Murders Can Delay by Challenging Lethal Injections – Appeals Court; How Can a Lethal-Injection Drug Possibly Be “Safe and Effective”
Q3 2020 hedge fund letters, conferences and more
Murderers Can Challenge The Use Of A Lethal-Injection Drug
WASHINGTON, D.C. (November 19, 2020) - Although it did decline to halt two scheduled executions, the powerful U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia just ruled unanimously that condemned murderers can challenge the use of a lethal-injection drug on the grounds that it may cause unnecessary, severe, and tortuous pain. In the words of one expert, they “will experience excruciating suffering including sensations of drowning and suffocation.”
Although only one judge said she would have spared two murderers because the government did not have a prescription for the drug in their executions, the appeals court agreed that the government is violating the law by administering the lethal-injection drug without a prescription, even though to be prescribed, a drug ordinarily must be shown to be safe and effective.
Meanwhile this type of litigation, generally brought by attorneys opposed to the death penalty itself, is allowed to continue, with stays of executions occasionally being granted, notes public interest law professor John Banzhaf.
Recently this argument - that the federal government's "lethal injection protocol" might cause "extreme pain and needless suffering" during the execution of a white supremacist convicted of killing a family of three - persuaded a federal judge to stay the execution, and the D.C. Circuit to leave the stay in play.
That scheduled execution was permitted to proceed only after a close 5-4 vote of the Supreme Court on "an emergency application from the Government for extraordinary relief."
Arguements Being Made By Death Penalty Opponents
The same argument is still being made by death penalty opponents, and another judge (federal or state), and another appellate court, are likely to again be persuaded by it, says Banzhaf, noting that other district courts have recently stayed at least two other scheduled executions.
This is only the latest in a long string of attacks on methods used for carrying out the death penalty.
But Banzhaf notes that most of these law suits have challenged the use of injections to administer drugs - based upon "botched" administration techniques, unknown side effects including possible pain from injected drugs,, etc. - so a way to possibly avoid these and other legal problems could be to use the same drug, phenobarbital, but in pill form rather than injecting it.
The Justice Department recently ruled that injectable drugs used for executions are not subject to the FDA's jurisdiction; a move designed to get around legal restrictions, and injunctions which have effectively ended the death penalty in many states because the injectable drugs cannot now be obtained lawfully.
But this move - and debates about possible pain from injecting drugs - is unnecessary, since there's a much better way to use lethal drugs in capital punishment cases, says Banzhaf.
An Alternative To Using Injectable Drugs
The simple answer, he argues, and an alternative to using injectable drugs for executions generally - with the many legal and other challenges this method has faced, and will continue to face - is putting the condemned on the pill.
Since most of the concerns about using drugs for capital punishment involve problems - including possible pain from the rapid dispersal of one or more injected drugs, the "botched" injection of drugs, etc. - with drugs which are injected, an obvious alternative for meeting any legal problems, as well as arguments by drug companies objecting to the use of their injectable products for capital punishment, would to simply use readily available pills rather than injections to administer drugs such as barbiturates whose lethal properties are well controlled, well known, and very clearly established, and which cause "death with dignity" without pain as users simply fall into a deep sleep from which they never awake.
"Providing a condemned man with barbiturate pills to cause a quick and painless death - as in 'death with dignity' jurisdictions - is well tested, established, and accepted, does not require any trained personnel, and could avoid the many medical and other problems with lethal-injection drugs, including unexpected adverse reactions and possible pain," suggests professor Banzhaf, who takes no position on the fundamental issue of capital punishment.
Interestingly, Arizona has approved the use of barbiturates for executions, but oddly only if injected.
Prescribing Barbiturate Pills
Moreover, and more importantly, in at least eight states (California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington) and the District of Columbia, physicians are permitted to prescribe barbiturate pills so that terminally ill (and often old and frail) patients can achieve death with dignity without any pain.
The pills for this purpose are readily available, do not expire quickly, or require refrigeration as injectable drugs often do, nor do they cause adverse reactions to the elderly even though they are typically frail and may also have a wide variety of pre-existing medical conditions.
"If this method is appropriate for totally innocent and often frail elderly people with a wide variety of medical conditions who are seeking a quick and painless death with dignity, it should be more than good enough for murderers about to be executed for their crimes," Banzhaf argues.
Since only a few grams of certain barbiturates are necessary to cause death, and pills are apparently much harder for drug companies to restrict than liquid injectable drugs, the amount necessary to cause a quick and painless death might be administered in the form of several easy-to-swallow and easy-to-obtain pills offered by jailers to the murderer in the death chamber.
Dealing With Legal Objections
Using well-known, more readily available pills rather than injections for executions might mute many legal objections, avoid the major problems with injections highlighted by death penalty opponents, eliminate the need for medically trained personnel (who often refuse on ethical and/or professional grounds to give injections, or even to insert needles) to participate in executions, and have many other advantages, suggests Banzhaf.
If the prisoner refuses to take the pills and/or cannot be forced to, or only pretends to swallow them, he can hardly complain about unconstitutional "cruel and unusual punishment" if the government thereafter has no choice but to use lethal injections, with all the possible risks involved. To paraphrase an old legal saying, the condemned had the key to his own freedom from pain in his own hands, says Banzhaf.
Likewise, since oral administration takes longer for the drugs to reach the system than injections, and works far more slowly, this method of capital punishment is much less likely to trigger the sudden and sometimes violent reactions lethal-injection drugs have sometimes been said to cause, and which death penalty opponents always cite to stop executions.
If state and federal governments doesn't take advantage of this simple and proven protocol to cause death without pain, they can only expect further challenged by death penalty opponents who can probably then show, according to the existing legal standard, that the current execution protocol creates substantial risks of harm relative to a viable alternative:i.e., a painless barbiturate pill.
