FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Judicial Killings and Legal Absurdity

by

“What happened last night to Clayton Lockett is shocking in anyone’s book.”  Those were the words of Rob Freer[1] of Amnesty International.  Lockett had become another casualty of judicial killing, one that took up to 45 minutes to unfold.  For Andrew Cohen, writing in The Atlantic (Apr 30), an unsympathetic character had been transformed into a symbol by acts of murderous enthusiasm.  Some media outlets ran with the suggestion that the execution had been “botched” – an inaccuracy in itself given that Lockett did, in fact, die.

Governor Mary Fallin was, in a one sense, unmoved.  “I believe the death penalty is an appropriate response and punishment to those who commit heinous crimes against their fellow men and women.”  Then, the unsavoury reflection on whether professional standards had been observed in the Lockett execution.  Kill a human being, by all means, but make sure you follow the book.  Accordingly, for Fallin, “the state needs to be certain of its protocols and procedures for executions and that they work.”

The lethal injection regime not only medicalises the process of killing, thereby making a mockery of any medical contribution to its wake.  It brings that foremost of paradoxes to mind: that killing can itself be humane and well administered.  In Lockett’s case, the death was painfully prolonged, showing the farcical nature of such assumptions.

An “independent review” was duly called for, drawing a scornful response from the ACLU of Oklahoma.  In the words of its Executive Director, Ryan Kiesel, “It is impossible for the Department of Public Safety, the Attorney General’s office, or anyone who is under the control of any agency or politician who played a role in this matter to offer  a truly independent assessment” (KFOR, Apr 30).  Such reviews are tantamount to allowing students to mark their own exam papers.

Even by the standards of the Oklahoman death merchants, who have changed their execution protocols twice this year, the use of an untested cocktail of lethal drugs – midazolam, vecuronium bromide and potassium chloride – proved daring.  The state had never used midazolam in an execution.  Two of the drugs used carried warnings that “they can suppress the respiratory system” and cause cardiac problems “at high but non-lethal doses”.[2]  There was no legal oversight on the procurement of the combination.  Medical officials were sidelined.  As Kiesel observed, “This began as a question of whether we trust the government to kill its citizens, even guilty ones, in secret.”

Such a practice in Oklahoma[3] is far from unusual. In the case of Lockett, and that of another inmate scheduled for execution, Charles Warner, lawyers argued that the state was in violation of both state and federal law in refusing to disclose where it obtained the drugs in question, how they were manufactured, their efficacy and other details necessary to avoid inflicting “cruel and unusual” punishment.

However they are described, the judicial killing is a state sanctioned murder. Its calculus is crude and effect, a nonsense. By definition, a judicial killing is a confession that punishment will have no effect other than the removal of life, its appropriation, its expurgation.  It can’t deter – the individual will have no life to be deterred by.  It is irreversible, discriminatory and beyond appeal.  And it has been shown that the death penalty provides little deterrence to other aspiring law breakers.

Prior to Lockett’s execution, a skit of legal absurdity ensued.  The Oklahoman Supreme Court felt that a stay of execution was needed.  The problem there was that the court’s jurisdiction is civil, not criminal.  The Oklahoman Court of Criminal Appeals seemed addled – which one of the bodies had power to enter a stay?  The Supreme Court had passed the judicial ball to their colleagues on the OCCA.  Their colleagues were less than enthusiastic, arguing that no stay could be made in the absence of a substantive claim by the prisoners.  The infliction of death seemed inevitable, the debate, academic.

Since judicial killings were resumed on January 17, 1977, almost 1400 men and women have perished.  The vast majority – some 90 per cent – have been by lethal injection.  All of this goes to show that judicial killings are business and industry. It keeps people and companies in employment – running a death apparatus can bring in the dollars while pacifying a vengeful conscience.  It generates scholarly research of the more morbid variety and good value for necrophilia inclined voyeurs. It keeps experts such as Dr. Nancy Snyderman, NBC’s chief medical editor, busy.  It is also a patriotic assertion – death penalty states affect singularity in retaining it, proud against ‘soft’ humanitarians who would wish to push them into undesirable waters.

Death penalty states hunger for fresh sources of killing. A particularly sensitive subject has been obtaining sodium thiopental after the sole US manufacturer of it ceased production in 2010.  States employing the death penalty have gotten into a huddle over how best to overcome such restrictions and still satisfy the requirements of the Eight Amendment. “Compounding pharmacies” have been sourced, as have overseas suppliers.[4]  The former remain highly problematic, as the drug combinations may well fall short of satisfying the rather macabre constitutional protections against cruel and unusual punishment.

The Lockett execution has also exposed another absurdity.  Having an inquiry into how an execution was carried out is tantamount to having an inquiry on how to wage cleaner wars or have a civilised arms trade.  Lawyers representing death row inmates fall into that same trap, wondering whether the lethal cocktail that will be administered to their clients is somehow “safe”.  After all, there are constitutional pains and unconstitutional ones.  These approaches are inquiries into means, not ends, and affords the executing state a guarantee that, when it takes human lives, it does so in a manner that is assuredly acceptable and quick.  When such manner of logic is tolerated, a cold inhumanity can only be presumed.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.  Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

More articles by:
June 28, 2016
Jonathan Cook
The Neoliberal Prison: Brexit Hysteria and the Liberal Mind
Paul Street
Bernie, Bakken, and Electoral Delusion: Letting Rich Guys Ruin Iowa and the World
Anthony DiMaggio
Fatally Flawed: the Bi-Partisan Travesty of American Health Care Reform
Mike King
The “Free State of Jones” in Trump’s America: Freedom Beyond White Imagination
Antonis Vradis
Stop Shedding Tears for the EU Monster: Brexit, the View From the Peloponnese
Omar Kassem
The End of the Atlantic Project: Slamming the Brakes on the Neoliberal Order
Binoy Kampmark
Brexit and the Neoliberal Revolt Against Jeremy Corbyn
Doug Johnson Hatlem
Alabama Democratic Primary Proves New York Times’ Nate Cohn Wrong about Exit Polling
Ruth Hopkins
Save Bear Butte: Mecca of the Lakota
Celestino Gusmao
Time to End Impunity for Suharto’’s Crimes in Indonesia and Timor-Leste
Thomas Knapp
SCOTUS: Amply Serving Law Enforcement’s Interests versus Society’s
Manuel E. Yepe
Capitalism is the Opposite of Democracy
Winslow Myers
Up Against the Wall
Chris Ernesto
Bernie’s “Political Revolution” = Vote for Clinton and the Neocons
Stephanie Van Hook
The Time for Silence is Over
Ajamu Nangwaya
Toronto’s Bathhouse Raids: Racialized, Queer Solidarity and Police Violence
June 27, 2016
Robin Hahnel
Brexit: Establishment Freak Out
James Bradley
Omar’s Motive
Gregory Wilpert – Michael Hudson
How Western Military Interventions Shaped the Brexit Vote
Leonard Peltier
41 Years Since Jumping Bull (But 500 Years of Trauma)
Rev. William Alberts
Orlando: the Latest Victim of Radicalizing American Imperialism
Patrick Cockburn
Brexiteers Have Much in Common With Arab Spring Protesters
Franklin Lamb
How 100 Syrians, 200 Russians and 11 Dogs Out-Witted ISIS and Saved Palmyra
John Grant
Omar Mateen: The Answers are All Around Us
Dean Baker
In the Wake of Brexit Will the EU Finally Turn Away From Austerity?
Ralph Nader
The IRS and the Self-Minimization of Congressman Jason Chaffetz
Johan Galtung
Goodbye UK, Goodbye Great Britain: What Next?
Martha Pskowski
Detained in Dilley: Deportation and Asylum in Texas
Binoy Kampmark
Headaches of Empire: Brexit’s Effect on the United States
Dave Lindorff
Honest Election System Needed to Defeat Ruling Elite
Louisa Willcox
Delisting Grizzly Bears to Save the Endangered Species Act?
Jason Holland
The Tragedy of Nothing
Jeffrey St. Clair
Revolution Reconsidered: a Fragment (Guest Starring Bernard Sanders in the Role of Robespierre)
Weekend Edition
June 24, 2016
Friday - Sunday
John Pilger
A Blow for Peace and Democracy: Why the British Said No to Europe
Pepe Escobar
Goodbye to All That: Why the UK Left the EU
Michael Hudson
Revolts of the Debtors: From Socrates to Ibn Khaldun
Andrew Levine
Summer Spectaculars: Prelude to a Tea Party?
Kshama Sawant
Beyond Bernie: Still Not With Her
Mike Whitney
¡Basta Ya, Brussels! British Voters Reject EU Corporate Slavestate
Tariq Ali
Panic in the House: Brexit as Revolt Against the Political Establishment
Paul Street
Miranda, Obama, and Hamilton: an Orwellian Ménage à Trois for the Neoliberal Age
Ellen Brown
The War on Weed is Winding Down, But Will Monsanto Emerge the Winner?
Gary Leupp
Why God Created the Two-Party System
Conn Hallinan
Brexit Vote: a Very British Affair (But Spain May Rock the Continent)
Ruth Fowler
England, My England
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail