Post by marion on Jun 14, 2006 1:36:48 GMT -5
A 'right' way to kill someone?
USA Today
Posted 6/12/2006 9:55 PM ET
By Annette Fuentes
When North Carolina executed death row inmate John Daniels in 2003, his end was hardly quick and painless. His attorney later described the terrible scene she witnessed after Daniels received the lethal injections. Daniels started to convulse violently, then sat up and gagged. Witnesses watching through a window heard and saw him sit up and gag and choke again, his arms struggling to move. He appeared to be in pain until finally he lay down and was still.
The details of Daniels' execution and other similarly gruesome descriptions were included in a lawsuit challenging North Carolina's capital punishment method. Across the country, lethal injection executions are being challenged by death row inmates and their advocates as a violation of the Eighth Amendment's protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a death row inmate — in this case Clarence Hill in Florida — could file a last-minute appeal to lethal injections even after all regular appeals have been exhausted. The court, however, did not rule on the use of injections.
Other executions stayed
In addition to Hill's case, nine other executions have been stayed this year because of the lethal injection issue, according to Richard Dieter of the Death Penalty Information Center, a group opposed to capital punishment. And in California, federal courts have effectively imposed a moratorium on the death penalty while that state studies the issue.
The heightened debate about lethal injections, which are used in 37 states, raises a larger question: Can there ever be a right way to execute someone?
Doctors have played a large role in the debate. A study in the medical journal Lancet found that "methods of lethal injection anesthesia are flawed, and some inmates might experience awareness and suffering during execution."
Lethal injections usually use a three-drug combination: sodium thiopental, an anesthesia to induce unconsciousness, pancuronium bromide to cause paralysis and potassium chloride to stop the heart. If the anesthesia isn't administered in a sufficient dose, the person could be conscious when the painful final shot is given.
In the Lancet study, the physicians reviewed blood tests from 49 inmates executed in Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina and found that in 43, the anesthesia level was lower than that used for surgery. In 21 instances, the amount of anesthesia was "consistent with awareness." The authors concluded, "It is possible that some of these inmates were fully aware during their executions. We certainly cannot conclude that these inmates were unconscious and insensate. However, with no monitoring and with use of the paralytic agent, any suffering of the inmate would be undetectable."
But here's a Catch-22 for states. The best person to guarantee that an inmate is fully unconscious is a physician, who must follow the Hippocratic oath to "do no harm." The American Medical Association's ethical guidelines prohibit physicians from participating in executions, except to pronounce death afterward.
A California judge stumbled on this problem in the case of death row inmate Michael Morales, who challenged his lethal injection execution on the ground that it violates the Eighth Amendment. U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel ordered the state to employ two anesthesiologists. But the doctors refused to participate. Morales' execution has been put on hold until a September hearing.
The debate about lethal injections and doctors' role might pose important medical questions about the least painful method to kill a human. But, in the end, no method can be humane. While the doctors' revolt against assisting in executions is worthy, it should only serve to spotlight the barbarity of the death penalty.
Moratorium stirred reviews
Six years ago, then-Illinois governor George Ryan made headlines by imposing a moratorium on executions after revelations that innocent people were on death row in his state. Ryan's action deserves to be front and center again in our public discussion of crime and punishment. When the Illinois moratorium was enacted, it caused many states to reconsider their death penalty laws. New Jersey now has a moratorium. Kansas' death penalty law was declared unconstitutional. Americans reacted viscerally to the idea that innocent people could not only be imprisoned for crimes they didn't commit, they could also be executed for them.
According to the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics, the number of death sentences imposed each year has dropped dramatically from 1999 through 2004 — from 276 to 125. One reason is juries are giving more life sentences. Our collective appetite for retribution has diminished. Public support for capital punishment has plummeted from 80% in 1994 to 65% this year, according to a Gallup poll.
With Monday's Supreme Court ruling, more states will grapple with the constitutionality of lethal injections. Just as the Ryan moratorium and the innocence issue exposed one weakness of the death penalty system, lethal injections have spotlighted yet another.
It seems inevitable, and just, that slowly but surely capital punishment will come tumbling down under the weight of its own injustices, uselessness and immorality.
