Reasonable Doubt
Data secrecy clouds judgments of lethal injection
By David Biello
On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
On May 13, 2005, Connecticut prison officials performed the first execution in the state since 1960. Following a protocol dictated in Oklahoma in 1977, they gave serial killer Michael Ross an overdose of an ultrashort-acting barbiturate, a chemical paralytic and a heart-stopping salt via an intravenous line. In 20 minutes, he was pronounced dead. But state officials were not finished with him: 20 minutes later the medical examiner drew a sample of blood from his femoral artery; hours later a second extraction was done during autopsy.
“We have to investigate it” as a homicide, explains H. Wayne Carver II, Connecticut’s chief medical examiner. “Part of what you want out of an autopsy in these [homicide] cases is to determine not only what happened but also what didn’t happen.”
Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism
Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.
When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.
Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber
