Thursday, September 06, 2007

 

The Nashville Scene's Revelation

Sarah Kelly of the Nashville Scene has again written a great article on the "behind the scenes" work that went into the new lethal injection protocols in Tennessee. What was uncovered in documents turned over to the Scene was that the committee reviewing the protocols was actually moving toward changing the controversial 3 drug cocktail which is currently used to a single drug protocol. Then suddenly, the committee abandoned all talk of changing the cocktail and issued a report leaving the state with a virtually unchanged method of execution. The question is why?

Attorneys for E.J. Harbison, scheduled to be executed on Sept. 26, are involved in a hearing this week challenging the constitutionality of the 3-drug cocktail. Harbison's attorneys have requested autopsy results for Philip Workman, the only inmate executed under the new protocol, in order to establish if he was given enough of the anesthetic to remain unconscious throughout the procedure. If the autopsy report is not complete, Judge Aleta Trauger indicated that Dr. Bruce Levy, medical examiner, should be prepared to testify as to why the results have not been completed.

And so the controversy continues...why is the state so resistant to cleaning up this protocol? Hopefully, E.J. Harbison's attorneys can continue to push this issue, not only ensuring a stay for Harbison, but pushing the state to enact some real reform concerning the lethal injection procedure. Until then, Tennessee will be faced with continuing challenges to a protocol that cannot ensure it doesn't inflict unnecessary suffering, not only to the inmates but to those who are asked to administer it.
Comments :
Once again, you guys show ignorance. Everyone agrees that the lethal injection protocol, properly administered, does not result in pain. So, as long as the people are adequately trained, there is no need for "cleaning up this protocol".

The other problem (and if you guys were interested in informing people rather than propagandizing, such nonsense wouldn't be on your blog) with your post is that you blithely assume that the autopsy of Workman will show anything about whether he suffered during his execution. The answer is that it won't (courtesy of an arrogant overreaching federal judge) because the chemicals responsible for putting the guy under (such that he will not feel pain) degrade post-mortem (this was one of the problems of that now widely discredited Lancet Study) and no samples of Workman's blood were permitted to be taken immediately post-execution due to federal court order.

This controversy is a manufactured one--this is why you see inmates raising it very late in the game.

So Stacy, what do you think of the Lancet Study?
 
Anon,

Your lack of understanding of our legal system amazes me. Obviously you've never made it past HS Civics but all comments welcomed just the same. And the fact that you are participating goes a long way to your credit and I applaude you. We all have to work with what God gave us.
 
Auggie, I'd be willing to be my bottom dollar that I know far more about the legal system than you do.
 
Anon, could you let me know the sources to which you refer that discredit the Lancet study? I would be interested in reading those reports. Thanks.
 
Welp I'm sure you do. ;-)
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/23/us/23inject.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5070&en=1057a109519a6ee7&ex=1189310400

Take a look at the last couple of paragraphs. Lubarsky acknowledges that he may be wrong. That's pretty amazing, isn't it?
 
Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]



Links to this post :

Create a Link



<< Home