A recent New York Times edi­to­r­i­al com­ment­ed on the new one-drug lethal injec­tion pro­to­col used in Ohio for the first time on December 8, but con­clud­ed that ​“the exe­cu­tion only rein­forced that any form of cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment is legal­ly sus­pect and moral­ly wrong.” The Times agreed with the late Justice Harry Blackmun who called such manip­u­la­tions ​“tinker[ing] with the machin­ery of death.” The edi­to­r­i­al also not­ed the risks of exeuct­ing the inno­cent: ​“It has also become clear — par­tic­u­lar­ly since DNA evi­dence has become more com­mon — how unre­li­able the sys­tem is. Since 1973, 139 peo­ple have been released from death row because of evi­dence that they were inno­cent, accord­ing to the Death Penalty Information Center.” The edi­tors end­ed by say­ing that repeal­ing the death penal­ty ​“is the way to elim­i­nate the inevitable prob­lems with exe­cu­tions.” Read the full editorial below.

December 14, 2009
There Is No ​‘Humane’ Execution 

This is what pass­es for progress in the appli­ca­tion of the death penal­ty: Kenneth Biros, a con­vict­ed mur­der­er, was put to death in Ohio last week with one drug, instead of the more com­mon three-drug cock­tail. It took exe­cu­tion­ers 30 min­utes to find a vein for the nee­dle, com­pared with the two hours spent hunt­ing for a vein on the last pris­on­er Ohio tried to kill, Romell Broom. Technicians tried about 18 times to get the nee­dle into Mr. Broom’s arms and legs before they gave up try­ing to kill him. Mr. Biros was jabbed only a few times in each arm.

Ohio adopt­ed the sin­gle-drug for­mu­la after the botched exe­cu­tion. It may well be an improve­ment over the three-drug cock­tail, or may not. (Death penal­ty advo­cates who hailed it as less painful have no way, obvi­ous­ly, of know­ing that.) But the exe­cu­tion only rein­forced that any form of cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment is legal­ly sus­pect and morally wrong.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg not­ed, in a dis­sent­ing opin­ion in a death penal­ty case last year, that crit­ics have charged that the three-drug cock­tail pos­es a seri­ous risk that the inmate will suf­fer severe­ly. The one-drug method was not used before last week on human beings, and Ohio should not have used it with­out a more pub­lic air­ing of its strengths and weak­ness­es, with input from med­ical and legal authorities.

The larg­er prob­lem, how­ev­er, is that chang­ing a lethal-injec­tion method is sim­ply an attempt, as Justice Harry Blackmun put it, to ​“tin­ker with the machin­ery of death.” No mat­ter how it is done, for the state to put some­one to death is inherently barbaric.

It has also become clear — par­tic­u­lar­ly since DNA evi­dence has become more com­mon — how unre­li­able the sys­tem is. Since 1973, 139 peo­ple have been released from death row because of evi­dence that they were inno­cent, accord­ing to the Death Penalty Information Center.

An untold num­ber of inno­cent peo­ple have also, quite like­ly, been put to death. Earlier this year, a fire expert hired by the state of Texas issued a report that cast tremen­dous doubt on whether a fatal fire — for which Cameron Todd Willingham was exe­cut­ed in 2004 — was arson at all. Until his exe­cu­tion, Mr. Willingham protest­ed his innocence.

Most states still have cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment, and the Obama admin­is­tra­tion has so far shown a trou­bling com­mit­ment to it, pur­su­ing fed­er­al cap­i­tal cas­es even in states that do not them­selves have the death penalty.

Earlier this year, New Mexico repealed its death penal­ty, join­ing 14 oth­er states — and the District of Columbia — that do not allow it. That is the way to elim­i­nate the inevitable prob­lems with executions.

(Editorial, ​“There Is No ​‘Humane’ Execution,” New York Times, December 14, 2009). See also Editorials and Lethal Injection.

Citation Guide