The Problem of Death

When Saddam Hussein was executed last week for the 1982 murder of 148 people in Dujail, Iraq, the Bush administration's first reaction was one of praise, publicly commending the fair trial process through which Hussein had been convicted. More details of the execution soon emerged, however, including a video of the hanging in which guards and onlookers were taunting and arguing with Hussein moments before his death, quickly prompting a much more negative response from the U.S. president. Within days of the scene's lawlessness becoming known to the world, our nation's leader deplored the lack of "dignity" with which the death sentence had been carried out.

About a month prior to Saddam's execution, a man named Angel Diaz-convicted of a 1979 murder of a nightclub manager-was also put to death. Instead of hanging, lethal injection was the method of execution, as it primarily has been in the United States since its conception in 1977. Rather than the usual 3-5 minutes the procedure is supposed to take, however, the execution lasted 34 minutes. Two doses of the three-chemical cocktail were needed to do the job.

We are currently one of five countries that have legalized lethal injection for executions. The procedure itself involves three chemicals: first, an anesthetic is administered, followed by a paralyzing agent (which leaves the prisoner conscious), and finally a drug that causes cardiac arrest. There has been much intense debate over whether lethal injection causes its subject pain, but one thing seems certain-there should be no circumstance under which the mixture need be given twice.

Whether or not you favor capital punishment, any levelheaded American will agree that the torture of prisoners through "Cruel and Unusual Punishment" (as prohibited by the Eighth Amendment) is not in keeping with the practices of a civilized society. The botched execution in Florida should have been a wakeup call to the federal government. Bush reacted vehemently against what happened during Saddam's execution procedure, but he has remained silent on the death penalty situation in the United States. While two states independently suspended executions, the Bush administration has made no mention of the problems with capital punishment here in our own country. The president had every reason to speak of a lack of dignity in United States executions, as evidenced in the Diaz case-yet he did no such thing.

Admittedly, Bush was speaking out against the events surrounding the Hussein hanging, not the hanging itself. But compare Hussein's death with Diaz's: while Hussein took only a few seconds to die, Diaz took 34 minutes-about 30 minutes longer than the process is supposed to take. Instead of focusing on the jeers a hated dictator faced before his momentary execution, Bush should have taken the hint put forth by Diaz's blundered procedure-our country is in need of a re-examination of the way we kill prisoners. Even if our president is not open to discussion about abolishing capital punishment, it is the government's responsibility in any civilized society to make sure the deed is performed humanely.

Legally, disputes over the death penalty almost always lie within the judicial realm. But if the administration can concern itself with the nature of an execution on the other side of the world, surely it can take notice of the nature of executions here at home-regardless of any real legal capability. Even if the current administration is unyielding in its approach toward the elimination of the death penalty, it could certainly be more proactive in finding humane ways to administer it.