Short Story / Lethal Injection and Jurisprudence

When I heard the U.S. Supreme Court was deliberating whether or not lethal injection was in violation of the 8th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution I became incensed. I began to write an article full of anger and accusation without just cause and without concern for true journalistic value. Basically, I would have written something that sounded like most articles of bias submitted in a “Letter to the Editor” format and sounded like the average uninformed fool blowing off steam. That’s not professional nor does it really provide content to the reader. I decided to do some research on the matter and present more facts and less opinion. All to often we let our passion muffle our reason only to act in haste and look the fool.

I started by reading the 8th Amendment. It protects us from excessive bail, excessive fines, and the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment. Like most constitutional laws, this one is left to the U.S. Supreme Court for interpretation. Often revisited and widely interpreted based on political influence (today either Republican or Democratic), a lot has been said on the subject by justices over the years.

Because of the 8th Amendment, punishment for crimes has been reduced from bodily mutilations and public torture to handcuffs and jail time. Not to insinuate being in jail is a vacation, but it’s a far cry from the punishment of two centuries ago. Point to ponder: Has our effort to be humane had an adverse effect on criminal activity?

Capital punishment itself does not violate the 8th Amendment. Therefore, the method of carrying it out does not either. However, this does not of itself nullify the possibility a more humane remedy of method may exist, but until proven cannot negate the current method of punishment. Therefore, no lawsuit claiming lethal injection violates the 8th Amendment can be validated, hence a verdict in the claimants favor has yet to be decided.

In a recent court excerpt published January 7, 2008 by the Associated Press, the justices expressed the notion, if a more humane method of capital punishment could be proven to exist, they would consider withdrawing lethal injection a method of carrying out capital punishment.

Change is possible. Over the past 2 1/2 centuries we have gone from punishments such as mutilation, hanging and firing squads to lethal injection. When another method can be scientifically proven to eliminate the suffering of an individual and therefore be deemed more humane, lethal injection will be a thing of the past.

Why is lethal injection opposed? The practice of lethal injection has a theory to it that some clinicians and scientific experts disagree with. The process of lethal injection is comprised of 3 steps. Step 1, the individual is given Sodium thiopental, an anesthetic to make them unconscious. Step 2, the individual is given Pancuronium bromide, a drug that induces paralysis primarily in the lungs. Step 3, the individual is given Potassium chloride, a drug that kills the connection between the brain and the heart causing cardiac arrest. Some authorities only use step 1 and 2. However most include step 3 and that’s where the debate begins.

In the application theory, step 1 puts the patient to sleep, step 2 stops the breathing and step 3 stops the heart, sort of a fail safe. The opposition theory is step 1 doesn’t contain enough dosage leaving the individual semi conscious of their physical feeling. Step 2 causes paralysis but isn’t a sufficient dosage to stop the breathing. Step 3 causes excruciating pain, burning and suffering in the heart, but the paralysis caused by step 2 prevents the individual from expressing what they are feeling.

Since the individual is deceased, how does anyone know there could be suffering? Clinicians and scientists have measured toxicity levels postmortem which indicate the individuals are not given sufficient dosages at step 1 and step 2 to nullify the possibly painful effects of step 3. This theory however is not conclusive but sufficient enough to give cause to death row inmates to file lawsuits claiming lethal injection violates their 8th Amendment rights.

In consideration of this information, one cannot help but consider the other factor weighing in on the issue. When a death row inmate files a lawsuit to stop their pending demise because it’s a violation of their 8th Amendment rights, how do you think that plays with the victim’s rights? Is it a slap in the face to the families of the victims, or the victim themselves (if still alive) to have someone who stole their lives and rights given more of a chance than they had?

Sometimes we dislike reason because it requires more consideration and thought than passion does. In this case, reason has proven there is more involved to this issue than one short writing can address. I have a better understanding of the argument though, and I have more respect for what our justices have to weigh on the scales of justice. That’s not to say however that deep inside my passion isn’t screaming at the system and feeling parts of the process just aren’t fair.

You need to log in to urbis or create an urbis account to review this writing.