Here's my op-ed for today's Daily News. As Citizen Hunters know, the death penalty is an issue that is extremely important to me, and about which I have written extensively. (Action resources here.) Please feel free to add your comments on the issue after reading this column.
IN Tennessee and Texas, when animals are being put down, the chemical pancuronium bromide has been outlawed due to the excruciating pain it subjects the dying animals to.
Yet in lethal injections administered to death-row inmates, Texas, Tennessee and dozens of other states use pancuronium bromide, which stops breathing and causes paralysis before a final injection causes the heart to stop.
Leaving aside your feelings about the death penalty for a moment, surely this is a terrible example for a nation as advanced as ours to set. During lethal injections, proponents of the method say, prisoners are first euthanized, so they can't feel the effects. Not so, not all the time.
In a number of cases, says Amnesty International USA, lethal injections took from 20 minutes to an hour to kill, leaving inmates grimacing, gasping for air and convulsing. Mistakes are often made and prisoners are not "put under" deeply enough, suffering a long and cruel death.
Additionally, severe foot-long chemical burns to the skin and abandoned needles have been found in the autopsies, with the initial paralysis masking the prisoner's ability to show the pain that was caused.
For all these reasons, the American Medical Association and the Society of Correctional Physicians have urged their members not to administer lethal injections. The American College of Physicians calls it "unethical."
Why is this important?
Because the use of lethal injections was in front of the Supreme Court last week, with almost no coverage. But I was there to hear the arguments in Baze v. Rees loud and clear.
The case is fascinating because the two prisoners, Ralph Baze and Thomas Bowling, aren't challenging their convictions, or even their death sentences. Rather, they're challenging the method that the state of Kentucky uses to kill by lethal injection.
They argued that there is a well-demonstrated risk of the process going wrong, subjecting them and others to cruel and unusual punishment.
They also argued that there are other chemicals that are more effective and less painful, and that courts should step in to evaluate the procedure. Basically, they're asking to be killed in a way with as little risk of drawn-out, excruciating pain as is possible.
While the court never has outlined which procedures are constitutional and which aren't, when it did rule the death penalty constitutional, it noted that the methods used were not to be "contrary to evolving standards of decency" and may not inflict "unnecessary pain." Indeed, over time, we've changed the way we execute people based on both of these standards, moving from firing squad and hanging to electric chair to poison gas to lethal injection.
That's why it's laughable on its face that Kentucky would argue not just against changing its method of execution - but against even setting a standard that courts can use to review cases such as this. It's in our tradition to always, at the very least, continually reassess execution methods, their risk of unnecessary pain and whether there are other alternatives.
There was one other troubling outcome from the Supreme Court hearing.
Justice Antonin Scalia, while hearing arguments, mused that if the court took too long to consider this case, or sent the case back down to lower courts for additional consideration, there could be "a national cessation of executions" that could last for years.
"You wouldn't want that to happen," he said.
Heaven forbid! Putting a hold on executions while we examine the methods we use to ensure they are as humane as possible? What a cruel, cruel world!
Twelve states have halted (but not outlawed) the use of lethal injection while they study it. The court also held up and eventually ruled it unconstitutional to execute juveniles and the retarded.
New Jersey just outlawed the death penalty, and other states are considering the same. Maybe that's why Justice Scalia is in such a rush to get back to some killin'.
IHOPE THIS TREND toward slowing and eventually ending the death penalty continues because I don't believe it's our place to play God.
But, at the very least, I hope the court and the American people think deeply about whether we can consider ourselves an advanced nation when a method of execution deemed too cruel to subject dogs to is perfectly acceptable for killing humans.
Kentucky and Justice Scalia might not be so happy to see us think so deeply, but maybe that's why we must do exactly that.
Comments (10)
What a crock ! why should I or anyone care about people who commit a heinous enough crime to deserve the death penalty. It is the victims and their loved ones I care about. So my solution is simple: Kill those on death row in the way, or as close as possible,as they killled their victims. But make sure it is done. You are right, let's stop lethal injections...it's too easy on the killers.
Posted by: Dan on January 14, 2008 19:29
I think we're confusing two questions: 1) should there be a death penalty, and, if so, 2) by what method should those convicted be killed? I suggest that there should only be a death penalty if it is conducted within a set period of time (five years of sentencing?), and if it is done humanely. Let the convict choose among two or three methods. And if it can't be completed within the set time, then the sentence would be commuted to life without parole. That would allow the state and the defense team to concentrate their efforts in the appeals process, instead of spreading that costly process out over 20+ years. THAT is inhumane.
Posted by: David on January 15, 2008 00:26
"IHOPE THIS TREND toward slowing and eventually ending the death penalty continues because I don't believe it's our place to play God."
Well I beleive it IS our right to "play God" in seeing that justice is served...after all, criminals such as these 2 "played God" by taking the lives of other human beings. " "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot" Remember that phrase? Find it in Exodus...
Also, this quote - "They also argued that there are other chemicals that are more effective and less painful, and that courts should step in to evaluate the procedure. Basically, they're asking to be killed in a way with as little risk of drawn-out, excruciating pain as is possible."
