33:02 AM EST
    I have long said that all executions should be public, high noon broadcasts so that we can all see what the real deal is.

    Parent
    PPJ.... (none / 0) (#6)
    by kdog on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:57:47 AM EST
    my brother from another mother...good to see ya.

    I'll take it one step further, the state should hold a lotery and make a random citizen push the plunger.  

    Parent

    You can have my turn (none / 0) (#9)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:25:08 AM EST
    I have been chosen for jury duty and when attorneys ask my stance on the death penalty I make it known I am 100% against it.

    Do you think that the average citizen would participate in that?!  I don't condone capital punishment but I could see a member of the victim's family member doing that.

    But exeuction doesn't bring anyone back and it just causes another set of victims.

    Parent

    Not me man.... (none / 0) (#16)
    by kdog on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:05:18 PM EST
    Just trying to make a point that maybe we wouldn't let the state kill people in our name if we had to pull the trigger or push the plunger ourselves.

    It's easy when it's a faceless bueracracy without a soul doing the killing.  

    I don't have moral qualms with the father/mother of a child murder victim killing the murderer of their child, I've got major moral qualms with a bueracracy with a tendency for f*cking up killing people found guilty of crimes.

    Parent

    I find it difficult enough (none / 0) (#19)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:20:17 PM EST
    to simply sit on a jury.  The energy in those deliberation rooms is of the absolute worst in explosive anger.

    I don't believe the death penalty solves or deters anything in this country. We turn the worst of violent crimes into cinema for our entertainment pleasure.

    Punishment is so over-used in this country.

    Parent

    I for one (none / 0) (#7)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:21:33 AM EST
    wouldn't watch that crap.  Not into watching another human being MURDERED.

    Parent
    Town Square (none / 0) (#15)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:04:57 PM EST
    style, like in the middle east? We lived on the east coast of Saudi Arabia for a few years, and when we went to the big city to shop, we were always terrified they would start punishments. If you're near the square, they make you watch...it's one of their efforts to control crime.  Something gave them a low crime rate, not sure if that was it, though.

    Parent
    The onlookers WANT to see suffering (none / 0) (#14)
    by jussumbody on Sat May 03, 2008 at 11:14:57 AM EST
    The onlookers are often the victims or the families of the victims, and I'm sure the sight of contortions and noises would satisfy them very much (otherwise they would stay home and read about it in the paper).

    It's the public they don't want finding out about this.  The status quo is perfect for the Republicans.  Maximum suffering and vengance, and minimum apparent evidence to the observer.

    Parent

    But, then they leave and (none / 0) (#18)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:10:27 PM EST
    discover they still don't feel any better about their own loss.

    If we did a better job of helping the families of victims, they wouldn't find any satisfaction in the verdict or the punishment.

    Parent

    Let's (none / 0) (#21)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:36:20 PM EST
    hear your ideas on helping the victims families.

    Parent
    The best way debate (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by CoralGables on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:39:34 AM EST
    If we are reaching a point where the debate is "what is the best way to execute someone", perhaps we need to step back again and say...what the hell are we doing.

    The idea of (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by RTwilight on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:58:24 AM EST
    the government becoming proficient at killing its own citezens in a manner that people are comfortable with should be a chilling one IMO

    The Death Penalty (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:42:32 PM EST
    is barbaric.  I went through a spate of debating with myself, because crimes against people are also terribly barbaric at times.  I'm sorry, but sadistic murderers or people who bury children alive did arouse in me a very normal, human desire for retribution.

    However, I came out the other side.

    I simply will not let criminals turn me into one, also.

    It's that simple.

    Let them, frankly, drool in their Super Max cells from being over-drugged.

    But I do not wish to even join this debate.

    I'm completely at ease now with jury duty.  I'll never be on a trial where death is at stake.  I can say clearly.  I'm against the death penalty.

    Spectacle (none / 0) (#4)
    by Arabella Trefoil on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:39:02 AM EST
    The other thing that bothers me is that society has always put public execution into a quasi-military/religious model that lends dignity to the thing.

    If we used public stoning, it would be more honest. Killing is ugly and brutal, not some kind of pageant.

    The incompetence (none / 0) (#5)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:53:08 AM EST
    of administration is what bothers me.  

    Since you're imagining a sane process . . . (none / 0) (#11)
    by wurman on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:44:24 AM EST
    A. The Federal government takes over all responsibility for executions from the states.

    B. The Supreme Court must approve by 9-0.

    C. The President must sign the execution order.

    D. An inter-service military firing squad kills the miscreant outside the White House on the South Lawn.

    What worries me is that some people (none / 0) (#13)
    by Florida Resident on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:49:53 AM EST
    actually claim we have the best justice system.

    Because causing pain (none / 0) (#17)
    by lily15 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:10:20 PM EST
    is part of their underlying rationale.  Our system is based on punishment not rehabilitation.  Criminal law is too frustrating to practice because society's ills are on full display with no remedy offered. If we spent a fraction of the money we spend on Iraq on after school and evening sports programs and breakfast, lunch, dinner programs in the schools, crime would decrease dramatically.  Our overcrowded prisons are a prime example of misplaced priorities.  And our botched executions a metaphor for the dysfunction of that system and many others.  In contrast, look what DNA testing has been accomplishing.  How sad that so many are in prison who are actually innocent.  The Innocence Project has probably had more impact on the criminal justice system than anything else.  But only with political will can some of these inequities be solved.  I certainly have no faith in this
    Supreme Court.