Crime and Consequences has its undies in a wad for our pointing out that Tennessee gives greater protections to animals than people in the way it kills. Anyone who simply compares the protections afforded animals (as reaffirmed in OP 158) and condemned inmates (e.g., Harbison v. Little) in the lethal injection process should walk away with that clear understanding. Apparently C&C is not happy with our just citing that fact and a recent opinion stating such so let me spell it out painfully slow:
(1) Tennessee’s lethal injection protocol is less humane than its euthanasia regime for animals. For animals the veterinary medical board designates the lethal drug combination, such as , sodium pentobarbital, to be used. For lethal injection the protocol was designed by a guess and generally by people who are untrained in the applicable medicine science and which has been shown to cause excruciating pain if done improperly. When Tennessee’sr retained “expert” suggested it move to a single drug lethal injection similar to the Veterinary Board’s standard it was rejected, in part, using the circular logic that it “changes procedures.”
(2) Tennessee’s lethal injection protocol by statute permits the execution of a condemned man to continue through the second and third drugs even if the first drug failed to render the inmate unconscious. As OP 158 makes clear, this is not so with veterinary euthanasia where the person administering the lethal injection must make sure the subject is rendered unconscious prior to the initiation of the lethal dose of sodium pentobarbital or similar lethal agent.
(3) Tennessee requires rigorous training, including certification and substantial coursework, before a person may administer euthanasia on an animal (OP 158) save for truly emergent circumstances, while for human beings only “limited training” is needed before a person is permitted to administer a lethal injection. Harbison, FN2.
(4) Tennessee’s process creates a “substantial risk of unnecessary pain/” Harbison, p.58. OP 158, p.3, makes clear that such a lingering death may result in disciplinary against the practitioner if such a result occurs.
I’d like to think C&C would have enough guts to retract their former statement, but……