Lethal injection doubts reach Supreme Court

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American



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.


There is no doubt that Ralph Baze is a killer, shooting two police officers in the back when they arrived to serve arrest warrants. But there is a doubt that the method the state of Kentucky would use to execute Baze is more humane than he--"cruel and unusual" punishment. The combination of an ultrashort-acting barbiturate with a chemical paralytic and, finally, a heart-stopping drug certainly seems an improvement from the electric chair or other execution methods. But some recent research has shown that, because of failures to administer the appropriate dosage of barbiturates, inmates being executed may feel the burning fire of potassium chloride in their veins--and be too paralyzed by the pancuronium bromide to show it. The Supreme Court will decide in coming months what the legal system thinks of this chemical cocktail. In the interim, it is painfully clear that science is in a bad position to judge: the kinds of analyses and surveys that might reveal the efficacy of the method have been hampered by state secrecy surrounding such executions. As I wrote in the July 2007 issue of the magazine: "Science has shed light on failures in the criminal justice system via DNA evidence and could perform a similar role in evaluating what is intended as a humane method of execution." As for whether execution is humane in and of itself? That is a question for society at large to assess.

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

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe