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:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

December 06, 2016
Anthony DiMaggio
Post-Fact Politics: Reviewing the History of Fake News and Propaganda
Richard Moser
Standing Rock: Challenge to the Establishment, School for the Social Movements
Norman Solomon
Media Complicity is Key to Blacklisting Websites
Michael J. Sainato
Elizabeth Warren’s Shameful Exploitation of Standing Rock Victory
David Rosen
State Power and Terror: From Wounded Knee to Standing Rock
Kim Ives
Deconstructing Another Right-Wing Victory in Haiti
Nile Bowie
South Korea’s Presidency On A Knife-Edge
Mateo Pimentel
Some Notes and a Song for Standing Rock
Bill Fletcher Jr – Bob Wing
Fighting Back Against the White Revolt of 2016
Peter Lee
Is America Ready for a War on White Privilege?
Pepe Escobar
The Rules of the (Trump) Game
W. T. Whitney
No Peace Yet in Colombia Despite War’s End
Mark Weisbrot
Castro Was Right About US Policy in Latin America
David Swanson
New Rogue Anti-Russia Committee Created in “Intelligence” Act
George Ochenski
Forests of the Future: Local or National Control?
December 05, 2016
Bill Martin
Stalingrad at Standing Rock?
Mark A. Lause
Recounting a Presidential Election: the Backstory
Mel Goodman
Mad Dog Mattis and Trump’s “Seven Days in May”
Matthew Hannah
Standing Rock and the Ideology of Oppressors: Conversations with a Morton County Commissioner
Kevin Zeese - Margaret Flowers
#NoDAPL Scores Major Victory: No Final Permit For Pipeline
Fran Shor
The End of the Indispensable Nation
Michael Yates
Vietnam: the War That Won’t Go Away
Michael Uhl
Notes on a Trip to Cuba
Robert Hunziker
Huge Antarctica Glacier in Serious Trouble
John Steppling
Screen Life
David Macaray
Trump vs. America’s Labor Unions
Yoav Litvin
Break Free and Lead, or Resign: a Letter to Bernie Sanders
Norman Pollack
Taiwan: A Pustule on International Politics
Kevin Martin
Nuclear Weapons Modernization: a New Nuclear Arms Race? Who Voted for it? Who Will Benefit from It?
David Mattson
3% is not Enough: Towards Restoring Grizzly Bears
Howard Lisnoff
The Person Who Deciphered the Order to Shoot at Kent State
Dave Archambault II
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Statement on Dakota Access Pipeline Decision
Nick Pemberton
Make America Late Again
Weekend Edition
December 02, 2016
Friday - Sunday
John Pilger
The Coming War on China
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: The CIA’s Plots to Kill Castro
Paul Street
The Iron Heel at Home: Force Matters
Pam Martens - Russ Martens
Timberg’s Tale: Washington Post Reporter Spreads Blacklist of Independent Journalist Sites
Andrew Levine
Must We Now Rethink the Hillary Question? Absolutely, Not
Joshua Frank
CounterPunch as Russian Propagandists: the Washington Post’s Shallow Smear
David Rosen
The Return of HUAC?
Rob Urie
Race and Class in Trump’s America
Patrick Cockburn
Why Everything You’ve Read About Syria and Iraq Could be Wrong
Caroline Hurley
Anatomy of a Nationalist
Ayesha Khan
A Muslim Woman’s Reflections on Trump’s Misogyny
Michael Hudson – Steve Keen
Rebel Economists on the Historical Path to a Global Recovery
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail