« Distinguishing enhancements based on dismissed conduct and acquitted conduct | Main | Third Circuit strikes down part of Pennsylvania's sex offender notification statute »

January 23, 2008

More evidence some are afraid to change lethal injection protocols

Thanks to this post at C&C, I see that The Tennessean has this notable article in which Governor Phil Bredesen's explains his resistance to changing the state's lethal injection protocol from the three-drug method to a one-drug method often touted by those objecting to the three-drug method.  Here are snippets from the piece:

Gov. Phil Bredesen said proposals to introduce a one-drug lethal injection method to navigate around the hazy legal future of Tennessee's three-drug procedure would delay rather than expedite executions. Bredesen told The Associated Press in a recent interview that he "would disagree violently" with those who argue that the state could immediately use a single heavy dose of barbiturates for executions. "Just remember that among the strongest proponents of the one-drug protocol are people who are adamantly opposed to the death penalty," said Bredesen, a Democrat who supports the death penalty and has signed the papers to execute three prisoners during his administration....

"The answer is obvious, that when you change protocols to something new you're going to have 10 years of litigation," the governor said. "We're not going to execute anybody for 10 years in this country while all this new uncharted territory of what a one-drug protocol is and what problems it may or may not have get adjudicated."...

While some Tennessee lawmakers and death penalty advocates were pushing for the state to go ahead with a one-drug protocol to continue with executions, most are waiting to see what the nation's high court will decide. "The practical and prudent approach is to wait for that decision," said state Sen. Doug Jackson, co-chairman of a legislative committee studying the state's death penalty. "Experts have testified that a single-drug protocol would be equally effective and at the same time would be less complicated and have a much lower potential of causing a horrific death," the Dickson Democrat said.

Some related posts:

January 23, 2008 at 05:25 PM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e200e55003e2b88834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference More evidence some are afraid to change lethal injection protocols:

Comments

"The answer is obvious, that when you change protocols to something new you're going to have 10 years of litigation," the governor said. "We're not going to execute anybody for 10 years in this country while all this new uncharted territory of what a one-drug protocol is and what problems it may or may not have get adjudicated."...

Maybe it's not "obvious," but is this not a fair point? DP opponents are determined to litigate the issue until they make the death penalty go away. Better to stick with one protocol that's constitutional, weather the storm, let the opposing arguments get debunked, and tell the DP opponents to start addressing the voters rather than the courts.

Posted by: | Jan 23, 2008 5:41:53 PM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB