8 ms·

A Man in India Is Selling States Illegally Imported Execution Drugs

58 points by coloneltcb 11y ago

Retr0spectrum 11y ago
A surprisingly well written article, by buzzfeed standards. I always thought of buzzfeed as a clickbait silo, but that appears to have changed at some point.
- gnu8 11y ago
  Yeah it's looking like a well executed pivot.
- kevinschumacher 11y ago
  A lot under their BuzzFeed News banner seems pretty well researched and written (in general, it's actual news) They do still have plenty of clickbait stuff under their other sections, though.
- sehr 11y ago
  From a Popular Mechanics article about how the New York Times works: The Times is occasionally mocked for its staid and deliberate pace, but it is in moments like these that the seriousness with which it approaches every aspect of its operation becomes clearest. There are few organizations with the resources to spend such time and consideration on stories that aren't primed to go viral—though search-engine optimization and other tricks of the digital age do receive plenty of consideration. When the conversation turns to a vivid story from Liberia, where Ebola has overtaken a particular neighborhood in Monrovia, one editor proudly reports that she believes the Times is the only outlet with a reporter on the ground, which makes everyone happy until another editor says, "I think BuzzFeed actually has somebody there." There is momentary silence. http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/a14030/how-the-new-york-times-works/ http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/a14030/how-the-ne...
- gry 11y ago
  The BuzzFeed News division is solid. There is a surprising amount of investigative journalism. http://www.buzzfeed.com/news http://www.buzzfeed.com/news
ChuckMcM 11y ago
Buzzfeed surprise aside, since the states are really in a bind on getting these drugs, it is in their interest to ask few questions and not look too closely at the answers. Which is pretty sad, the folks who have tried to prevent executions are at risk for making executions more gruesome by the state using drugs that aren't up to the task. I don't know if they can make this situation any worse.
- Frondo 11y ago
  Another solution: the states can stop killing people.
  - tomphoolery 11y ago
    If the states can barely afford killing people, what makes you think they can afford to keep them in jail forever?
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      For one thing, capital punishment is more expensive than life imprisonment (which isn't keeping them in jail forever, because mortality.)
      - TeMPOraL 11y ago
        That's surprising to me. Bullets are cheap. What makes chemical executions so expensive?
        dragonwriter 11y ago
        The execution itself is not that expensive; what is expensive are the legal costs associated with the heightened scrutiny of capital cases.
        TeMPOraL 11y ago
scintill76 11y ago
> The drug Nebraska purchased, sodium thiopental, is an out-of-date anesthetic that stopped being used in executions after the sole FDA-approved manufacturer quit making it to keep it away from death penalty states. In the recent climate of stories like pharmas price-gouging, it's nice to hear they aren't always greedy. (Edit: They were somewhat coerced by Italy, where they produce it[2]. I think EU export law forbids it now too. Still, they could probably produce it in the US at a worthwhile premium if they wanted to, but it appears they don't.) > Other death penalty states have turned to different drugs, but Nebraska had few options because the state’s protocol calls for sodium thiopental. I don't know how that came about, but it makes me wonder if this would be an effective way to weaken a law you don't like: compromise on a legal implementation that depends on something that won't last forever. I guess it's not unique, though; it's like how the debt ceiling is only bumped up a bit, or PATRIOT Act provisions extended a couple of years at a time. > Changing it to a more modern execution drug would have required public meetings, and that would take time that Ricketts and his DOC did not have. It sounds like Gov. Ricketts' ego and legacy rest on maintaining the death penalty in his state. The Atlantic[0] covered how the state legislature abolished it, and the multiple ways the government sought to twist law to do it anyway. The governor and his father personally financed $300k on a petition drive to suspend the new law[1]. Must be nice to have so much money and nothing better to do than try to obtain the right to legally kill strangers. [0] http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/a-governor-threatens-to-execute-prisoners-out-of-spite/394949/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/a-govern... [1] http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/10/19/nebraska_death_penalty_petition_suspends_new_law_triggers_november_2016.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/10/19/nebraska_d... [2] http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=175550&p=irol-newsArticle_print&ID=1518610 http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=175550&p=irol-ne...
- frozenport 11y ago
  The market for lethal drugs perhaps outweighs the regulatory costs.
