Lethal injection
Lethal injection is the practice of injecting one or more drugs into a person (typically a barbiturate, paralytic, and potassium solution) for the express purpose of causing rapid death. The main application for this procedure is capital punishment, but the term may also be applied in a broader sense to include euthanasia and other forms of suicide. The drugs cause the person to become unconscious, stops their breathing, and causes a heart arrhythmia, in that order.
For the 1993 album, see Lethal Injection (album).
First developed in the United States, it has become a legal means of execution in Mainland China, Thailand (since 2003), Guatemala, Taiwan, the Maldives, Nigeria, and Vietnam, though Guatemala abolished the death penalty in civil cases in 2017 and has not conducted an execution since 2000 and the Maldives has never carried out an execution since its independence. Although Taiwan permits lethal injection as an execution method, no executions have been carried out in this manner;[1] the same is true for Nigeria. Lethal injection was also used in the Philippines until the country re-abolished the death penalty in 2006.[2]
Although primarily introduced as a more "humane" method of execution, lethal injection has been subject to criticism, being described by some as cruel and unusual. Opponents in particular critique the operation of lethal injections by untrained corrections officers and the lack of guarantee that the victim will be unconscious in every individual case. There have been instances in which condemned individuals have been injected with paralytics, and then a cardiac arrest-inducing agent, while still conscious; this has been compared to torture. Proponents often say that there is no reasonable or less cruel alternative.[3][4]
Procedures[edit]
Procedure in the United States[edit]
In the United States, the typical lethal injection begins with the condemned person being strapped onto a gurney; two intravenous cannulas ("IVs") are then inserted, one in each arm. Only one is necessary to carry out the execution; the other is reserved as a backup in the event the primary line fails. A line leading from the IV line in an adjacent room is attached to the prisoner's IV and secured so that the line does not snap during the injections.
The arm of the condemned person is swabbed with alcohol before the cannula is inserted.[28] The needles and equipment used are sterilized. Questions have been raised about why these precautions against infection are performed despite the purpose of the injection being death. The several explanations include: cannulae are sterilized and have their quality heavily controlled during manufacture, so using sterile ones is a routine medical procedure.[29][30] Secondly, the prisoner could receive a stay of execution after the cannulae have been inserted, as happened in the case of James Autry in October 1983 (he was eventually executed on March 14, 1984).[30][31] Third, use of unsterilized equipment would be a hazard to the prison personnel in case of an accidental needle stick injury.[31]
Following connection of the lines, saline drips are started in both arms. This, too, is standard medical procedure: it must be ascertained that the IV lines are not blocked, ensuring the chemicals have not precipitated in the IV lines and blocked the needle, preventing the drugs from reaching the subject. A heart monitor is attached to the inmate.[32]
In most states, the intravenous injection is a series of drugs given in a set sequence, designed to first induce unconsciousness followed by death through paralysis of respiratory muscles and/or by cardiac arrest through depolarization of cardiac muscle cells. The execution of the condemned in most states involves three separate injections (in sequential order):
Drugs[edit]
Conventional lethal injection protocol[edit]
Typically, three drugs are used in lethal injection. Pancuronium bromide (Pavulon) is used to cause muscle paralysis and respiratory arrest, potassium chloride to stop the heart, and midazolam for sedation.[42][43]
Constitutionality in the United States[edit]
In 2006, the Supreme Court ruled in Hill v. McDonough that death-row inmates in the United States could challenge the constitutionality of states' lethal injection procedures through a federal civil rights lawsuit. Since then, numerous death-row inmates have brought such challenges in the lower courts, claiming that lethal injection as practiced violates the ban on "cruel and unusual punishment" found in the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.[55][56] Lower courts evaluating these challenges have reached opposing conclusions. For example, courts have found that lethal injection as practiced in California,[57] Florida,[58] and Tennessee[59] is unconstitutional. Other courts have found that lethal injection as practiced in Missouri,[60] Arizona,[61] and Oklahoma[62] is constitutionally acceptable.
As of 2014, California has nearly 750 prisoners condemned to death by lethal injection despite the moratorium imposed when in 2006 a federal court found California's lethal injection procedures to be unconstitutional.[63] A newer lethal injection facility has been constructed at San Quentin State Prison which cost over $800,000,[64] but it has yet to be used because a state court found that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation violated the California Administrative Procedure Act by attempting to prevent public oversight when new injection procedures were being created.[65]
On September 25, 2007, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear a lethal-injection challenge arising from Kentucky, Baze v. Rees.[66] In Baze, the Supreme Court addressed whether Kentucky's particular lethal-injection procedure (using the standard three-drug protocol) comports with the Eighth Amendment; it also determined the proper legal standard by which lethal-injection challenges in general should be judged, all in an effort to bring some uniformity to how these claims are handled by the lower courts.[67] Although uncertainty over whether executions in the United States would be put on hold during the period in which the United States Supreme Court considers the constitutionality of lethal injection initially arose after the court agreed to hear Baze,[68] no executions took place during the period between when the court agreed to hear the case and when its ruling was announced, with the exception of one lethal injection in Texas hours after the court made its announcement.[69]
On April 16, 2008, the Supreme Court rejected Baze v. Rees, thereby upholding Kentucky's method of lethal injection in a majority 7–2 decision.[70] Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter dissented.[71] Several states immediately indicated plans to proceed with executions.
The U.S. Supreme Court also upheld a modified lethal-injection protocol in the 2015 case Glossip v. Gross.[72] By the time of that case, Oklahoma had altered its execution protocol to use midazolam instead of thiopental or pentobarbital; the latter two drugs had become unavailable for executions due to the European embargo on selling them to prisons. Inmates on Oklahoma's death row alleged that the use of midazolam was unconstitutional, because the drug was not proven to render a person unconscious as thiobarbital would. The Supreme Court found that the prisoners failed to demonstrate that midazolam would create a high risk of severe pain, and that the prisoners had not provided an alternative, practical method of execution that would have a lower risk. Consequently, it ruled that the new method was permissible under the Eighth Amendment.
On March 15, 2018, Russell Bucklew, a Missouri death-row inmate who had been scheduled to be executed on May 21, 2014, appealed the constitutionality of lethal injection on an as-applied basis. The basis for Bucklew's appeal was due to Bucklew's allegation that his rare medical condition would interfere with the effects of the drugs, potentially causing him to choke on his own blood. On April 1, 2019, The Supreme Court ruled against Bucklew on the grounds that his proposed alternative to lethal injection, nitrogen hypoxia, was neither "readily implemented" nor established to "significantly reduce a substantial risk of severe pain".
[73][74][75][76] Bucklew was executed on October 1, 2019.[77]