Debate Over Lethal Injection Heats Up as Two States Put Executions On Hold

http://media.pbs.org/ramgen/newshour/expansion/2006/12/19/ 20061219_lethal28.rm?altplay=20061219_lethal28.rm http://www-tc.pbs.org/newshour/rss/media/2006/12/19/20061219_lethal28.mp3 JUDY WOODRUFF: Jeff Middendorf, in Kentucky, now this has not happened in your state. From your perspective, can you understand why, in these states and it looks like maybe in others, they're taking another look at lethal injection? JEFF MIDDENDORF, Kentucky's Justice and Public Safety Cabinet: Sure, I can certainly understand. The amount of time that took place in Florida would certainly concern us here in Kentucky. However, here in Kentucky, the Supreme Court recently upheld lethal injection by a 7-0 vote. And one of the things that would safeguard that same incident from happening here in Kentucky is we have a restriction on the amount of time that actually someone has to appear unconscious or be unconscious, and it's one minute. Unlike down in Florida, where it went on for a long period of time, we would begin a second set of chemicals, starting with the sodium thiopental, in the second site, so that would be able to take care of that situation and to assure that a painless death took place. JUDY WOODRUFF: Let me just interrupt you, because you're referring to the chemicals that are typically used, as we understand it, what, in 38 states, 37 states around the country. There's a so-called cocktail of chemicals, is that right? JEFF MIDDENDORF: That's correct. JUDY WOODRUFF: And that's pretty standard? JEFF MIDDENDORF: It's pretty consistent. It's pretty standard across the United States that use lethal injection. And as I mentioned, here in Kentucky, we have those safeguards in place, so the incident that happened in Florida would not happen here in Kentucky. And the Supreme Court recently decided that less than a month ago that the safeguards put in place by Kentucky's protocol assures that it is a constitutional execution.

			Richard Dieter Death Penalty Information Center There've been some autopsies now done on inmates who have been executed, and the level of the anesthetic was consistent with consciousness, so they may have been conscious. We'll just never know; they're dead now.

Administering lethal injection JUDY WOODRUFF: Richard Dieter, this has only happened now in two states. Does this in any way signal that lethal injection as a form of death penalty is in some sort of jeopardy? RICHARD DIETER: It is in some jeopardy, because it's a medical procedure. It was at first recommended by some doctors, or at least the chemicals were, and yet it's being performed without the medical supervision. So there's a fundamental question of whether these can ever be done reliably. And it's coming to a head, not just in these two states, but in federal courts throughout the country. They're hearing the same issue being raised. JUDY WOODRUFF: Do you see it that way, Mr. Middendorf, a fundamental question about whether the lethal injection can be administered in a reliable, consistent way? JEFF MIDDENDORF: Well, certainly, the Supreme Court in Kentucky recently said it can, and, you know, this is a new way of challenging the death penalty, and it is spreading throughout the country. We had a five-day trial with 20 experts; 17 depositions were conducted prior to that. And, really, the experts throughout the country, even those that came in on behalf of the inmates that are set to be executed, agreed that it comes down to the proper siting of the I.V. And, really, once that takes place and the sodium thiopental takes effect, the other drugs aren't going to affect and cause any pain to the inmate. JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, if that's the case, Mr. Dieter, if that's -- is that all that would need to be done to make sure that it's administered consistently and according to the rule book in every state? RICHARD DIETER: You know, one of the problems is that the inmate appears to be unconscious. And that's in the eyes of the guards who are watching, not in the eyes of an anesthesiologist. They're administered a drug that paralyzes them, that makes them look like they're totally, you know, out of the consciousness, but that may not be the case. There've been some autopsies now done on inmates who have been executed, and the level of the anesthetic was consistent with consciousness, so they may have been conscious. We'll just never know; they're dead now. JUDY WOODRUFF: What about that, Mr. Middendorf? If that's the case, are there flaws then in this system that's used so widely? JEFF MIDDENDORF: Well, certainly, that's purely speculation on the other side's behalf. And what the testimony that came out in Kentucky was, when Mr. Dieter mentions those lower sodium thiopental levels and autopsy results, they're taking those results and comparing them to anti-mortem standards. If you look at those results with post-mortem standards, they fall within that therapeutic range. And, of course, a therapeutic range means that it's having the desired effect, which is unconsciousness. JUDY WOODRUFF: Could you put that in layperson's terms very quickly? What are you saying? JEFF MIDDENDORF: Basically, the numbers often that are showed in autopsy results from the other side indicating that they could possibly be conscious, they're comparing apples and oranges, the final results of that, in saying that it's possible they're awake. JUDY WOODRUFF: Do you want to respond quickly? RICHARD DIETER: Just to say that these drugs are no longer being used by veterinarians in the euthanasia of animals, I think that says something about the quality of this kind of cocktail and this method. I think we need to look at this in a whole new light, hear from the experts, as was done in California. You know, Kentucky, I applaud their review, but they've only had one execution by lethal injection. Florida thought everything was OK, too, and then, you know, the train wreck happened the other night. So I think there's -- we need to have an open mind about all of this