Jeffrey Landrigan Executed by Arizona Amid Continued Secrecy

Late at night on Tuesday, October 26, Arizona put Jeffrey Landrigan to death -- just over 12 hours later than originally planned. The delay was over the state’s refusal to disclose its source of sodium thiopental, the lethal drug it used in the execution. And while a federal district judge and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that Mr. Landrigan – and the people – deserved to know exactly how the state would carry out the execution, the Arizona Supreme Court and ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed.

The manufacturer of the drug that finally did kill Mr. Landrigan remains officially undisclosed.

In the Supreme Court’s order clearing the way for the execution to proceed, the slim majority (a familiar five names) reasoned that the defense could not demonstrate a “sure or very likely” risk that the unknown source of the drug -- its only U.S. manufacturer ran out of its supply weeks ago -- might have created an inferior product that could cause a botched execution. And in doing so, the justices missed the point completely.

At issue is not whether Great Britain, where Arizona apparently obtained its supply of the lethal injection drug, can produce high quality pharmaceuticals. The question is much more fundamental, having to do with whether this country actually values -- and is willing to uphold -- transparency in government.

Transparency is a hallmark of good government and vital for the people to hold their elected officials accountable. Perhaps nowhere is accountability by the people more necessary than when the state decides to take a life in the people’s name.

In Arizona, state law requires that the identity of executioners remain confidential for their own safety – a reasonable precaution. A wholly unreasonable precaution, however, is the idea that the manufacturer of the drug itself is also an “executioner” whose safety might be at risk if its involvement in executions were known, which has been the state's argument. Regardless, any assertions of confidentiality by the government have to be weighed against the constitutional rights of the people it represents. Before anyone can make fact-based arguments — from Landrigan’s attorneys to government officials — more must be known about the drug.

And there’s the rub with secretive government. The Supreme Court said the defense hadn't demonstrated that the drug was risky, but the defense never got to see the drug to find out. The federal judge who initially granted the defense’s request for a stay wrote that she was “left to speculate” as to the effectiveness of the drug; the Supreme Court, however, said speculation it might be harmful wasn't enough, missing entirely the fact that the basis for any non-speculative claims was being deliberately withheld.

It’s as if the court simply answered the wrong question. They asked themselves whether it’s safe to execute someone with this particular substance – whatever it is – and on the assurances of the state they concluded probably not. But they ignored completely the much more important question of whether it’s safe to allow the government to carry out executions in secret.

Vague assurances are simply not sufficient when a man’s life is on the line. The Arizona Department of Corrections seems to think that Great Britain is safe enough. I mean, it’s not a third world country, as the state’s Attorney General noted in response to what he called “wild speculation.” So the drug wasn’t approved by the FDA, Britain probably has a regulatory system every bit as thorough, right? Britain probably has the same safety precautions, right? So who needs the FDA? And whoever handled the importation probably used FDA- and DEA-approved procedures, right? Sure this substance is sensitive to temperature, light, and moisture, but I’m sure everyone involved probably handled it correctly. We can’t be certain because we the people aren’t allowed to know who was involved, but it’s probably okay.

Anyway, we should just stop asking intrusive questions of our government. After all, this is Arizona, when have they given us cause for mistrust?

Photo Credit: Thorne Enterprises