Source: http://blarg.legalmechanics.us/giving-lethal-injection-the-axe/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 04:04:03+00:00

Document:
Yesterday, the State of Arizona successfully executed Joseph Rudolph Wood. Successfully, in this case, means he is no longer alive. The execution itself was less than a complete success, however, as it took nearly two hours for Wood to die. About 10 minutes in, Wood began gasping. He continued gasping every 5 to 12 seconds—more than 600 times.
After more than an hour of Wood gasping, grunting, and snorting, the Federal Public Defender for the District of Arizona pleaded for the Court to stop the execution.1 [1. Motion for Emergency Stay of Execution, Wood v. Ryan, No. 2:14-cv-01447-NVW-JFM (D. Ariz. filed July 23, 2014).] While the Arizona Supreme Court was undergoing an emergency telephonic hearing to decide what to do, Wood mercifully died.
Two days prior to the execution, Chief Judge Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals presciently noted the flaws with the process of lethal injection as a whole.2 [2. See Wood v. Ryan, No. 14-16310 (9th Cir. July 21, 2014) (Kozinski, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc).] Like Judge Kozinski, I will not argue over the morality, efficacy, or propriety of the death penalty. Accepting the premise that the capital punishment is constitutional, the question is not whether we should execute prisoners, but rather, can’t we do better than lethal injection?
Whatever the hopes and reasons for the switch to drugs, they proved to be misguided. Subverting medicines meant to heal the human body to the opposite purpose was doomed to failure. Today’s case is only the latest in an unending effort to undermine and discredit this method of carrying out lawful executions. . . .
Methods of execution are judged based on whether they should be considered “cruel and unusual” under the Eight Amendment. The Supreme Court has explicitly stated that lethal injection is not cruel and unusual.7 [7. See Baze v. Rees, 128 S.Ct. 1520(2008).] But while lethal injection does not appear to be cruel and unusual in theory, it increasingly appears to be so in practice. And the more executions that end up like Wood’s, the stronger the argument becomes for the cruelty inherent to lethal injection. In comparison, the guillotine—an imposing instrument if ever there was one—appears to be cruel and unusual in theory, but seems more and more humane each time another lethal injection causes extended, unintended suffering.
The guillotine is likely to pass Constitutional muster, as the Supreme Court “has never invalidated a State’s chosen procedure for carrying out a sentence of death as the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment.”8 [8. Id. at 1530. See also Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 314 (1972) (Marshall, J., concurring) (providing a comprehensive history of the death penalty in English and American history).] Although the term “cruel and unusual” is difficult to define precisely, the term is thought to apply only to “methods of execution purposely designed to inflict pain.”9 [9. Baze, 128 S. Ct. at 1559 (Scalia, J., concurring). See also Wilkerson v. Utah, 99 U.S. 130, 136 (1879) (“Difficulty would attend the effort to define with exactness the extent of the constitutional provision which provides that cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted; but it is safe to affirm that punishments of torture, such as those mentioned by [Blackstone], and all others in the same line of unnecessary cruelty, are forbidden by that amendment to the Constitution.”).] “Punishments are cruel when they involve torture or a lingering death.”10 [10. In re Kemmler, 136 U.S. 436, 447 (1890).] Hangings, electrocutions, and firing squads have never been found to fall within this definition, and it is unlikely the swift blade of the guillotine would either.
Thus, our States seem to want to have it both ways. They want to commit the brutal act of execution without getting blood on their hands. But while lethal injection is not technically bloody, recent history has shown that it can be plenty messy. I understand that lawmakers may never seriously consider using the guillotine to carry out executions, but it would seem to alleviate some of the problems we have with the current approach. Because although the guillotine may seem unusual, at least it is not cruel.
This entry was posted in State Violence.
Motion for Emergency Stay of Execution, Wood v. Ryan, No. 2:14-cv-01447-NVW-JFM (D. Ariz. filed July 23, 2014).
See Wood v. Ryan, No. 14-16310 (9th Cir. July 21, 2014) (Kozinski, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc).
See Methods of Execution, Death Penalty Information Ctr.
Wood v. Ryan, No. 14-16310, at 4–5 (9th Cir. July 21, 2014) (Kozinski, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc) (internal citations omitted).
See, e.g.,Conor Friedersdorf, Bring the Guillotine Back to Death Row, The Atlantic, May 2, 2014; John Kruzel, Bring Back the Guillotine, Slate, Nov. 1, 2013.
Wood v. Ryan, No. 14-16310, at 5 (9th Cir. July 21, 2014) (Kozinski, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc).
See Baze v. Rees, 128 S.Ct. 1520(2008).
Id. at 1530. See also Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 314 (1972) (Marshall, J., concurring) (providing a comprehensive history of the death penalty in English and American history).
Baze, 128 S. Ct. at 1559 (Scalia, J., concurring). See also Wilkerson v. Utah, 99 U.S. 130, 136 (1879) (“Difficulty would attend the effort to define with exactness the extent of the constitutional provision which provides that cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted; but it is safe to affirm that punishments of torture, such as those mentioned by [Blackstone], and all others in the same line of unnecessary cruelty, are forbidden by that amendment to the Constitution.”).
In re Kemmler, 136 U.S. 436, 447 (1890).
Or in this case, head off.
Furman, 408 U.S. at 297 (Brennan, J., concurring).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.