Death Should Be Hard to Watch

This blog got shoveled to the back of IA for this week so I had to post it here to satisfy the needs of my ego.

On Monday the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Blaze v. Rees. Just in case you haven’t been one of those uber geek law students who follows the SC like a 14 year old girl watching American Idol, the case is about lethal injection, and whether or not it is cruel and unusual punishment. In executions by lethal injection three drugs are administered to the condemned. The first is basically a pain killer, and it is supposed to drop the blood pressure, kill pain, and cause sleep. The second drug is a paralytic which, as its name suggests, causes paralysis in all the muscles except the heart. The third drug stops the heart. The potential problem arises when the first drug is administered incorrectly. Without the first drug, the second leaves the condemned paralyzed, awake, and completely capable of feeling the third drug rush in and stop the heart (which is apparently very painful).
The argument is about what standard should be applied to potential risks of future harm, who should supervise administration of the first drug, and the availability of alternative methods. It was all very interesting
The part that I found the MOST interesting was an exchange between Justice Stevens and Mr. Englert. Justice Stevens seemed to believe that the problem was not the first drug but the second (this is mentioned several times but this time caught my attention). If it weren’t for the second drug, there would be very little risk of an incorrect administration of the first drug going unnoticed. Without the paralytic it should be pretty easy to tell if the condemned has been effectively knocked out by the first drug because I am pretty sure you could test for feeling, and if the condemned isn’t paralyzed, then the reaction should be pretty apparent. Like fish on a stream bank apparent. Mr. Englert made the argument that the risk was justified because the second drug was necessary to maintain “the dignity of the process.” Not that the second drug was necessary to complete the execution, but only that, “You don’t want to have unpleasant appearance of death at the time.”
Which brings me to my point. The unpleasant appearance of death? Do juries think the person is going to “live on a farm” when the verdict is rendered? It’s not like death row is a tank in a dentist’s office and inmates gets to go back out to sea when they get flushed, kids. Who cares if the death has an unpleasant appearance? I’m not making an argument for or against the death penalty here, but I generally believe death = unpleasant. The idea that executions need to be “dignified” for the watcher is absurd.
Do you think the condemned really cares? Obviously they care if it is painful, but do they honestly care how uncomfortable the witnesses and the warden are? If it were up to me I’d want to go in the most messy and disgusting way possible. If you’re going to kill me you should have to get your hands and your psyche dirty. If you’re going to execute me, I want it to be painless for me, and Tarantino directing it on pay per view. Just saying.