Can Big Pharma end the death penalty in the US?

Someone on death row might have an excellent innocence claim or an excellent police corruption claim, but what is saving their life is shortages or litigation over execution drugs.

A man walks into a pharmacy with an execution warrant and is given the drugs necessary for execution by lethal injection. This sounds like a very bad joke, but is in fact what is going on at the moment in Ohio. And here is why.

Thirty two states retain the death penalty in the US, but a new obstacle is making it increasingly difficult for them to carry it out. Pharmaceutical companies are taking a moral stand. The manufacturers of the drugs required by state departments of corrections for executions are saying they will not allow their products to be employed in this way. Manufacturers in the UK, US, Denmark, Israel, Switzerland, Germany, Austria and India have taken steps to prevent their drugs being used in executions.

This has had an astonishing effect. Shortages of lethal injection drugs and attendant litigation have resulted in moratoria - an official halting of executions - in Arkansas, California, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oregon, and Tennessee. Historically, state entities do not move directly from having the death penalty to abolition. They begin with a moratorium on killing and then, when the population has grown unused to executions, the death penalty can be abolished. Of the states mentioned above, Maryland abolished the death penalty this year and abolition bills have been put forward in Nebraska, Colorado and California. California came very close to passing its abolition bill - voting against by 52 to 48. Meanwhile, the media coverage of the issue has exposed the unsavoury details of the execution process and created opportunities for serious debate about abolition.

As the Executive Director of a legal action charity that handles a number of death penalty cases, I speak to colleagues in the US who say that their client has an excellent innocence claim or an excellent police corruption claim, but what is saving the client's life is drug shortages or litigation over execution drugs. Here, I think, is why this initiative is so beautifully effective. The pharma companies are maintaining an intellectually coherent position: they manufacture medicines which they sell to doctors and health practitioners. Their raison d'être is the saving of lives. They absolutely should take this stance on their product being used by the State to kill people, and they have.

Last week, the governor of Missouri, not a liberal at all when it comes to the death penalty, said: "As Governor, my interest is in making sure justice is served and public health is protected.  That is why, in light of the issues that have been raised surrounding the use of propofol in executions, I have directed the Department of Corrections that the execution of Allen Nicklasson, as set for October 23, will not proceed. I have further directed the Department to modify the State of Missouri's Execution Protocol to include a different form of lethal injection."

This means that executions in Missouri will be halted until an alternative method can be found - and each proposed alternative method will be litigated to see whether or not it meets humane requirements. In California, the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court has publicly stated that she predicts it will be three or more years before the state is in a position to carry out any executions due to lethal injection issues. Granting Nathan Dunlap a reprieve in Colorado, state governor John Hickenlooper agreed with Justice Harry Blackmun that "the death penalty experiment has failed", concluding: "Recent restrictions imposed by pharmaceutical companies and the Food and Drug Administration make procuring these drugs challenging. We must ensure that individuals facing the death penalty are afforded certain guaranteed rights of due process before a state proceeds with an execution."

Texas and Ohio are also currently having trouble sourcing execution drug supplies. Their solution? Currently, they are turning to compounding pharmacies to get their drug supplies - effectively they are asking a local pharmacy to knock up some makeshift drugs so that the local prison can kill someone. This is clearly inappropriate, but if there were any doubt about that one has only to look at some of the results: one warden is asking that the prescriptions be filled in his name - and he will then use the drugs on his prisoners. Another is using as the authorising medical authority a local hospital which has been closed for 20 years. And, as per my opening shot, Ohio has stated that pharmacists can fill prescriptions based on an execution warrant. At least some compounding pharmacies have said that they don’t want anything to do with the death penalty - one Texan pharmacy refused to fill an order for compounded pentobarbital when it found out the drugs were for executions, and another requested that its drugs be returned when it found out the purpose for which the drugs had been ordered.

Is there, then, a danger that states will go back to more brutal methods of execution? To hanging, the gas chamber, the firing squad, or even the electric chair? First, any such suggestion would open excellent litigation challenge opportunities. And more interestingly, executing states have invested a lot of time and energy in persuading the world that death by lethal injection is humane. In the face of that, it would be difficult to introduce an obviously barbaric alternative - should we expect a return of that most efficient engine of destruction, the guillotine? Will the heads of murderers fall into a basket whose specification the Texas legislature will have to decide? Will basket-weavers have to require end-user licences if they dissent from the death penalty? I think that even the most bloodthirsty states might have a job getting that onto the books. (Just on the humane-ness of lethal injection - because I cannot let it pass unsaid - there are so many examples of botched executions and improperly administered drugs that the process is nowhere near humane much of the time, even if you believe - as I do not - that there is a priori any means of humane execution.)

