Fluctuating support of the death penalty has been a trend throughout our history.  At the turn of the century, six states had abolished the death penalty.  However, during World War I and the Russian Revolution, the abolition movement began to lose support, leaving the 1930’s with a massive increase in executions.  This began to change during the 1960’s due to the civil rights movement, which brought the support of the death penalty to an all time low.  Years later, in 1972, the death penalty was put under major scrutiny and suspended on the grounds of cruel and unusual punishment.  However, suspension was short lived, lasting only until 1976 when the Supreme Court ruled in its favor in Gregg v. Georgia.  As of today, only Washington D.C. and twelve states do not support the use of the death penalty.  This long-standing debate of whether or not to legalize capital punishment has been largely influenced by the moral and social attitudes of society.  In general, voters’ views about public safety vary.  Voters’ choices to support or oppose the death penalty have also been found to be directly related to social issues such as homicide rate, large influxes of narcotics, terrorist policies, national tragedies, and a flawed criminal justice system.  However, in a 2001 poll taken by the Washington Post and ABC News, 75% of the people participating felt that the use of the death penalty is “fair” because it ensures that murderers will not be able to murder again.  With such a high percentage of individuals in support of death as punishment, it makes you wonder why the remaining 15% have continued to argue against its use.

Of the popular protests against the death penalty, none are more noted that the idea that it violates every human’s basic Eighth Amendment right: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted”.  Included in this argument is the idea that the death penalty shows unfair favoritism towards those of color.  It is true that the United States’ criminal justice system falls heavily on African American males.  Many death penalty opponents claim that most death row inmates consist of African American males whom have murdered white individuals.  However, data shows that many more inter-racial rather than outer-racial slayings account for the majority of individuals who are placed on death row.  Furthermore, 57% of the criminals actually executed are white.  Along with the death penalty being considered by some as racist, the legal process for which it is distributed has come under fire recently for the killing of innocent people, largely due to advancements in DNA technology.  Since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, 113 people have been released from death row after being re-tried and found innocent.  Regardless of all the safeguards in place, at least one innocent victim of justice will fall through the crack.  Is it humane, in the face of justice, to take the chance of sacrificing innocent people in order to kill those that may deserve it?  This notion, though concerning, is not a question of the constitutionality of the death penalty, but rather a question for the legal process leading up to it.

In an equally debatable topic, a concern that first started in the state of Pennsylvania in the time shortly after America separated from England has been the culpability of the criminals convicted and sentenced to death.  Citing once again “cruel and unusual punishment”, the Supreme Court has been asked to deal with the culpability of mentally retarded offenders.  With only a handful of states outlawing the execution of the mentally retarded, the Supreme Court stepped in with its ruling in 2002’s Atkins v. Virginia, banning their execution across all fifty states.  Unfortunately, even with these small advancements towards creating a criminal justice system equal to all, and free from cruel and unusual punishment, the heated debate continues.

The question of the constitutionality behind the imposition of the death penalty comes from our inherent right against cruel punishments.  Although there are still several methods of execution (such as hanging, electric chair, and firing squad) still on many state books, lethal injection has become the most widely used method today.  Up until recently, lethal injection was thought to be quick and painless due to many of the paralyzing agents utilized in order to place the patient under sedation, stop their breathing, and ultimately stop their heart.  However, recent studies have shown that pancuronium bromide, the paralyzing agent used for human paralysis, may hide from view the severe pain felt by the individual.  In fact, this neuromuscular blocking agent, if not administered with acute precision, can be so painful the American Veterinary Medical Association has rejected its use on animals.  Many individuals and organizations alike feel that without a completely pain-free form of punishment, it goes against our right to be subjected to it.  The debate really began to pick up steam, however, when multiple studies were released reaffirming that although the inmate is subdued during lethal injection, the cocktail administered in order to achieve this does not block pain.  In fact, research has found that “42 states do not approve neuromuscular agents in the ordinary euthanasia of animals…however, almost 98% of the lethal injections of human beings that have been carried out since 1982 have invovled the use of these kinds of drugs” (deathpenaltyinfo.org).

