The inmate in this story was Clayton Lockett. Why was he on death row? Back in June of 1999, Lockett and two other men were involved in a bit of a crime spree. He raped one 19-year-old female, killed another 19-year-old female, and kidnapped a 9-month-old child, the two females, and a male. According to Amarillo Globe News: "In addition to the murder charge, Lockett was found guilty of conspiracy, first-degree burglary, three counts of assault with a dangerous weapon, three counts of forcible oral sodomy, four counts of first-degree rape, four counts of kidnapping and two counts of robbery by force or fear. The charges were after former convictions of two or more felonies, according to the court clerk's office." Due to all these convictions, he was sentenced to death by lethal injection. Seems reasonable if you believe in the death penalty. Several arguments can be made for or against this, that is not really the point of this post.
What has been reported as going wrong was that Mr. Lockett's vein into which the drugs were being administered blew during the procedure. What shame!! Right? Wrong. Maybe I should note here that I am a registered nurse, in hematology and oncology no less. In my career, I have started several IVs and done several lab draws - too many to count of either, really. During this time, I have also blown several veins. It happens. Do you know what contributes to this? Intravenous drug usage (legal or illegal), age, ethnicity, gender and sometimes pure luck - some people just naturally have fragile or small veins. Mr. Lockett was 38, so age, in his case, was not really a factor. He is a male, which again, makes it not a factor. (Women are more likely to have fragile or small veins.) He is African-American, which does factor against him. I can't say whether or not intravenous drug usage contributed to him possibly having fragile veins. It could have been luck (or bad luck). Veins blow. We can't hold that against the person who started the IV or the state/person performing the execution. Maybe the person/people performing the execution should have responded more appropriately when the first drug didn't take effect as expected. When they realized the IV blew, they should have started a new one. That is not inhumane. If it were, those who work in oncology or geriatrics are inhumane, because those patients frequently get more than one IV or need stuck more than once to get an IV. (Full disclosure: When I was hospitalized twice recently, I was stuck probably 50 times over the course of two weeks because it was that hard to get a good IV or lab draw on me. I never once got angry with the nurses/lab techs. Instead, I encouraged them to keep trying - they were just doing their job, it wasn't their fault I was edematous, dehydrated, and ill.)
Lethal injection in America is not something new. What is new is the drug of choice. Since 2010, the European Union has banned the US from receiving sodium thiopental (ST). ST was previously the drug of choice either as the only drug for execution or the first in the two- or three-drug cocktail. It was banned due to the realization that it was only being used in the US for executions, which the EU does not believe in (according to several articles). Since then, ST has been replaced by one of three drugs - pentobarbital, propofol (aka the drug that killed Michael Jackson), or midazolam (Versed). If administered by itself, a fatal dose is administered. If administered as part of a cocktail, a smaller dose is given, with the intent to sedate the person. In a two-drug cocktail, midazolam is administered and then hydromorphone (dilaudid, an opiate). In three-drug cocktails, following the administration of the sedative, a paralytic (pancuronium bromide) is then administered, and finally a lethal dose of potassium chloride to stop the heart.
For Mr. Lockett, the state of Oklahoma used the three-drug cocktail. This means they intended to cause a fatal heart attack. Why, then, is it being called botched? Those not in-the-know should also realize that some people have a tolerance to drugs. Often, this is due to similar drug usage, but it can be a natural tolerance - the body processes drugs slower and therefore responds to it more slowly. Was this the case of Mr. Lockett? I can't say, but it is a possibility. We must remember the heinous crimes one must be convicted of in order to be sentenced to death. Is it not fair to their families that these people have to suffer some during their death? Life isn't fair, but we should keep these facts in mind.
Many argue that lethal injection, or the death penalty in general, can and should be considered "cruel and unusual punishment", something we are protected against as citizens of the United States. Have your own opinion on this. I don't feel like getting into that.
Here are several articles about Mr. Lockett and lethal injection.
- http://www.theweek.co.uk/us/58333/botched-execution-why-us-has-turned-untried-drugs
- http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/30/clayton-lockett-oklahoma-execution-witness
- http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/courts/death-looms-for-clayton-lockett-years-after-killing-oklahoma-teen/article_e459564b-5c60-5145-a1ce-bbd17a14417b.html
- http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/clayton-lockett-lethal-injection-witness-3478158
- http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/state-lethal-injection
- http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/lethal-injection-moratorium-executions-ends-after-supreme-court-decision
- http://gawker.com/a-brief-history-of-botched-executions-in-america-1569812432?utm_campaign=socialflow_gawker_facebook&utm_source=gawker_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow
No comments:
Post a Comment