What a crock...unlike the "excruciating pain" that their victims went through, huh?
Posted by: Kris on January 15, 2008 08:46
The reasons anyone should care about what happens to people who commit capital crimes are many.
One reason is because we have an obligation to make sure we're killing the right person. There are numerous instances where a death row inmate has been cleared by DNA evidence, and the idea that the state can kill someone who was innocent all along should definitely bother us all.
Another reason is because we have an obligation to understand the difference between justice and revenge. Executing a killer to keep society safe and to exact retribution for the victim's family can be considered justice. Adding the element of torture to the procedure is revenge and that serves no one. Deriving pleasure out of knowing someone else has suffered pain while being executed makes a person no better than the killer.
The goal of capital punishment has never been to make the criminal suffer in the same manner has their victims. We need to care not out of sympathy for the criminal, but out of concern for ourselves and our society.
Posted by: Mabel on January 15, 2008 09:54
How about we just go back to the firing squads of olden times? Quick, effective and cheap.
Cast my vote with the the others as saying you are clearly on the wrong side of this issue. Perhaps you might spend some time with Maureen Faulkner on your next west coast visit and get a different perspective on the pain that 25 years of legal bullshit cause the victim's family. Or perhaps appear on Michael Smerconish's radio show to debate him on this subject.
Posted by: jimmymack on January 15, 2008 09:56
Two men enter a woman's home by force. They rape her, sodomize her, beat her, torture her and murder her over a period of 12 hours. What animal does that? Animals who are put down are done so for many reasons. Rape, torture, child molestation, and murder are not any of those reasons. Personally I believe that lethal injection is too easy. I prefer the electric chair, or hanging. True, we MUST be certain that the convicted are guilty. Executing an innocent person is as morally wrong as murder. BUT, if the evidence is totally overwhelming (no circumstantial executions), then the executed should suffer much more than an innocent animal. Their crime is greater and more deserving of agony.
Posted by: Tony on January 15, 2008 12:24
Humans are given lethal injections due to some heinous offense that they have committed. I won't go so far as to say they deserve to feel pain, because that is not my place. However, I will say that innocent animals, euthanized because there is no room in the shelter or because they are suffering in their old age, deserve to NOT feel pain.
Posted by: Erin on January 15, 2008 13:52
There is a difference between whether we should have a death penalty, and what method should be used. The second issue, the one before the Supremes last week, implicates the 8th amendment 'cruel and unusual' punishment prohibition. Like Justice Scalia, I agree that the 8th Amendment does not require 'painless killings.' Thus, while we don't want people to suffer needlessly, there is no need to eliminate pain altogether. After all, we are dealing with people who, in order to merit the death penalty, have committed the most heinous crimes imaginable. Let's just take a look at the crew that Jersey has just pardoned:
There's Jesse Temendequas, the man who raped and murdered Meghan Kanka. There's Leslie Nelson, the he-turned-she who assassinated a police officer. There's Brian Wakefield, the man who murdered Sharon Hazard-Johnson’s parents in a home invasion, beating them to death and burning their bodies. I'm not against them feeling a little pain but, fortunately for them, they live in Jersey.
There is no one arguing in front of the Supreme Court to save them from 'cruel and unusual' punishment, or an excess of pain.
As far as whether we should still have the death penalty, esteemed lawyers and judges such as the one chaired by my former law professor Anne Poulin are concerned with whether the death penalty is administered correctly. Which is fine: only the guilty should be executed. If our criminal justice system is flawed, by all means place a moratorium on the killings until the machine is recalibrated.
We’re not Saudis, after all.
But let’s not forget that between the killers and their prey, the only ones who deserve our compassion are the latter. Once you break the social contract by taking a life, your own is fair game. There is a sublime balance in that equation, a life for a life.
So I hope the justices keep focused on the real issue, and the real victims.
Posted by: Christine on January 15, 2008 14:14
The way I see it, until our justice system is perfect, we shouldn't execute anyone. How many people were released from prison after dna evidence became widely accepted?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against killing someone who has committed a heinous crime, and I'm not to keen on figuring out the "least painful" way of making it happen. But until our court system is free of flaws, we shouldn't be executing anyone.
The comparison to Dogs is flawed. Dogs don't get put down because they axe murdered a family, they get put down because more often than not, they are suffering.
For the record, I sure like Dogs more than most people.
Posted by: evolo on January 19, 2008 08:16
You think That is Bad,,Look what they do to an Innocent Unborn in an Abortion! Choke it to death and Burn it with Chemicals then Vacum it...or tear it appart Limb By Limb 2nd Trimester or Pull it out of the Birthing Canal partially up to 9 months stick a needle in its head and suck its Brains out all with No Anestesia and then The Abortion clinic sell the baby Parts for a Handsome Profit! and That is now a Constitutional right.. That is wrong!
AND Democrats are Proud of it! and they wonder where all the Violence in Philly stems from!
A-B-O-R-T-I-O-N
Posted by: Kevin In Kuwait on January 26, 2008 02:27