The general cocktail to kill the accused involves the use of three drugs.  First, thiopental, an anesthetic used to calm the individual.  Next, pancuronium bromide is used as both a nerve blocker and a muscle relaxer.  Finally, it is the potassium chloride, the last drug given, that ultimately stops the heart.  Each is supposed to be capable of killing by itself, but if not, the anesthetic shall render the inmate unconscious while the other drugs take effect.  Seems simple, yet with even the smallest margin of error, the inmate can, and has, felt severe pain to the point that they have been known to scream in horror and gasp for air.  Many of the states that have explicitly banned the use of paralyzing drugs on animals, such as Florida, are some of the most active states when it comes to killing their citizens.  In 1984, Florida outlawed the use of paralyzing drugs stating it “may not be used on a dog or cat for any purpose”.  However, Florida’s revised lethal injection protocol “calls explicitly for the inmate to be parazlyed before the lethal potassium chloride is administered”.  Florida is not alone.  As previously stated, 98% of lethal injections administered use a procedure that does not conform to veterinary standards.  When speaking about human life, the question then becomes, should the treatment of animals ultimately supersede our own?

Taking into consideration that not all lethal injection practices result in extreme suffering from its participants, revising the already widely used method may be the best alternative.  In order to achieve the same results, with little to none of the excruciatingly painful side effects, the use of a single-drug alternative must be explored.  The first option, a barbiturate, can be given in one large dose, suppressing the central nervous system, and ultimately resulting in death.  The next alternative, a fast-acting narcotic such as fentanyl, which has a potency of approximately 81x that of morphine, would ensure comfort while suppressing the subject’s respiratory system.  Finally, sodium pentobarbital, the drug used in animal euthanasia, needs to be explored for human use.  When given as an overdose, the drug causes rapid unconsciousness, respiratory arrest, paralysis of the diaphragm, and collapse of the lungs.  Lastly, the drug would then suppress cardiac activity, thus causing death.  By simply eliminating the use of the paralyzing agent, we would be able to ensure comfort throughout the entire process.

Finally, in order to further refine the use of the death penalty, this form of punishment needs to be held for only the most heinous of cases.  As one of the only countries left with death, the United States should preserve the death penalty for cases of terrorism, inhumane attacks on human rights, and for the killing of children, police officers, and other emergency personnel.  “Indeed, the decision that capital punishment maybe the appropriate sanction in extreme cases is an expression of the community’s belief that certain crimes are themselves so grievous an affront to humanity that the only adequate response may be the penalty of death” (Supreme Court of the United States of America).  For all other high crimes (such as first degree murder) the highest form of punishment available would be life without parole. 

It is very likely that those who are against death because of its moral fallibility concerning the execution of the innocent, will embrace this reform due to its ability to shorten the margin of error.  The claim that too many innocents are being put to death because of racial or economic status would no longer have substance.  Since the death penalty would be reserved for only very specific cases, state funds would also be more readily available to further our advancements in the use of the single cocktail approach.  Furthermore, capital punishment would cease to be considered “cruel and unusual” to most, since it would only be held for the most extreme of cases, those that show extreme contempt for human life.  Finally, by taking the position of capital punishment reform, I believe we will be able to appease the larger audience.  For example, those in favor of the status quo will find comfort in the notion the death penalty still exists.  While those in favor of its abolishment will be subdued due to the understanding that safeguards are now in place for the innocent, while those that must be put to death will now have a much more peaceful option.

Although it seems simple to say that the death penalty affects those that may have been sentenced to it, the truth is the range of the issue reaches much, much further.  For example, we must not only consider the inmate themselves, we must also take into account their families, the victim and their families, the jury issuing such a penalty, the judge, attorneys, communities, prison officials, law makers, and every other tax-paying citizen.  Keeping in mind that our focus here is not the cost of the issue, it’s the constitutionality and ultimate inhumanity behind its current methods, the price of human suffering should also not be forgotten.  Until a unanimous decision can be made across all levels of government; capital punishment and its aftermath needs to be reformed.  It is the ultimate form of sentencing, one that should not be haphazardly applied in the name of justice.