The secrecy imposed by Arizona on the source and quality of the lethal injection drugs it uses to kill death row inmates has been challenged in a new lawsuit brought by the Guardian and other media organizations.
In the lawsuit, filed with a federal court in Phoenix, the Guardian together with the Associated Press and four of Arizona’s largest news outlets argue that the state’s refusal to disclose any information about its lethal injection drugs is a breach of the public’s first amendment right to know about how the death penalty is being carried out in its name. It follows agroundbreaking first amendment case brought by the Guardian and others in Missouri in May....
Use of midazolam in executions in recent months has proved particularly problematic and contentious. It has been associated with gruesome and prolonged deaths in Florida, Ohio and Oklahoma. The Arizona complaint has been joined, in addition to the Guardian and the Associated Press, by two of the state’s most important newspapers, the Arizona Republic and the Arizona Daily Star. Two major television channels, KPNX-TV Channel 12 and KPHO Broadcasting Corporation, are also party to the suit.
The action is lodged in the US district court in Arizona and is directed against Charles Ryan, director of the department of corrections, and the state’s attorney general, Thomas Horne, both in their official roles. The Guardian and fellow plaintiffs are represented by the Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic at Yale law school, with the assistance of Ballard Spahr LLP in Phoenix.
Unlike most other lawsuits that have been brought relating to the creeping secrecy that surrounds lethal injection drugs – which have argued the prisoners’ constitutional rights have been violated – the Arizona lawsuit starts with the principle that the public has a right to know how capital punishment is being carried out.
The complaint argues that “the public cannot meaningfully debate the propriety of lethal injection executions if it is denied access to this essential information about how individuals are being put to death by the state.” It says that the established constitutional right of public access to aspects of government procedures means that the state should be obliged to reveal “the source, composition, and quality of drugs, as well as the protocols, that have been or will be used in lethal injection executions and to view the entirety of an execution”.
This is the fourth lawsuit that the Guardian has launched against various manifestations of secrecy in the US death penalty. As well as the actions in Arizona and Missouri, there are ongoing legal complaints currently before the courts in Pennsylvania and in Oklahoma, where the state is being challenged for having drawn the curtain halfway through the botched execution of Clayton Lockett in April.
« "Jury Says Castrated Sex Offender Should Be Freed" | Main | More drug war collateral damage: "Law Lets I.R.S. Seize Accounts on Suspicion, No Crime Required" »
October 26, 2014
Media coalition sues Arizona on First Amendment grounds seeking more info on executions
As detailed in this article from The Guardian, the "secrecy imposed by Arizona on the source and quality of the lethal injection drugs it uses to kill death row inmates has been challenged in a new lawsuit brought by the Guardian and other media organizations." Here is more about the lawsuit (including a link to the filing):
October 26, 2014 at 12:17 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e201bb079fe047970d
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Media coalition sues Arizona on First Amendment grounds seeking more info on executions:
Comments
This frustrating.
There was nothing gruesome. It was not botched, since the murderer died peacefully, but over a longer than expected time, as the poisons had to peak.
The request is made in bad faith, to find nit picking errors, that were not substantive. These will still be jumped on by unfair left wing propaganda outlet. It has the credibility of the David Duke website. He selectively picks true facts to attack Jews for every ill in the world. Same with the Guardian.
Why does the left take the side of murderers every dreary time? You should all know the answer by now. Murderers generate a massive number of government make work jobs. victims generate nothing and may rot.
They forget something. If government stops protecting the public, its Job One, and Job Last, they will be living like animals, spending all their time on survival. So they are foolish presentists.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Oct 26, 2014 1:00:45 PM
Sen. McCain, not a member of the "left," was upset about how a recent execution went. He did not think it went the way it should legitimately go. That it was "botched." He was far from alone. But, yet again, we hear talk of "the left" when the concern here goes much wider than that. I don't think SC is quite the "norm" but respond here since the sentiment expressed goes beyond SC's somewhat atypical sentiments to others as well.
If I'm not mistaken, these "right to know" claims regarding prisons and the like were generally rejected by the USSC in the 1970s, so though I'm sympathetic, don't know how far this would go. I continue to think there are due process concerns that warrant more openness: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2450204
The press can help here but as a matter of constitutional law etc. that seems the stronger argument currently.
Posted by: Joe | Oct 26, 2014 1:54:38 PM
Joe. Do you think you can live in a place for decades without adapting its culture and beliefs? Where has McCain spent most of his time? Washington DC. Not a member of the right anymore. Then where does he get his information? From left wing propaganda outlets repeating the word botched, gruesome. The prisoner was in a coma the entire time. Not so his victim. A doctor confirmed his comatose state after a couple of minutes.
Also his personal traumas make him see the murderer's side, and not the victim side. Had he seen the result of his bombing runs on the ground in Vietnam, do you think he was treated unfairly, if harshly? He suffered in prison, so he relates to prisoners. Had he been under one of his bombs, he would relate better to victims.
As to Jospeh Wood, he administered no anesthesia to his girlfriend nor to her father.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Oct 26, 2014 7:32:56 PM
McCain is just an example putting aside your analysis is off some. A range of people, who are not liberals or members of the D.C. establishment etc. felt the execution was "botched." Also, the state is not supposed to follow the same rules as murderers. Again, I realize your views are atypical, but you here (somewhat atypically) are voicing common statements, so it's somewhat more worth it to respond.
Posted by: Joe | Oct 27, 2014 9:50:15 AM
