Focus On Ohio Death Penalty Drug Misses The Point -- Terribly

The Washington Post and other media have reported that Ohio has become the first state to execute an inmate using a single drug protocol. Most states use a "three-drug cocktail: sodium thiopental to render the condemned unconscious, pancuronium bromide to paralyze the prisoner and potassium chloride to stop the heart."

In January, the lone manufacturer of sodium thiopental abandoned making the product. Ohio has now decided to utilize pentobarbital, a drug that is commonly used to euthanize animals.

Ohio's use of pentobarbital has sparked a debate. Death penalty opponents contend that Ohio should seek more information regarding the use of the drug in humans. Death penalty advocates, however, argue that opponents are simply seizing upon this issue in order to wage their broader campaign against the death penalty.

Behind this warfare, however, is a more critical story. This story concerns Johnnie Baston, the man who was executed. The Toledo Blade, a local Ohio newspaper, focuses on more important issue surrounding the execution in an article analyzing Baston's execution. The TB article discusses the emotions the deceased and his family expressed at the moment of execution. It also reports that the family members of the victim pleaded with the state not to execute Baston.

This article places emphasis on more central issues concerning the death penalty, rather than on the search for a more "humane" way for state governments to murder people. The humanity of the people impacted by the state's killing are central to, but often ignored, in debates regarding the death penalty. The TB article, however, fills this void and even includes a long excerpt of Baston's last words:

I would like to say to my family I am very sorry. I know this is not what they wanted to have happen. I hope they won’t be too bothered by what is taking place today.

It is not their doing. Just the way things go.

I hope my execution, that it will be the last, that people will open up. The victims in my case didn’t want me to be executed. They wanted life without parole. That should have been respected. That should have been respected by our governor ...

I made a bad decision and I hope my family can move on and find some comfort and peace. I would like to say I’m sorry to my family. I made a bad decision.

I want you to reach out to my children. I love them so much. I want you to tell them stories about me. I want them to know the good things about me, even through my time in prison I wanted to better myself, encourage others. Remind them of that. My daughter, she’s quiet, a lot like me. Just like me.
I want you to watch her. If she talks, listen.

I want to thank all the members of my church, my friends who petitioned, letters, faxed, Twittered, hopefully, to the governor, to show mercy.

For a long time I didn’t see a lot of value in myself. It wasn’t until this moment till I had to go through this ordeal that I have seen so much love from so many people. Letters from people all over the world, and even Ohio.

I appreciate every last letter, I appreciate every last card, every last prayer, every last encouragement.

I was hoping I didn’t cry.

Dear heavenly father, I have sinned, and I repent of my sins, I pray for forgiveness. As I close my eyes on the light of this world, I hope to open my eyes to the light in heaven.

Too often, people in the US try to sanitize the use of the death penalty. It is an execution, not murder. The events are not televised. Usually, little, if anything, about the inmate's or the family's emotions are revealed. This article provides a welcoming human side to this process.

Supreme Court Sides With State in Ohio Voter Case -- But Is This Really a "Victory"?

The tight election contest in Ohio took another turn today, when the U.S. Supreme Court vacated a temporary restraining order that required the state to produce a list of new voter registrants whose registration materials contain personal information that conflicts with data maintained in other state databases. The now-vacated order compelled the state to produce the data today.



The litigation centers around the "Help America Vote Act," which provides, in part, that state voting officials match information in voter registration files with information in motor vehicle databases in order to ensure the accuracy of voter lists. The Court's ruling, however, does not decide whether or not Ohio has in fact violated the federal statute. Instead, the Court concluded that regardless of the legality of the state's policy, it was unlikely that the Republican Party could prevail on its argument that the statute authorizes lawsuits by private individuals to enforce its terms. Technically, this is a procedural ruling that simply removes the temporary restraining order. So, the case could resume in the lower court, and the parties could submit more legal arguments on the question of a private right of action, but none of the news articles on this matter indicates what the parties will choose to do.



"Victory" for Democrats Based on Conservative Case Law

Ironically, the Court's ruling relies upon highly criticized conservative case law in which the Court curbed access to the courts by civil rights plaintiffs. One of the cases involved a challenge to an Alabama law establishing an "English-Only" policy for driver's license testing. The Court held that even if the policy has a negative impact on Latinos, only the federal government could bring a suit challenging the law as national origin or racial discrimination due to its detrimental effect. The case -- Alexander v. Sandoval -- was authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, whom liberals despise. The late Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote the other opinion (Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe).



Consequently, I have mixed feelings about the ruling. On the one hand, Republicans can now taste the impact of their efforts to curb "excessive" litigation (translation: any civil rights litigation or personal injury suits). But I really do not want to validate those precedents, especially in the area of voting rights. Although the Democrats won this round, they do so by legitimating conservative Court doctrine.



Message from the Professor: If you enjoy the commentary on this site, please subscribe to Dissenting Justice. You have the option of receiving daily email digests of blog essays or to access blog material in your favorite feed reader (or both!).