Annette Fuentes is adjunct professor at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism.
USA Today
Posted 6/12/2006 9:55 PM ET
By Annette Fuentes
When North Carolina executed death row inmate John Daniels in 2003, his end was hardly quick and painless. His attorney later described the terrible scene she witnessed after Daniels received the lethal injections. Daniels started to convulse violently, then sat up and gagged. Witnesses watching through a window heard and saw him sit up and gag and choke again, his arms struggling to move. He appeared to be in pain until finally he lay down and was still.
The details of Daniels' execution and other similarly gruesome descriptions were included in a lawsuit challenging North Carolina's capital punishment method. Across the country, lethal injection executions are being challenged by death row inmates and their advocates as a violation of the Eighth Amendment's protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a death row inmate — in this case Clarence Hill in Florida — could file a last-minute appeal to lethal injections even after all regular appeals have been exhausted. The court, however, did not rule on the use of injections.
Other executions stayed
In addition to Hill's case, nine other executions have been stayed this year because of the lethal injection issue, according to Richard Dieter of the Death Penalty Information Center, a group opposed to capital punishment. And in California, federal courts have effectively imposed a moratorium on the death penalty while that state studies the issue.
The heightened debate about lethal injections, which are used in 37 states, raises a larger question: Can there ever be a right way to execute someone?
Doctors have played a large role in the debate. A study in the medical journal Lancet found that "methods of lethal injection anesthesia are flawed, and some inmates might experience awareness and suffering during execution."
Lethal injections usually use a three-drug combination: sodium thiopental, an anesthesia to induce unconsciousness, pancuronium bromide to cause paralysis and potassium chloride to stop the heart. If the anesthesia isn't administered in a sufficient dose, the person could be conscious when the painful final shot is given.
In the Lancet study, the physicians reviewed blood tests from 49 inmates executed in Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina and found that in 43, the anesthesia level was lower than that used for surgery. In 21 instances, the amount of anesthesia was "consistent with awareness." The authors concluded, "It is possible that some of these inmates were fully aware during their executions. We certainly cannot conclude that these inmates were unconscious and insensate. However, with no monitoring and with use of the paralytic agent, any suffering of the inmate would be undetectable."
But here's a Catch-22 for states. The best person to guarantee that an inmate is fully unconscious is a physician, who must follow the Hippocratic oath to "do no harm." The American Medical Association's ethical guidelines prohibit physicians from participating in executions, except to pronounce death afterward.
A California judge stumbled on this problem in the case of death row inmate Michael Morales, who challenged his lethal injection execution on the ground that it violates the Eighth Amendment. U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel ordered the state to employ two anesthesiologists. But the doctors refused to participate. Morales' execution has been put on hold until a September hearing.
The debate about lethal injections and doctors' role might pose important medical questions about the least painful method to kill a human. But, in the end, no method can be humane. While the doctors' revolt against assisting in executions is worthy, it should only serve to spotlight the barbarity of the death penalty.
Moratorium stirred reviews
Six years ago, then-Illinois governor George Ryan made headlines by imposing a moratorium on executions after revelations that innocent people were on death row in his state. Ryan's action deserves to be front and center again in our public discussion of crime and punishment. When the Illinois moratorium was enacted, it caused many states to reconsider their death penalty laws. New Jersey now has a moratorium. Kansas' death penalty law was declared unconstitutional. Americans reacted viscerally to the idea that innocent people could not only be imprisoned for crimes they didn't commit, they could also be executed for them.
According to the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics, the number of death sentences imposed each year has dropped dramatically from 1999 through 2004 — from 276 to 125. One reason is juries are giving more life sentences. Our collective appetite for retribution has diminished. Public support for capital punishment has plummeted from 80% in 1994 to 65% this year, according to a Gallup poll.
With Monday's Supreme Court ruling, more states will grapple with the constitutionality of lethal injections. Just as the Ryan moratorium and the innocence issue exposed one weakness of the death penalty system, lethal injections have spotlighted yet another.
It seems inevitable, and just, that slowly but surely capital punishment will come tumbling down under the weight of its own injustices, uselessness and immorality.
Annette Fuentes is adjunct professor at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism.