Up until the moment the deadly chemicals are pumped in, there are plenty of reasons to stop an execution. Maybe there’s a last-minute call from the governor. Maybe there’s a problem with one of the drugs and the execution has to be postponed. If they treat the condemned prisoner with non-sterile protocols, they’ve just subjected them to cruel and unusual punishment by denying them proper medical care. And if the condemned winds up with an infection before their next execution date, they’ve got damages against the state while in their care; that’s a big deal.
Arguably, even if the execution goes as planned, doing a medical procedure with lax standards is *already* denying them proper care. I’m no fan of the death penalty, and lethal injection has been shown to have its share of problems in practice. But if we’re going to do it, doing it by the book with proper sanitary procedures certainly causes the least risk of legal issues for the prison, at a minimum. And that’s to say nothing of the ethical side of “give everyone proper medical care until they’re declared dead,” as a rule.
Latest Answers