  - scintill76 11y ago
    Yeah, I wonder if somebody is working to obtain a new FDA license to sell at an even higher markup than the guy in the article. Nebraska's governor and his father already spent all that money to make it legal, maybe they'll give more to also buy the drugs or even finance the licensing.
refurb 11y ago
Sodium thiopental is not used in the U.S. anymore, but it’s still widely used in India and in parts of the developing world as an anesthetic. That's not true. Sodium thiopental is still used in the US, the challenge is that the drug makers are refusing to sell it for executions.
jqm 11y ago
Real question: First they had the electric chair, now exotic mixes of drugs. Whatever happened to the gallows? How come we have to do this (if we do actually need to do this... I don't know about that part) with fancy expensive tech?
- rdtsc 11y ago
  Because we are a schizophrenic society. We don't know what we want. * We want to rehabilitate but we also want to punish. * We want to be humane but we also want to kill. So we keep switching around our methods until we got to these drug coctails. Which some first paralize the person, so when dosage is off, they could be in a horrible agony, but you know, they are not thrashing around making unpleasant sounds, so the sensibilities of those watching are not disturbed. * We want to set an example, so others think twice about commiting heinous crimes, yet we don't televise or publisize executions. Heck, I am all for fishing or cutting bait. If we are going to be tough on crime and hope to scare the bejesus of future criminals by these harsh punishments, we should put them on evening news. You know, kids come home from school, everyone eats dinner, watch an execution (with frequent commercial breaks -- "Buy Tide! For a cleaner, fresher tomorrow"), and then everyone goes to bed. * We say it is not about revenge and we use euphemisms like "justice" and "closure" instead, but it actually is about revenge.
- koenigdavidmj 11y ago
  The gallows has too many variables. Too short a rope, and you spend a few minutes asphyxiating. Too long a rope, and your head pops off. If the executioner makes a mistake, it's not humane anymore. If the executioner doesn't like you, he might intentionally "make a mistake". It's theoretically more humane, and harder to screw up, to OD you on happy drugs. (It also looks more peaceful when one of those drugs is a paralytic.) Oklahoma a few months ago introduced nitrogen asphyxiation as their backup plan. We know it's painless because a few people have accidentally entered nitrogen-heavy areas and didn't notice anything was wrong until they dropped unconscious (and were recovered before dying).
- anigbrowl 11y ago
  Because a) we are squeamish and b) execution is philosophically at odds with the rest of our carceral system. If you are interested in this issue and don't mind circuitous prose, Michel Foucault's Discipline and Punish is a long-winded but extremely thought-provoking assessment of how and why penal strategies have shifted in western society over the past several centuries.
gweinberg 11y ago
I will never understand why people seem to think it is more humane to keep a man in a cage until he dies of old age than just to kill him and be done with it.
- GauntletWizard 11y ago
  Given the choice between a reasonably-long prison sentence and euthanasia, I'd take the latter. I cannot imagine that I would want to meet the man I'd be after twenty years in 'the can', even in a rehabilitation-focused country, let alone the US. Maybe Aaron had a point.
  - MichaelGG 11y ago
    I'm sure this is true for some people. But humans tend to adapt their levels of happiness fairly rapidly, even when they predict they would be extremely unhappy. For instance, many paralyzed folks end up feeling not as bad as they would have thought. In a decent prison, it's quite plausible that you might adjust rather rapidly. Still, forcing someone to continue to exist is cruel and they should have the option to opt-out, after a cool-down period and counseling and other safeguards.
  - meric 11y ago
    What if you were innocent? Would you tell your lawyers to give up?
- smtddr 11y ago
  Because you might find out tomorrow that the person you killed was actually innocent. In contrast, if someone is freed after wrongly imprisoned for 3 years... at least that person is now free and alive. Even if it's 1/3000 people are actually innocent, that's enough reason not to use the death penalty. And even if the person is guilty, I'm not convinced killing someone is the correct punishment for any kind of crime except for some very rare extreme situations that I can't even think of right now.
- bpodgursky 11y ago
  Even worse is the people who complain that death row is "too expensive". It's expensive because prisoners get appeal after appeal! This is a good thing! Every chance to find some exculpating evidence is given. If nothing shows up in the 2+ decades you're on death row, nothing probably will. If you get life in prison, you're only going to get a second chance if someone else actively confesses to the murder (and maybe not even then). Otherwise... they just throw away the key. How "humane".

