The Politics of Botched Executions

C. Lain
{"title":"The Politics of Botched Executions","authors":"C. Lain","doi":"10.31228/osf.io/hv6nx","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"For decades now, America’s death penalty has been beset by serious problems in its administration, but what has finally gotten the public’s attention is a spate of botched executions in the first half of 2014. Botched executions are, like the death penalty’s other woes, nothing new. But having to manage the public relations nightmare that has followed these high-profile events is new, and tells a story of its own. What are the politics of botched executions? Officials have lowered the blinds so witnesses could not see what was happening inside the execution chamber, called for an “independent review” by other arms of the state, minimized concerns by comparing the execution to the condemned’s crimes, even denied that a botched execution was botched in the first place. In this symposium contribution, I recount the four botched executions of 2014 and state responses that accompanied them. I then make three observations — one about states’ fealty to the death penalty, one about backlash politics, and one about the changing cultural construct of lethal injection in the United States. Finally, I surmise how state responses to botched executions (or the lack thereof) might impact the constitutionality of lethal injection and prove true the old adage about politics making strange bedfellows: the inept executioner may prove to be the abolitionist’s best friend.","PeriodicalId":83423,"journal":{"name":"University of Richmond law review. University of Richmond","volume":"128 1","pages":"825-843"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of Richmond law review. University of Richmond","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31228/osf.io/hv6nx","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

For decades now, America’s death penalty has been beset by serious problems in its administration, but what has finally gotten the public’s attention is a spate of botched executions in the first half of 2014. Botched executions are, like the death penalty’s other woes, nothing new. But having to manage the public relations nightmare that has followed these high-profile events is new, and tells a story of its own. What are the politics of botched executions? Officials have lowered the blinds so witnesses could not see what was happening inside the execution chamber, called for an “independent review” by other arms of the state, minimized concerns by comparing the execution to the condemned’s crimes, even denied that a botched execution was botched in the first place. In this symposium contribution, I recount the four botched executions of 2014 and state responses that accompanied them. I then make three observations — one about states’ fealty to the death penalty, one about backlash politics, and one about the changing cultural construct of lethal injection in the United States. Finally, I surmise how state responses to botched executions (or the lack thereof) might impact the constitutionality of lethal injection and prove true the old adage about politics making strange bedfellows: the inept executioner may prove to be the abolitionist’s best friend.
拙劣处决的政治
几十年来,美国的死刑在管理上一直受到严重问题的困扰,但最终引起公众注意的是2014年上半年一连串拙劣的处决。拙劣的处决,就像死刑的其他悲剧一样,并不是什么新鲜事。但是,在这些高调的活动之后,不得不处理公关噩梦是一件新鲜事,而且有它自己的故事。拙劣的处决有什么政治意义?官员们拉下百叶窗,不让目击者看到行刑室里发生的事情,呼吁国家其他部门进行“独立审查”,通过将处决与死刑犯的罪行进行比较,尽量减少人们的担忧,甚至否认一次拙劣的处决从一开始就是拙劣的。在这篇研讨会的文章中,我讲述了2014年的四次拙劣处决,以及随之而来的政府回应。然后我做了三个观察——一个是关于各州对死刑的忠诚,一个是关于反对政治,还有一个是关于美国注射死刑的文化结构的变化。最后,我猜测各州对拙劣的处决(或缺乏)的反应可能会如何影响注射死刑的合宪性,并证明政治会产生奇怪的伙伴的古老谚语是正确的:无能的刽子手可能被证明是废除主义者最好的朋友。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信