Does current lethal injection procedure equal cruel and unusual punishment?
In their first day on the bench after a holiday break, the justices are hearing arguments in a case that challenges Kentucky’s method of executing prisoners using a three-drug cocktail. Three dozen states use similar procedures.
The court’s decision to step into the case has brought about a halt in executions that is likely to last at least until the summer.” (San Franciscon Chronicle )
The current method of execution by lethal injection involves three phases. First the prisoner is put to sleep with a powerful barbiturate, then the muscles are paralyzed with pancuronium, and finally the heart is stopped with an infusion of potassium chloride. Opponents argue that if the procedure is botched the victim may be essentially awake and aware, but paralyzed and unable to signify that they are suffering because paralyzed. Under the influence of pancuronium, people can feel as if they are suffocating. The potassium chloride injection can be excruciating, making them feel that their body is on fire. The success of such a complex three-step procedure depends upon its proper execution by medically trained personnel, and opponents argue that there are substantial possibilities for error in the formulation, dosage or administration of the agents. For example, if the intravenous needle misses a vein, the medication will be infused under the skin instead and not circulate through the system. Because no medical personnel are in the death chamber during the procedure, the assurances that it will be done properly cannot be offered.
Veterinarians have long since given up on a similar three-drug procedure for such reasons. When animals large or small are euthanized, they are merely “put to sleep” with massive barbiturate dosages. For those opponents of the current method of execution by lethal injection who are not opponents of execution overall, the adoption of the veterinary one-agent method would meet many of the pending legal challenges to lethal injection. Moving to this procedure has thus been proposed in several states, but none have moved on the proposals. Expressed reluctance is about being an outlyer and first adopter of an untested methodology.
However, I think the real reluctance to abandoning the three-substance method of lethal injection is all about how unpleasant it is to watch a dying body twitch and convulse if it is not paralyzed first. Proponents concede it would be very difficult for those who witness executions otherwise. In essence, we are protecting observers from the inherent barbarity of humans putting other humans to death with a veneer of civility achieved through the use of pancuronium. Absurdly, as long as it is not like “putting down” an animal, as long as it appears peaceful and undistressing, we as members of society can console ourselves that we are not complicit with “cruel and unusual punishment”.
Some of the most bloodthirsty, vengeful proponents of the death penalty have it right in a sense, arguing that it is absurd to be so concerned about the suffering of someone you are putting to death in another few moments. At least this constitutes a recognition of the inherent barbarity, which the rest of the advocates of execution are comfortably able to ignore.
