A physician uses a cartoon lawsuit to question the burdens US execution law places on condemned prisoners. As a physician, I have spent a career on the far side of a fact pattern I did not choose. This is the moment when something prescribed or administered goes wrong inside a body that trusted it not to. I have seen that more than once. It would be more comfortable to cast myself as the one who gets hurt. It is more honest to say I am the supplier. The drug, the dose, the device, and the airway all enter the body through me. In the cartoon, I am not the coyote. I am Acme.
A close reading of the nine judgements in which the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar, imposed 23 death sentences reveals a deeply troubling picture It is highly unlikely that any of these 23 death sentences will be upheld by the appellate courts. However, it is a process that can take years. As a society and a legal system, we have chosen to retain the death penalty. The least courts can do in exposing an accused to the “spectre” of death is to ensure that such suffering is not inflicted in blatant disregard for the law. The Supreme Court has repeatedly insisted that the decision to impose it cannot be based only on the brutality of the crime and that a certain procedure has to be followed. Yet, the recent instance of a trial judge in Uttar Pradesh sentencing 23 people to death over approximately five months raises a fundamental concern about whether the law laid down by the Supreme Court is being followed.