South Carolina Execution Practices are Shrouded in Secrecy

As South Carolina pre­pares pro­ce­dures for car­ry­ing out exe­cu­tions via fir­ing squad, an inves­ti­ga­tion by Columbia’s dai­ly news­pa­per, The State, reports that impor­tant infor­ma­tion about the exe­cu­tion process and the sources of mate­ri­als to be used in exe­cu­tions is being hid­den from the public. 

The state leg­is­la­ture passed a bill in May 2021 mak­ing the fir­ing squad and elec­tric chair the two means of exe­cu­tion in the state. However, the state has denied jour­nal­ists’ requests for infor­ma­tion about its exe­cu­tion prepa­ra­tions and is requir­ing employ­ees involved in exe­cu­tions to sign con­fi­den­tial­i­ty agree­ments. Taylor Smith, a lawyer rep­re­sent­ing the South Carolina Press Association and its mem­ber news­pa­pers, said, ​“When the gov­ern­ment tells you, ​‘You don’t need to know this infor­ma­tion,’ bad things are usu­al­ly hid­ing behind that curtain.”

South Carolina has not released their pro­to­cols for car­ry­ing out exe­cu­tions by any method, includ­ing elec­tro­cu­tion, even though the state has exe­cut­ed more than 200 peo­ple with the elec­tric chair and it is now the default method of exe­cu­tion. When pressed by jour­nal­ists, state offi­cials released redact­ed doc­u­ments show­ing how much had been spent on prepa­ra­tions for exe­cu­tions by fir­ing squad, includ­ing the pur­chase of rifles, ammu­ni­tion, bal­lis­tic glass, armored plates, con­struc­tion mate­ri­als and oth­er items. However, the state with­held all infor­ma­tion relat­ed to the source of the items.

The South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDOC) defend­ed its secre­cy poli­cies, assert­ing that doc­u­ments relat­ed to the exe­cu­tion process are ​“secu­ri­ty plans or devices” exempt from dis­clo­sure under state law. Frank Knaack, the for­mer exec­u­tive direc­tor of the South Carolina chap­ter of the American Civil Liberties Union, told The State that: ​“Since any upcom­ing exe­cu­tions will be done on behalf of the state’s res­i­dents, the peo­ple have an absolute right to know every detail about what’s hap­pen­ing in their name, so that we can make informed pub­lic pol­i­cy deci­sions going forward.”

Execution secre­cy has long been a con­tentious issue, with prison offi­cials argu­ing it is nec­es­sary for secu­ri­ty, while media groups and defense attor­neys argue it vio­lates prin­ci­ples of open gov­ern­ment. ​“The glob­al com­mu­ni­ty is increas­ing­ly con­sid­er­ing exe­cu­tion secre­cy a human rights vio­la­tion,” said DPIC exec­u­tive direc­tor Robert Dunham. The issue gained par­tic­u­lar salience in South Carolina after a November 2021 report by Chiara Eisner for The State doc­u­ment­ed how mem­bers of the exe­cu­tion team had been affect­ed by their involve­ment in exe­cu­tions. Former cor­rec­tions offi­cials told Eisner of the toll of killing pris­on­ers, say­ing that their involve­ment in exe­cu­tions caused last­ing men­tal and phys­i­cal health prob­lems, dif­fi­cul­ty sleep­ing, per­son­al­i­ty changes, and thoughts of sui­cide. They described an insti­tu­tion­al cul­ture that made it dif­fi­cult to share their expe­ri­ences or seek help. The State’s inves­ti­ga­tion also con­firmed that a for­mer South Carolina exe­cu­tion­er had died by sui­cide. Their expe­ri­ences empha­sized the impor­tance of ade­quate train­ing and coun­sel­ing for exe­cu­tion­ers. Without trans­par­ent poli­cies, the pub­lic has no way of know­ing if such pro­to­cols are in place. 

The state is now forc­ing SCDOC employ­ees that are involved with the exe­cu­tion process to sign con­fi­den­tial­i­ty agree­ments. According to John Blume —a vet­er­an cap­i­tal defense lawyer who has rep­re­sent­ed South Carolina death-row pris­on­ers for more than 30 years and directs the Death Penalty Project at Cornell University — the state has nev­er required exe­cu­tion per­son­nel to sign con­fi­den­tial­i­ty agree­ments before. Jay Bender, a lawyer for the South Carolina Press Association, said he does not believe that ​“any­thing in state law autho­rizes the depart­ment to impose this require­ment on employ­ees.” Dr. Rita Nakashima Brock, a coor­di­na­tor of peer sup­port pro­grams for vet­er­ans through Volunteers for America, told The State that con­fi­den­tial­i­ty agree­ments like this make it more dif­fi­cult for exe­cu­tion staff who need men­tal health sup­port to reach out for those services. 

South Carolina law affords death-row pris­on­ers the right to select between statu­to­ri­ly autho­rized meth­ods of exe­cu­tion. However, since SCDOC says it does not have access to lethal injec­tion drugs, it must offer con­demned pris­on­ers the alter­na­tive of being exe­cut­ed by elec­tric chair or fir­ing squad. In June 2021, the South Carolina Supreme Court halt­ed the exe­cu­tions of Brad Sigmon and Freddie Owens because SCDOC uni­lat­er­al­ly sought to exe­cute them by elec­tric chair. SCDOC assert­ed that exe­cu­tion by elec­tric chair was appro­pri­ate because ​“lethal injec­tion is unavail­able due to cir­cum­stances out­side of the con­trol of the Department of Corrections, and fir­ing squad is cur­rent­ly unavail­able due to the Department of Corrections hav­ing yet to com­plete its devel­op­ment and imple­men­ta­tion of nec­es­sary pro­to­cols and poli­cies.” The court, cit­ing the pris­on­ers’ statu­to­ry right to elect the man­ner of their exe­cu­tion, vacat­ed the death war­rants and direct­ed the clerk of court ​“not to issue anoth­er exe­cu­tion notice until the State noti­fies the Court that the Department of Corrections, in addi­tion to main­tain­ing the avail­abil­i­ty of elec­tro­cu­tion, has devel­oped and imple­ment­ed appro­pri­ate pro­to­cols and poli­cies to car­ry out exe­cu­tions by firing squad.”

An SCDOC spokesper­son said the agency is still work­ing to final­ize pro­ce­dures for con­duct­ing exe­cu­tions by firing squad.