"The growing secrecy adopted by death penalty states to hide the source of their lethal injection drugs used in executions is being challenged in a new lawsuit in Missouri, which argues that the American people have a right to know how the ultimate punishment is being carried out in their name.
"The legal challenge, brought by the Guardian, Associated Press and the three largest Missouri newspapers, calls on state judges to intervene to put a stop to the creeping secrecy that has taken hold in the state in common with many other death penalty jurisdictions. The lawsuit argues that under the first amendment of the US constitution the public has a right of access to know “the type, quality and source of drugs used by a state to execute an individual in the name of the people”.
“It is believed to be the first time that the first amendment right of access has been used to challenge secrecy in the application of the death penalty.”
Another spoke in the wheel of Judicial Killing!
Every move makes maintaining the system less likely.
If they so wish. As those methods were dropped to make Judicial Killing less violent because the mood of the time was moving against stangling, frying or shooting citizens, the state chose to medicalise it in an effort to maintain the fiction that such killing could be less cruel and unusual, and less gruesome. If they move back it will affect support for judicial killing in the same way the gruesome methods were causing it to be rejected twenty years ago; eventually enough states will be forced to stop the killings to allow SCOTUS to determine that the infliction of killing is Cruel and Unusual.
That is how it will go- with a whimper rather than a bang!
However, the first set of claims, and in my view the strongest, are that the state’s “Sunshine Law,” requires this disclosure.
It’s true that the suit goes on to contend that there’s an independent constitutional right, grounded in the First Amendment, for such information. But the cases they cite are not all that on point. Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia stood for the public’s right to access a criminal trial. Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., Riverside Cty adds the right to public view of the voir dire process for potential jury members. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, County of Norfolk confirms that even for juveniles, there cannot be mandatory rules closing trials. The closest they come is an argument saying that the public’s right to view an execution is a constitutional one. The constitutional argument section of the suit is a short section, and (again in my view) a much more Hail Mary claim. The Sunshine Law claim is a good one; the constitutional one, not so much.
There were major worries expressed in Death States over the way that feelings were changing about frying and gassing people to death- people are squeamish, hence the move to clean up the killing by medicalising it. If they are forced to return to older methods, I suspect that people will move gradually against it again.
If I wanted to perform a novel method of euthanasia for animals in a laboratory, I’d have submit a protocol approval from State and Federal agencies. I’d have to disclose the list of the drugs, its suppliers, and ensure that procedures “avoid or minimize discomfort, distress, and pain to the animals.”
In contrast, if I (well, assuming I were a State) wanted to perform a novel method of execution for a human being, I apparently, don’t need to submit any protocol for approval. There aren’t any guidelines to avoid and minimize discomfort and pain. I just mix whatever drugs I can get procure from a hodgepodge of laboratories and then inject it into people, then watch with bated breath. If they die, great, if they don’t, oh well. It’s barbaric to me. How on Earth do we have higher standards for killing animals than we do killing humans? What kind of planet are we living on? There is no justifiable reason why the concoction used and its suppliers cannot be known. None.
If the State cannot figure out how to lethally inject people, then the State should fall back to hanging. Hanging is far more humane than having someone writhe in half-paralyzed agony for >30 minutes. I don’t support the death penalty (usually) but I’ll support hanging over the lethal injection because it has become excruciatingly clear the justice system doesn’t possess the technical knowledge and capabilities to pull it off humanely.
There are a number of methods of animal euthanasia (“putting a pet to sleep”), for example:
“Pets are almost always euthanized by intravenous injection, typically using a very high dose of pentobarbital or sodium thiopental. Unconsciousness, respiratory then cardiac arrest follow rapidly, usually within 30 seconds.[3] Observers generally describe the method as leading to a quick and peaceful death.”
The funny thing is, you’re probably right. I suspect the State used a high dose of pentobarbital or propofol. I sincerely doubt they used sodium thiopental. First, it’s extremely expensive, two, the EU banned exportation of the substance, and three, there are no US manufacturers that make the drug.
You know, if you stopped poisoning the well of your OPs with loaded terms like “judicial killing” and “Death States”, people might be more inclined to take you seriously.
This. I actually agree with the moral and political stance…but the exaggerated and breathless rhetorical style alienates me. The case is strong enough without artificial emphasis.
If proponents of Killing by the state stopped using euphemisms such as “Execution” (which is a euphemism derived from execution of a sentence) and “Department of Corrections” for Convict Killing Facilities, then you might have a point.
What’s poisonous about “judicial killing”? (Is it that execution of a judicially-ordered killing is an executive function? I guess that’s a factual quibble but I still don’t see how it’s poisoning the well.)
There are already terms in the English language that mean the same thing. “Capital punishment” is one. “The death penalty” is another. We agree on the meanings of these terms. Our OP is inventing a term out of whole cloth for the specific purpose of attaching a moral value to it (i.e., killing is bad) and make it impossible to have an objective conversation about the issue.
[QUOTE=Pjen]
and “Department of Corrections” for Convict Killing Facilities, then you might have a point.
[/QUOTE]
The purpose of a department of corrections is not to kill convicts. Even in what you dub “Death States”, the overwhelming majority of convicted persons who pass through a correctional facility are not killed. So not only is your term well-poisoning, it’s less factually accurate as an objective descriptor than the acknowledged, morally-neutral term.
But despite that, calling it judicial killing or Death Rooms is incredibly factually accurate. The y are killed and death does result. Capital Punishment hides behind Latin and death penalty assumes that death could morally be a penalty rather than simple revenge.
Now if I called them Murder romms or Murder states, that would assume a moral standpoint.
But they are Death Rooms and Death states and that is undeniable.
It is you choosing to hide behind comfortable euphemisms.