58 points by coloneltcb 11y ago

A surprisingly well written article, by buzzfeed standards. I always thought of buzzfeed as a clickbait silo, but that appears to have changed at some point.

gnu8 11y ago
Yeah it's looking like a well executed pivot.
kevinschumacher 11y ago
A lot under their BuzzFeed News banner seems pretty well researched and written (in general, it's actual news) They do still have plenty of clickbait stuff under their other sections, though.
sehr 11y ago
From a Popular Mechanics article about how the New York Times works: The Times is occasionally mocked for its staid and deliberate pace, but it is in moments like these that the seriousness with which it approaches every aspect of its operation becomes clearest. There are few organizations with the resources to spend such time and consideration on stories that aren't primed to go viral—though search-engine optimization and other tricks of the digital age do receive plenty of consideration. When the conversation turns to a vivid story from Liberia, where Ebola has overtaken a particular neighborhood in Monrovia, one editor proudly reports that she believes the Times is the only outlet with a reporter on the ground, which makes everyone happy until another editor says, "I think BuzzFeed actually has somebody there." There is momentary silence. http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/a14030/how-the-new-york-times-works/ http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/a14030/how-the-ne...
gry 11y ago
The BuzzFeed News division is solid. There is a surprising amount of investigative journalism. http://www.buzzfeed.com/news http://www.buzzfeed.com/news

ChuckMcM 11y ago

Buzzfeed surprise aside, since the states are really in a bind on getting these drugs, it is in their interest to ask few questions and not look too closely at the answers. Which is pretty sad, the folks who have tried to prevent executions are at risk for making executions more gruesome by the state using drugs that aren't up to the task. I don't know if they can make this situation any worse.

Frondo 11y ago
Another solution: the states can stop killing people.
- tomphoolery 11y ago
  If the states can barely afford killing people, what makes you think they can afford to keep them in jail forever?
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    For one thing, capital punishment is more expensive than life imprisonment (which isn't keeping them in jail forever, because mortality.)
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      That's surprising to me. Bullets are cheap. What makes chemical executions so expensive?
      - dragonwriter 11y ago
        The execution itself is not that expensive; what is expensive are the legal costs associated with the heightened scrutiny of capital cases.
        TeMPOraL 11y ago

scintill76 11y ago

> The drug Nebraska purchased, sodium thiopental, is an out-of-date anesthetic that stopped being used in executions after the sole FDA-approved manufacturer quit making it to keep it away from death penalty states. In the recent climate of stories like pharmas price-gouging, it's nice to hear they aren't always greedy. (Edit: They were somewhat coerced by Italy, where they produce it[2]. I think EU export law forbids it now too. Still, they could probably produce it in the US at a worthwhile premium if they wanted to, but it appears they don't.) > Other death penalty states have turned to different drugs, but Nebraska had few options because the state’s protocol calls for sodium thiopental. I don't know how that came about, but it makes me wonder if this would be an effective way to weaken a law you don't like: compromise on a legal implementation that depends on something that won't last forever. I guess it's not unique, though; it's like how the debt ceiling is only bumped up a bit, or PATRIOT Act provisions extended a couple of years at a time. > Changing it to a more modern execution drug would have required public meetings, and that would take time that Ricketts and his DOC did not have. It sounds like Gov. Ricketts' ego and legacy rest on maintaining the death penalty in his state. The Atlantic[0] covered how the state legislature abolished it, and the multiple ways the government sought to twist law to do it anyway. The governor and his father personally financed $300k on a petition drive to suspend the new law[1]. Must be nice to have so much money and nothing better to do than try to obtain the right to legally kill strangers. [0] http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/a-governor-threatens-to-execute-prisoners-out-of-spite/394949/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/a-govern... [1] http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/10/19/nebraska_death_penalty_petition_suspends_new_law_triggers_november_2016.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/10/19/nebraska_d... [2] http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=175550&p=irol-newsArticle_print&ID=1518610 http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=175550&p=irol-ne...

frozenport 11y ago
The market for lethal drugs perhaps outweighs the regulatory costs.
- scintill76 11y ago
  Yeah, I wonder if somebody is working to obtain a new FDA license to sell at an even higher markup than the guy in the article. Nebraska's governor and his father already spent all that money to make it legal, maybe they'll give more to also buy the drugs or even finance the licensing.

