Unusually Cruel: Death by Lethal Injection
Mimi Marcus
Recently it was reported in The Sydney Morning Herald that the mother of Joseph Clark, a condemned US inmate, initiated federal court proceedings against Ohio's prison system for yet another 'botched' execution. The lawsuit pleads that the execution amounted to cruel and unusual punishment.
On this occasion, the article claims that it took almost 90 minutes to carry out the execution. At one point, Joseph Clark is said to have stated to the execution team 'it don't work', while the execution team struggled to find a usable vein to administer the lethal drugs.
As frightening as the above story sounds, lethal injection still remains the most common method of execution — employed by 37 states, the US military and the US Government. Those raising legal challenges to it generally claim that the drugs used in executions cause extreme and unnecessary pain, and that the combination of chemicals is an ineffective pain killer (the anaesthetic used is a muscle blocker that causes paralysis in small doses but doesn't effectively stop pain. So at the wrong dose it can stop the inmate moving and crying out, but lets them keep feeling the pain). Therefore execution by lethal injection can often amount to a violation of the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
Initial rulings from federal District Courts in California and Missouri agree. They have held the procedures in those states to be unconstitutional because they lack sufficient safeguards and oversight to ensure the orderly application of lethal injection.
Medical research also reveals the potential horrors of death by lethal injection. For instance, in 2005, a team of doctors reported in the British medical journal The Lancet that, in 43 of 49 executed inmates (88%) studied, the anaesthetic administered during lethal injections was lower than that required for surgery (volume 265, p 1412, April 16, 2005).
They also stated that toxicology reports revealed that post-mortem concentrations of the anaesthetic drug in the blood were below typical surgery levels, and in 21 inmates (43%) the concentrations of anaesthetic in the blood were consistent with awareness. Their investigation of lethal injection practices from several states found that the guidelines for delivering the essential anaesthesia drug thiopental are flawed and that some inmates might experience awareness and suffering during their execution.
In some states, the researchers found that those administering thiopental during lethal injections had no training, and that the drug was administered remotely with no monitoring for anaesthesia. The study also found that no records were kept regarding the administration of thiopental and no peer-review was done. The report concluded:
Failures in protocol design, implementation, monitoring and review might have led to the unnecessary suffering of at least some of those executed. Because participation of doctors in protocol design or execution is ethically prohibited, adequate anaesthesia cannot be certain. Therefore, to prevent unnecessary cruelty and suffering, cessation and public review of lethal injection is warranted.
Lethal injection for execution was originally conceived as a comparatively humane alternative to electrocution or cyanide gas. But medical findings and evidence obtained by litigation on legal injection all challenge this assumption.
This is further illustrated by So Long As They Die: Lethal Injections in the United States, a report prepared by Human Rights Watch which notes that most US states use execution methods that needlessly risk excruciating pain for inmates subjected to lethal injections. The report examines the history of lethal injections and the widespread use of protocols created three decades ago with no scientific research. The executive summary chillingly reads:
Although supporters of lethal injection believe the prisoner dies painlessly, there is mounting evidence that prisoners may have experienced excruciating pain during their executions. This should not be surprising given that corrections agencies have not taken the steps necessary to ensure a painless execution. They use a sequence of drugs and a method of administration that were created with minimal expertise and little deliberation three decades ago, and that were then adopted unquestioningly by state officials with no medical or scientific background. Little has changed since then. As a result, prisoners in the United States are executed by means that the American Veterinary Medical Association regards as too cruel to use on dogs and cats.
