FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Needling the Convict

The Supreme Court is about to reconsider a form of punishment challenged by Kentucky death row inmates Ralph Baze and Thomas C. Bowling as cruel and unusual punishment. If it all comes to pass, we may well see a ruling against this type of lethal injection as contrary to the Eight Amendment. Arguments by the parties (in the case of Baze v Rees) start today.

What should we expect from a court which has, as Ronald Dworkin keeps reminding us, busied itself with revising established doctrines with right-wing élan? There would be no reason to assume that it would overturn an established practice. Death penalty abolitionists have no reason to cheer. The question, in any case, is a narrow one.

Then again, the interpreters of the law possess a multitude of tricks. In Furman v Georgia (1972), the states were ordered by the Supreme Court to halt executions. The death penalty as it was then applied violated the Eighth Amendment. This was merely to put the house in order: in 1976, the execution train was back on track. Similarly, Kentucky, Florida, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Arkansas are waiting to resume their death-doing schedules in light of the current challenge.

The death penalty in the United States can only be tackled incrementally. There are few frontal assaults on it. Campaigners against it are caught in a bind: its barriers look impregnable at first instance–38 states employ it; 37 use lethal injection, one exception being Nebraska, which continues that rather distasteful practice of electrocuting its convicts. America’s prisons are stacked with execution fodder. Death row inmates, if they are not doing the rounds on the appeals circuit, seem to only interest photographer Oliviero Toscani.

The interest in the U.S. is not so much in abolishing the death penalty as moderating it. It must be systematically sound for those with bleeding hearts on the one hand and vengeful ones on the other. Killing convicts is a legal refinement, a bureaucratic perversion that measures death according to method and procedure. The inmate was administered with a needle with lethal poison–was that humane? Conversation on the subject resembles that of pet euthanasia.

This produces a profusion of idiosyncrasies. If executions have to exist, then let’s do it the ‘right’ way. Experts on execution in America exist like outsourcing consultants. Like all experts, they can’t quite decide on what form of punishment is best, let alone humane.

Fordham University has one, Deborah W. Denno, who is marketed, in the words of the New York Times, as ‘an expert on execution methods’. Not necessarily opposed to it, she manoeuvres within the limits of her brief. She comes out against lethal injection as possibly cruel and unusual, but falls back on sound legal practice and hedges her bets. State killing is a business, and the key is to get that business in right.

Could injecting a person with a dose of lethal toxins cause pain and be unduly cruel? Maybe, says Denno in a 2002 issue of the Ohio State Law Journal. It all depends on what the ‘cocktail’ contains. The error of executioners may lie in not procuring the right drugs, not bringing themselves up-to-date on the literature on ‘humane execution’. Pavulon or pancuronium bromide simply masks the ability of the convict to communicate while the other toxins go to work. Witnesses have noticed, without any hint of mock surprise, convicts ‘grimacing’.

Death penalty advocates often go the other way: The issue surrounding the lethal injection of Oklahoma bomber Timothy McVeigh was not that is was cruel, but that it was undeservingly humane. Death had to be a deterrent, a chilling spectacle to frighten potential killers.

And what of the doctors? Some prefer to turn Hippocrates in the grave and violate their undertaking to save human life. Doctors are not disallowed for involving themselves in giving advice to prisons in administering what amounts to a ‘medical’ procedure. There is a recommendation that they refrain from doing so, but there are no penalties for its breach. The Supreme Court is unlikely to challenge this.

In lethal injections, there is more than a faint suggestion that killing has been transferred from the mindless executioner to the ‘humane’ doctor. ‘Without question [lethal injection] is, in my opinion, extremely humane in comparison to either electrocution or execution by inhalation of poisonous gases’, wrote anaesthesiologist Stanley Deutsch to Senator Bill Dawson in February 1977. According to Deutsch, such a killing would be both ‘rapid’ and ‘pleasant’ for the convict.

There is a world of difference between the sedatives offered in the pneumatic chair of Deutsch’s Brave New World, and a penitentiary geared for death. It is Mengele-like in operation, the administration of lethal drugs in the name of state sanitation and moral improvement. Convicts become patients who erred in life and deserve a jab for their trouble making. Some degree of suffering must be had: ‘The prohibition’, stated the Kentucky Supreme Court in November 2006 ‘is against cruel and unusual punishment and does not require a complete absence of pain.’

