Why Botched Executions are Dangerous Practices --

(Disclaimer - this is not about the practice or the implementation of the death penalty - it’s about the administrative responsibilities that adjoin such an activity when scheduled and taking the appropriate steps to ensure public and staff safety) 

Whether or not the public decides the legal and moral issue of the death sentence in Arizona is to be determined in time and public pressure to pursue dialogue and examinations of the practice. The fact is Arizona is putting the public at risk when they exercise their legal and statutory right to execute in the way the execution is carried out while keeping with statute, case law and professional practices.

It is the last part of this effort to plan and prepare for an execution that puts people at risk. 

Specifically the way the execution is carried out is detrimental to the safety of corrections employees who are directly exposed to such dangers when things go wrong during executions.There appears to be a lack of concern within the agency to prepare for the execution process when it comes to what is commonly referred to as cruel and unusual punishment based on the fact of how the execution was handled and perceived by the prison population that sits idly by under a temporary lockdown while the execution takes place. 

Policy is clear that the execution should be “handled in a manner that minimizes its impact on the safety, security and operational integrity of the prison and the community in which it occurs.” What this means to those working the shift during an execution are the concerns there are sufficient staff and resources in place and available to provide an adequate response to unlawful civil disobedience inside the prisons as the threat exists inside the penitentiary as well as the outside grounds where the protestors may gather. 

As a former prison official with the Arizona Department of Corrections, I have been assigned the task of maintaining a “population assessment” role and responsible for the coordination of monitoring and evaluating inmate activity at ASPC Eyman and ASPC Florence under the guidance of one of the regional directors assigned to the execution event. 

The truth be told, the only purpose of such an assignment is to continuously monitor and assess the inmate population for any activity related to the execution or its impact on the prison’s operation. The dangerous reality is the “imminent danger” conditions that exist before, during and after the execution that is not addressed by additional staff available to handle such an event if it was to disrupt statewide or within the prison complex where the execution takes place. 

The reality known by inmates on “lockdown” status are the facts that lockdown in dormitory settings are impossible other than locking the run gates and lockdowns usually only require a temporary halt of movement. In fact, only two out of ten complexes are locked down for the event.Elsewhere in the state, we have a business as usual in work assignments and other routine institutional operations are normal and carried out even while the execution is ongoing as well as before or after such an event.

The real concern of a botched execution is the impact it has on the inmate population after the facts are released and publicized. There are no contingency plans to handle a negative reaction to such impacts as an execution brings many levels of emotion into the population as well as anger, fear, frustration and other disruptive feelings that can often be taken out on corrections employees doing their jobs. 

It is true there are partial elements of the Special Operations Team (TSU) present and serving in execution team activities such as traffic control, crowd control, restraints, escort services and other designated functions per the policy but there are hardly any assigned internally during the execution activity thus they would have to leave their assigned posts and respond to the facility reported to be in distress.

In addition, if the event lasts longer than one hour, there have to be contingency plans to feed and provide essential services such as medical treatment etc. to facilitate the mandatory services required by standards of care. 

This brings me to the final analysis that during execution especially a botched execution that last well over two hours after the event is a possibility of prison population disruptions [anywhere in the state] and that we have insufficient staff on site to handle it at the moment of flashpoint when the news reports such results via the television stations all have access to in prisons.

It is the DOC’s presumption the general population doesn’t care about what happens during an execution and are anxious to resume normal movement and return back to the normal scheme of things in their environment. It is the DOC’s decision to implement monitor and assess systems throughout the state and have their special operations teams (TSU) ready for such happenings.

Today there is a brash attitude and a cavalier created culture within the prison administration that such civil disobedience within the prisons will never take place and therefore not warrant extra staff on hand to handle such an emergency. It is feared that this arrogance carries over in the quality of these assigned monitoring and assessment modes assigned elsewhere and the risks will be misjudged impacting public safety, staff safety and inmate safety. 

Regardless of self-creating this “imminent danger” risk factor, it is business as usual and staff are expected to handle whatever problems arise with those resources available until additional responders arrive at the facilities to take control and contain the situation. Should the Arizona Department of Correction take executions a little bit more serious and protect the public and staff accordingly?

A judges viewpoint on the death penalty

Chief Judge of Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a blistering dissent on Arizona's attempt to carry out the execution of Joseph Rudolph Wood until prison officials reveal the two-drug combination that will be used. Here is an excerpt from Judge Alex Kozinski's dissent. 


"Using drugs meant for individuals with medical needs to carry out executions is a misguided effort to mask the brutality of executions by making them look serene and peaceful -- like something any one of us might experience in our final moments. But executions are, in fact, nothing like that. They are brutal, savage events, and nothing the state tries to do can mask that reality.

Nor should it. If some states and the federal government wish to continue carrying out the death penalty, they must turn away from this misguided path and return to more primitive—and foolproof—methods of execution......The guillotine is probably best but seems inconsistent with our national ethos. And the electric chair, hanging and the gas chamber are each subject to occasional mishaps.The firing squad strikes me as the most promising. Eight or ten large-caliber rifle bullets fired at close range can inflict massive damage, causing instant death every time. 

There are plenty of people employed by the state who can pull the trigger and have the training to aim true. The weapons and ammunition are bought by the state in massive quantities for law enforcement purposes, so it would be impossible to interdict the supply. And nobody can argue that the weapons are put to a purpose for which they were not intended: firearms have no purpose other than destroying their targets. 

Sure, firing squads can be messy, but if we are willing to carry out executions, we should not shield ourselves from the reality that we are shedding human blood. If we as a society want to carry out executions, we should be willing to face the fact that the state is committing a horrendous brutality on our behalf. . . If we, as a society, cannot stomach the splatter from an execution ... then we shouldn't be carrying out executions at all."
Alex Kozinski
Chief Judge, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Ryan’s Doctrine

There is no doubt there are increasingly frantic administrators on board with prison boss Charles Ryan’s prison policies today and that may in fact lead to a crippling impact on how effectively these policies are implemented and carried out these days. 

Publicly speaking, there is no internal turmoil amongst the leadership but in all reality, there is a serious abyss between them that causes grave concern for operational effectiveness and public safety. 

If Charles Ryan doesn’t move to bring the agency back into legal and moral compliance of their best practices and public safety standards, there are risks that others may conduct their operational concerns independently and become political outcasts to the central office administration and suffer sanctions that could in fact remove them from office as they serve at-will positions closely monitored for loyalty and compliance issues to the person in charge.

The agency’s business is out of order and has lunged into a state of inquisition and horror. Nobody will speak out because of the implicit fear or threat of being fired or dismissed as retribution or revenge for their unwillingness to conduct business the Ryan Doctrine way.

Any sign of rebellion or disobedience will result in some of these competent state officials be brought to their knees and or have heavy boots put on their necks and forced to reverse their options and comply. 

To this date, Ryan has been politically capable and effectively push the blame to something or someone else. He has a blanket of plausible deniability because he does not 

acknowledge any problems within his agency. 

He has demonstrated to be very effective in dealing with damage control issues and minimize the collateral damage but the lid is about to be blown off the containment box he has created. 

Ryan’s circle is comprised of old friends and new allies. He is firmly in control of his own personal power circle but has weakened his grip on the institutional administrative culture that runs the prisons. 

Under law, these lower administrators realize they are being placed in hazardous positions by their bosses and fear being targeted personally and professional as a result of increased legal litigations that might reveal in a courtroom of law, negligence and malfeasance sponsored by those above them. 

These subordinates fear punitive damages that could result in personal civil torts against them as they act as agents for the state but put themselves out there by not following written guidelines and practices that in fact create chaos and turmoil on the ground where all these deaths, delays and assaults are taking place.

Each one of these wardens or administrators risk becoming a pariah if they don’t behave properly according to the Ryan Doctrine. 

There is already a sense of fear that is it clear that non-compliance with his rule could get them into alienation and dismissal without notice. Every time they act on their own, they risk a political encroachment that could be fatal and result in the loss of their jobs.