Lethal Injection Could Be Dangerous

"There is no evidence in the record to suggest that the drug obtained from a foreign source is unsafe....."
Decision by US Supreme Court regarding a lethal-injection drug (1)

The 5-4 decision quoted in part above reversed the orders by a federal judge in Phoenix, Arizona, and the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that temporarily halted the execution by lethal injection of Jeffrey Landrigan, who had been convicted of murder in 1989.

The issue was the drug sodium thiopental, a poison no longer manufactured in the United States. Arizona prison officials had obtained the drug from a British manufacturer. Lawyers for Landrigan sought to halt the execution on the grounds that the foreign drug was "unsafe" for its intended use. The US District Court in Phoenix agreed, as did the 9th Circuit.

Since I am not a lawyer, I cannot fathom how a drug made to kill people could be "unsafe for its intended use." Since the lawyers for the condemned man had no evidence that the drug would not work as intended, the majority (2) of the Supreme Court let Arizona go ahead and use it . Guess what? It worked perfectly! ( Even so, Landrigan lived 21 years after being sentenced to death, over two decades more than his victim had.)

Wisconsin abolished the death penalty in 1853, and I do not advocate re-instating it. If I could be shown that the death penalty saves the lives of innocent people by deterring murder, I would be for it. But the evidence from other states indicates that it has no appreciable effect. It does not even draw serial killers to Wisconsin; Ted Bundy killed 12 women in Texas and Florida, the states with the highest execution rates in the country, and he died for it. (Had he done so only in Wisconsin, he might still be alive.) Jeffrey Dahmer killed 18 men here, but he was from Milwaukee originally, and was murdered in prison.

But the death penalty is constitutional, and most states and the federal government still use it. Lethal injection, even using foreign drugs, is actually less cruel than any of the methods used when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were adopted (mostly hanging and shooting.)

To me the appeal based upon the questionable "safety" of the British thiopental is absurd. It reminds me of the story about how a rat poison was taken off the market because laboratory tests proved that a red dye ingredient caused cancer-----in rats.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) McClatchy News Service, October 28, 2010.

(2) Justices Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Kennedy and Scalia voted to reverse the stay of execution; Justices Sotomayor, Breyer, Ginsburg and Kagan voted to uphold it.



w

Keep Senator Feingold

US Senator Russell D Feingold has served the people of Wisconsin since 1983: first in the State Senate for ten years, then as US Senator since 1993. He has been a thoughtful and independent voice in both legislative bodies, and has earned re-election next week.

I do not agree with every position or vote he has taken, maybe no one does. For example, the Senator opposed the Clinton-era free-trade agreements,such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which I think were basically good. But he has been right more than wrong:

USAPATRIOT Act: Feingold voted against this major intrusion of Big Government into the lives of Americans, and it was passed over his objections. Later many members of Congress recognized its faults.

Iraq: Feingold was always against this war, and today we know that it was sold to the nation on false pretenses (remember Sadam's WMD?). With American troops on the way out, the new Iraqi government is turning to Iran for guidance and political support. How many American lives was that worth?

Campaign Finance: Feingold joined with Republican Senator John McCain to draft a bill limiting and regulating spending in federal elections, which was signed into law by President George W Bush. Some provisions have been ruled unconstitutional, but I contend it was a worthy bi-partisan effort to deal with the problem of buying political influence, which is as serious as ever now.

Congressional Ethics: Feingold sponsored the toughest restrictions ever on the acceptance of gifts (even free meals) by members of Congress.

Wasteful Spending: He is now working with Rep. Paul Ryan (R, Wisconsin) to craft a presidential line-item veto. (1)

Healthcare Reform: Feingold voted for this bill that regulated, but did not take-over, the health-insurance business. He is proud of his vote, and so am I.

The Republican nominee, Ron Johnson, is making his first try for public office, so he has no record of public service to evaluate. His campaign statements indicate that he is highly partisan (2) and has only superficial knowledge of the workings of the federal government.(3) He has spoken of cutting "billions of dollars" from the federal budget (1), but won't say what he wants to cut. He believes that the Obama Healthcare bill was a federal takeover, but the final bill did not even include a "public option".

If Johnson were elected, it is hard to imagine him partnering with a Democratic senator to craft legislation, something he has never done at all. He should stick to plastics.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, October 24, 2010, page 3J.

(2) Johnson told a Tea Party rally that he would have gladly given President George W Bush the enhanced presidential powers in the USAPATRIOT Act, but did not want Obama to have them.

(3) Johnson claimed that the money in the Social Security Trust Fund was "gone", while in reality it is guaranteed by federal bonds, the world's safest interest-bearing investment.