In the end, the Supreme Court will simply work with what it has. Lethal injection won’t be condemned outright as a cruel and unusual form of punishment. Only its method–this particular type of drug ‘cocktail’–will be held up for execration. The execution show must go on. Besides, as the prosecutors in Tennessee keep reminding their superiors, there is always the electric chair.

BINOY KAMPMARK was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He can be reached at bkampmark@gmail.com

 

 

More articles by:

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

February 20, 2019
Anthony DiMaggio
Withdrawal Pains and Syrian Civil War: An Analysis of U.S. Media Discourse
Charles Pierson
When Saudi Arabia Gets the Bomb
Doug Johnson Hatlem
“Electability” is Real (Unless Married with the Junk Science of Ideological Spectrum Analysis)
Kenneth Surin
The Atlantic Coast Pipeline: Another Boondoggle in Virginia
John Feffer
The Psychology of the Wall
Dean Baker
Modern Monetary Theory and Taxing the Rich
Russell Mokhiber
Citizens Arrested Calling Out Manchin on Rockwool
George Ochenski
Unconstitutional Power Grabs
Michael T. Klare
War With China? It’s Already Under Way
Thomas Knapp
The Real Emergency Isn’t About the Wall, It’s About the Separation of Powers
Manuel García, Jr.
Two Worlds
Daniel Warner
The Martin Ennals and Victorian Prize Winners Contrast with Australia’s Policies against Human Dignity
Norman Solomon
What the Bernie Sanders 2020 Campaign Means for Progressives
Dan Corjescu
2020 Vision: A Strategy of Courage
Matthew Johnson
Why Protest Trump When We Can Impeach Him?
William A. Cohn
Something New and Something Old: a Story Still Being Told
Bill Martin
The Fourth Hypothesis: the Present Juncture of the Trump Clarification and the Watershed Moment on the Washington Mall
February 19, 2019
Richard Falk – Daniel Falcone
Troublesome Possibilities: The Left and Tulsi Gabbard
Patrick Cockburn
She Didn’t Start the Fire: Why Attack the ISIS Bride?
Evaggelos Vallianatos
Literature and Theater During War: Why Euripides Still Matters
Maximilian Werner
The Night of Terror: Wyoming Game and Fish’s Latest Attempt to Close the Book on the Mark Uptain Tragedy
Conn Hallinan
Erdogan is Destined for Another Rebuke in Turkey
Nyla Ali Khan
Politics of Jammu and Kashmir: The Only Viable Way is Forward
Mark Ashwill
On the Outside Looking In: an American in Vietnam
Joyce Nelson
Sir Richard Branson’s Venezuelan-Border PR Stunt
Ron Jacobs
Day of Remembrance and the Music of Anthony Brown        
Cesar Chelala
Women’s Critical Role in Saving the Environment
February 18, 2019
Paul Street
31 Actual National Emergencies
Robert Fisk
What Happened to the Remains of Khashoggi’s Predecessor?
David Mattson
When Grizzly Bears Go Bad: Constructions of Victimhood and Blame
Julian Vigo
USMCA’s Outsourcing of Free Speech to Big Tech
George Wuerthner
How the BLM Serves the West’s Welfare Ranchers
Christopher Fons
The Crimes of Elliot Abrams
Thomas Knapp
The First Rule of AIPAC Is: You Do Not Talk about AIPAC
Mitchel Cohen
A Tale of Two Citations: Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring” and Michael Harrington’s “The Other America”
Jake Johnston
Haiti and the Collapse of a Political and Economic System
Dave Lindorff
It’s Not Just Trump and the Republicans
Laura Flanders
An End to Amazon’s Two-Bit Romance. No Low-Rent Rendezvous.
Patrick Walker
Venezuelan Coup Democrats Vomit on Green New Deal
Natalie Dowzicky
The Millennial Generation Will Tear Down Trump’s Wall
Nick Licata
Of Stress and Inequality
Joseph G. Ramsey
Waking Up on President’s Day During the Reign of Donald Trump
Elliot Sperber
Greater Than Food
Weekend Edition
February 15, 2019
Friday - Sunday
Matthew Hoh
Time for Peace in Afghanistan and an End to the Lies
Chris Floyd
Pence and the Benjamins: An Eternity of Anti-Semitism
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail