You know she has a charmed life when she can leisurely reanimate each morning with a fresh cup of coffee and access to all paywalled media sites. Such is my morning routine because, yes, I have a pretty lovely life; however, the idyllic process was interrupted today when I simultaneously inhaled and spat the aforementioned coffee when I read that the State of Georgia purchased its lethal injection cocktail from a pharmaceutical supplier based out of a West London driving school.
What is this, a David Fincher movie? Given that this purchase and subsequent DEA seizure took place in 2011 (the same year The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo was released), I'd say the Fincher thing tracks. But what on earth was going on in America's prison systems that would lead anyone to think buying lethal drugs from a naturalized British citizen who rented a back room in a gritty, industrial neighborhood driving school was a sane thing to do?
Did I mention the naturalized citizen was born in Iran? Think back to 2011. Things between Iran and the United States weren't exactly copacetic. We were leaving Iraq and Iran wanted a piece of the power pie. Iranian thugs were busted plotting to assassinate the Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the U.S. while he was dining at a Washington, D.C. restaurant. President Obama was leading a nuclear stand-off with the regime. I'm not saying this Iranian Brit figure was a direct extension of those hostilities, but the older I get, the less I believe in coincidences.
Why would the State of Georgia even need to look across the pond for such a thing? Back then, inmates were executed with a three-drug cocktail, the first of which was a coma-inducing anesthetic called sodium thiopental, and there was only one FDA-approved domestic manufacturer that made it; that Illinois-based company stopped making the drug after severe backlash.
The same questions then are the same questions now: questionable evidence, questionable prisoner treatment, and even the ethics of punishing someone to this degree if they are even borderline mentally disabled. Rather than working to remedy the situation, these protests, petitions, and pesky behaviors were cited as justification for so-called "secrecy laws" in the justice system.
Lawmakers in states like Texas, Oklahoma, and Georgia reasoned that it was their duty to protect the drug manufacturers who enabled executions from such boycotts and harassment because, after all, these companies were just in the business of doing business. The solution: legal anonymity. People can't disrupt operations for lethal injection participants if they don't know who they are! I'm sure there were martini-soaked toasts to their collective brilliance in cloak rooms from Atlanta to Austin.
Meanwhile, the spirits of our Founding Fathers resumed their still-relevant debate: They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
American taxpayers should know how, when, where, why, and to whom their tax dollars go, yes? As conservatives, we demand transparency, accountability, and a limited reach of our government, right? We are pro-business and pro-justice through and through, aren't we? Then why on earth are we letting our states shroud one of the most consequential responsibilities — delivering justice and, in many cases, taking a human life — in Don't Ask, Don't Tell secrecy? Could it be that deep down they know what they're doing is shady at best? Might it be that they don't want the questions and backlash coming their way?
In politics, we all know the cover-up is at least as bad as the crime. We all remember Hillary's "What difference does it make?" outburst, as well as the Sept. 11, 2012 Benghazi attack that took the lives of four Americans. These secrecy laws are preemptive and legal cover-ups.
It pains me to say it, but it's true, and if you're finding yourself wanting to argue with me, take a good look at your reasoning; I'm willing to bet it has more to do with a personal feeling of justice than it does with the overreaching power of government.
I used to have the "they're the worst of the worst, so they deserve to die" attitude. Executions made the 6 o'clock news regularly enough in my Texas childhood to stop being shocking (no pun intended). If the electric chair faltered, we'd blame it on the power grid and joke that the person made enough people suffer already and simply "got what was coming to them."
If we are defining justice as "an eye for an eye," then, yes, a convicted murderer would be murdered, and a child predator would be relentlessly abused in all the worst ways. But that is not how we define justice. The pledge of allegiance ends with "and liberty and justice for all" and, in these criminal cases, we put emphasis on justice for the victim and their family — we want the victim and his or her family to be made whole again to the fullest extent they can. Well, consider Miriam Thimm Kelle's reflection on her brother Jim's killer:
When my brother was murdered I thought I was supposed to support the death penalty… Little did me and my family know then that when Michael Ryan was sentenced to death, we were sentenced too. Our sentence has been going on for 20 years and there has been no execution. For 20 years it has been all about Michael Ryan. He is all my family and I ever hear about. Jim is never mentioned.
That doesn't sound like justice. It sounds like torture, and Miriam's story is one of many. Conservatives Concerned has a collection of such stories, should you want to investigate further.
If you don't wish to consider the topic from the victim's point of view, perhaps consider the ripple effect the justice system has on perfectly innocent people who are just trying to get by. We've heard a lot about juries lately and, even if there is unanimous and enthusiastic agreement that a human being needs to die, those twelve jurors walk the rest of their lives knowing they were complicit in another person's death. The executioners themselves, whether doctors or members of the law enforcement community, are handcuffed to "their desk job deaths" forever. What if they change their stance?
People who protest abortions (as we all should) feel comfortable saying that those "providers" have blood on their hands. In all sincerity and reason, how is an executioner any different? One life is guilty, and one life is innocent? If the executioner doesn't like it, they should get another job?
Hundreds of people have been exonerated from their capital crimes thanks to progress in DNA testing. Does the government execute guilty people? Yes. Does the government execute innocent people? Also, yes. Despite our very best intentions, we cannot determine guilt with absolute certainty. Many towns where executions take place are economically supported by the prison. To ask someone who is working at a prison in Huntsville, Texas, or Atmore, Ala., to somehow find a different job in a different place and move their family seems a bit much. If we all understood the burden carried by everyone involved in the justice system, the calls for transparency in the name of general human decency would be deafening.
While it's obvious that I am pro-justice and anti-death penalty, this commentary goes beyond something so black and white — the deep and murky waters kept murky by lawmakers are the real problem. Shield laws tell us that unelected bureaucrats know better than we do at what information is and isn't relevant.
Going back to the London driving school drug supplier: I'd say Georgia tax dollars pouring into the pockets of a man whose brethren chant, "Death to America!" is relevant. Doctors who cannot be bothered to test an inmate for drug allergens before an execution and end up with a suffering, not-dead guy on a table in front of a live studio audience don't make their living in prisons alone — I want to know who they are so I can make sure I don't ask them to immunize my kids.
All I'm saying is if the government is going to take my tax dollars to take human lives in abortions or executions, I want to know exactly what my degree of culpability is. Don't you? Removing the so-called "shield laws" is the first step in accountability.
Editor’s Note: Help us continue to report the truth about corrupt politicians.
Join PJ Media VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member