refurb 11y ago

Sodium thiopental is not used in the U.S. anymore, but it’s still widely used in India and in parts of the developing world as an anesthetic. That's not true. Sodium thiopental is still used in the US, the challenge is that the drug makers are refusing to sell it for executions.

jqm 11y ago

Real question: First they had the electric chair, now exotic mixes of drugs. Whatever happened to the gallows? How come we have to do this (if we do actually need to do this... I don't know about that part) with fancy expensive tech?

rdtsc 11y ago
Because we are a schizophrenic society. We don't know what we want. * We want to rehabilitate but we also want to punish. * We want to be humane but we also want to kill. So we keep switching around our methods until we got to these drug coctails. Which some first paralize the person, so when dosage is off, they could be in a horrible agony, but you know, they are not thrashing around making unpleasant sounds, so the sensibilities of those watching are not disturbed. * We want to set an example, so others think twice about commiting heinous crimes, yet we don't televise or publisize executions. Heck, I am all for fishing or cutting bait. If we are going to be tough on crime and hope to scare the bejesus of future criminals by these harsh punishments, we should put them on evening news. You know, kids come home from school, everyone eats dinner, watch an execution (with frequent commercial breaks -- "Buy Tide! For a cleaner, fresher tomorrow"), and then everyone goes to bed. * We say it is not about revenge and we use euphemisms like "justice" and "closure" instead, but it actually is about revenge.
koenigdavidmj 11y ago
The gallows has too many variables. Too short a rope, and you spend a few minutes asphyxiating. Too long a rope, and your head pops off. If the executioner makes a mistake, it's not humane anymore. If the executioner doesn't like you, he might intentionally "make a mistake". It's theoretically more humane, and harder to screw up, to OD you on happy drugs. (It also looks more peaceful when one of those drugs is a paralytic.) Oklahoma a few months ago introduced nitrogen asphyxiation as their backup plan. We know it's painless because a few people have accidentally entered nitrogen-heavy areas and didn't notice anything was wrong until they dropped unconscious (and were recovered before dying).
anigbrowl 11y ago
Because a) we are squeamish and b) execution is philosophically at odds with the rest of our carceral system. If you are interested in this issue and don't mind circuitous prose, Michel Foucault's Discipline and Punish is a long-winded but extremely thought-provoking assessment of how and why penal strategies have shifted in western society over the past several centuries.

gweinberg 11y ago

I will never understand why people seem to think it is more humane to keep a man in a cage until he dies of old age than just to kill him and be done with it.

GauntletWizard 11y ago
Given the choice between a reasonably-long prison sentence and euthanasia, I'd take the latter. I cannot imagine that I would want to meet the man I'd be after twenty years in 'the can', even in a rehabilitation-focused country, let alone the US. Maybe Aaron had a point.
- MichaelGG 11y ago
  I'm sure this is true for some people. But humans tend to adapt their levels of happiness fairly rapidly, even when they predict they would be extremely unhappy. For instance, many paralyzed folks end up feeling not as bad as they would have thought. In a decent prison, it's quite plausible that you might adjust rather rapidly. Still, forcing someone to continue to exist is cruel and they should have the option to opt-out, after a cool-down period and counseling and other safeguards.
- meric 11y ago
  What if you were innocent? Would you tell your lawyers to give up?
smtddr 11y ago
Because you might find out tomorrow that the person you killed was actually innocent. In contrast, if someone is freed after wrongly imprisoned for 3 years... at least that person is now free and alive. Even if it's 1/3000 people are actually innocent, that's enough reason not to use the death penalty. And even if the person is guilty, I'm not convinced killing someone is the correct punishment for any kind of crime except for some very rare extreme situations that I can't even think of right now.
bpodgursky 11y ago
Even worse is the people who complain that death row is "too expensive". It's expensive because prisoners get appeal after appeal! This is a good thing! Every chance to find some exculpating evidence is given. If nothing shows up in the 2+ decades you're on death row, nothing probably will. If you get life in prison, you're only going to get a second chance if someone else actively confesses to the murder (and maybe not even then). Otherwise... they just throw away the key. How "humane".