The execution drug project began at the end of 2010, when it became apparent that a UK company, Dream Pharma (housed behind a driving school in Acton) was manufacturing and supplying execution drugs to death rows in the US. Now, in less than three years, the industry has taken significant, concrete, and effective action and poses the largest threat to execution within the US. It is not often that pharmaceutical companies are celebrated for their good deeds in the world, for straight up moral choices, but now is one of those times - please be upstanding, and raise your coffee in the general direction of Lundbeck, Fresenius Kabi, Hospira, Teva, Naari and many more. . . Thank you.

Clare Algar is executive director of the charity Reprieve, which has been working with pharmaceutical companies on strategies to prevent their medicines being supplied to execution chambers.

 

 

A prison in California, where executions have been halted because of drug shortages. Photo: Getty
Getty Images
Show Hide image

Is there such a thing as responsible betting?

Punters are encouraged to bet responsibly. What a laugh that is. It’s like encouraging drunks to get drunk responsibly, to crash our cars responsibly, murder each other responsibly.

I try not to watch the commercials between matches, or the studio discussions, or anything really, before or after, except for the match itself. And yet there is one person I never manage to escape properly – Ray Winstone. His cracked face, his mesmerising voice, his endlessly repeated spiel follow me across the room as I escape for the lav, the kitchen, the drinks cupboard.

I’m not sure which betting company he is shouting about, there are just so many of them, offering incredible odds and supposedly free bets. In the past six years, since the laws changed, TV betting adverts have increased by 600 per cent, all offering amazingly simple ways to lose money with just one tap on a smartphone.

The one I hate is the ad for BetVictor. The man who has been fronting it, appearing at windows or on roofs, who I assume is Victor, is just so slimy and horrible.

Betting firms are the ultimate football parasites, second in wealth only to kit manufacturers. They have perfected the capitalist’s art of using OPM (Other People’s Money). They’re not directly involved in football – say, in training or managing – yet they make millions off the back of its popularity. Many of the firms are based offshore in Gibraltar.

Football betting is not new. In the Fifties, my job every week at five o’clock was to sit beside my father’s bed, where he lay paralysed with MS, and write down the football results as they were read out on Sports Report. I had not to breathe, make silly remarks or guess the score. By the inflection in the announcer’s voice you could tell if it was an away win.

Earlier in the week I had filled in his Treble Chance on the Littlewoods pools. The “treble” part was because you had three chances: three points if the game you picked was a score draw, two for a goalless draw and one point for a home or away win. You chose eight games and had to reach 24 points, or as near as possible, then you were in the money.

“Not a damn sausage,” my father would say every week, once I’d marked and handed him back his predictions. He never did win a sausage.

Football pools began in the 1920s, the main ones being Littlewoods and Vernons, both based in Liverpool. They gave employment to thousands of bright young women who checked the results and sang in company choirs in their spare time. Each firm spent millions on advertising. In 1935, Littlewoods flew an aeroplane over London with a banner saying: Littlewoods Above All!

Postwar, they blossomed again, taking in £50m a year. The nation stopped at five on a Saturday to hear the scores, whether they were interested in football or not, hoping to get rich. BBC Sports Report began in 1948 with John Webster reading the results. James Alexander Gordon took over in 1974 – a voice soon familiar throughout the land.

These past few decades, football pools have been left behind, old-fashioned, low-tech, replaced by online betting using smartphones. The betting industry has totally rebooted itself. You can bet while the match is still on, trying to predict who will get the next goal, the next corner, the next throw-in. I made the last one up, but in theory you can bet instantly, on anything, at any time.

The soft sell is interesting. With the old football pools, we knew it was a remote flutter, hoping to make some money. Today the ads imply that betting on football somehow enhances the experience, adds to the enjoyment, involves you in the game itself, hence they show lads all together, drinking and laughing and putting on bets.

At the same time, punters are encouraged to do it responsibly. What a laugh that is. It’s like encouraging drunks to get drunk responsibly, to crash our cars responsibly, murder each other responsibly. Responsibly and respect are now two of the most meaningless words in the football language. People have been gambling, in some form, since the beginning, watching two raindrops drip down inside the cave, lying around in Roman bathhouses playing games. All they’ve done is to change the technology. You have to respect that.

Hunter Davies is a journalist, broadcaster and profilic author perhaps best known for writing about the Beatles. He is an ardent Tottenham fan and writes a regular column on football for the New Statesman.

This article first appeared in the 05 February 2015 issue of the New Statesman, Putin's war