Pixel Tracker

Saturday, December 15 , 2018, 10:28 pm | Fair 49º

 
 
 
 

Diane Dimond: Getting Our Act Together on How to Carry Out the Death Penalty

If we, as a nation, are going to allow the execution of convicted murderers, rapists and traitors, can’t we get our act together about how to take their lives?

Back in 2010, European countries began a movement to abolish the death penalty around the world. European pharmaceutical companies began to refuse to sell any anesthetics to the United States that could be used to facilitate an execution. And that left our prisons, in the more than 30 states that carry out the death penalty, without easy access to the medications needed to kill the condemned.

Since then, these states have used a mish-mash of drugs to carry out executions. Some have used a two-drug or three-drug cocktail, administered in stages. The first stage is designed to render the convict unconscious so they feel no pain as other heart-stopping drugs are introduced. Other states use just one drug, such as pentobarbital, but that has also begun to be difficult to procure. One state, Missouri, announced it would use propofol — the anesthetic cited in the death of entertainer Michael Jackson — but then revised its lethal injection procedure before doing so.

Midazolam, hydromorphone, sodium thiopental, the barbiturate anesthetic Brevital — all part of the grand experiment our penal institutions have used in this modern-day quest to carry out “humane executions.” Sounds like an oxymoron to me.

This is not the place to argue about the pros or cons of the death penalty. According to the latest Gallup poll, 63 percent of Americans are in favor of capital punishment. (Although, it should be noted that number has tumbled since the mid-1990s when 80 percent favored the idea.)

So it goes, majority rules. So, when do we get our collective act together and figure out a single best way to do this that is beyond reproach? Why have we dithered and experimented with it for so long? If we truly support the idea of the death penalty, we should certainly agree on an acceptable process.

The U.S. Supreme Court now says it will hear a challenge to Oklahoma’s lethal injection practices. And the justices stayed the pending execution of the three Oklahoma convicts whose names appear on the case.

That state employs a commonly used three-drug protocol that relies on Midazolam as the first drug. Lawyers for the condemned will argue that the drug is unreliable and has the potential to cause terrible suffering. They’ll say that the procedure violates a citizen’s constitutional right to be protected from cruel and unusual punishment.

I know, I know — those facing the executioner have made others suffer in oftentimes incomprehensible ways. Why should we care if they suffer a bit as they die? Why do we hear so much about a convict’s rights at the time of execution and so little about the grisly crime for which they were convicted?

Again, this is not the place to argue the penalty. Rather, we should discuss a unified process for carrying out the law.

The nation’s high court will decide on Oklahoma’s procedure, but it will do nothing concrete that guides the nation toward a unified way to execute its worst criminals. I guess we have to demand that.

In the past, I’ve suggested a return to the firing squad, although I’m no ardent supporter of the death penalty. A firing squad would be fast, efficient, no fuss or muss. But if we’re determined to painlessly put to sleep our convicts with a lethal injection, how about using a massive dose of heroin? Heaven knows every state and the federal government has an ample supply of the confiscated drug that brings death so quickly, addicts are often found with the needle still in their arm. (Actor Seymour Hoffman to name just one.)

Anesthesiologists successfully put thousands of people into states of unconsciousness every day, so why can’t executioners? We euthanize our ailing pets, but would the drug cocktail a veterinarian uses even work on humans? Is anyone studying this?

As one vet wrote to the editor of The New York Times, “If we MUST persist in executing people, how about we convene a panel of MDs, get some good options, and then pass a law making it illegal for drug companies to refuse to provide the drugs?”

I’m not sure such a law could be passed, but I know it’s way past time for this discussion to take place.

If we can’t discuss it, maybe we should stop doing it.

Diane Dimond is the author of Be Careful Who You Love: Inside the Michael Jackson Case. Contact her at [email protected], follow her on Twitter: @DiDimond, or click here to read previous columns. The opinions expressed are her own.

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made using a credit card, Apple Pay or Google Pay, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments and a mailing address for checks.

Thank you for your vital support.

Become a Noozhawk Supporter

First name
Last name
Email
Select your monthly membership
Or choose an annual membership
×

Payment Information

Membership Subscription

You are enrolling in . Thank you for joining the Hawks Club.

Payment Method

Pay by Credit Card:

Mastercard, Visa, American Express, Discover
One click only, please!

Pay with Apple Pay or Google Pay:

Noozhawk partners with Stripe to provide secure invoicing and payments processing.
You may cancel your membership at any time by sending an email to .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

  • Ask
  • Vote
  • Investigate
  • Answer

Noozhawk Asks: What’s Your Question?

Welcome to Noozhawk Asks, a new feature in which you ask the questions, you help decide what Noozhawk investigates, and you work with us to find the answers.

Here’s how it works: You share your questions with us in the nearby box. In some cases, we may work with you to find the answers. In others, we may ask you to vote on your top choices to help us narrow the scope. And we’ll be regularly asking you for your feedback on a specific issue or topic.

We also expect to work together with the reader who asked the winning questions to find the answer together. Noozhawk’s objective is to come at questions from a place of curiosity and openness, and we believe a transparent collaboration is the key to achieve it.

The results of our investigation will be published here in this Noozhawk Asks section. Once or twice a month, we plan to do a review of what was asked and answered.

Thanks for asking!

Click Here to Get Started >

Reader Comments

Noozhawk is no longer accepting reader comments on our articles. Click here for the announcement. Readers are instead invited to submit letters to the editor by emailing them to [email protected]. Please provide your full name and community, as well as contact information for verification purposes only.