Skip to main content

Oklahoma case shows cruelty of letting the condemned choose their method of execution

Oklahoma death row inmate James Coddington would rather die by the firing squad than by lethal injection. Given the dismal record of lethal injection in that state and across the nation, who can blame him?

But no one should underestimate the Kafkaesque cruelty and horror of such a choice.

The day before Christmas Eve, U.S. District Judge Stephen Friot ordered a temporary halt to Coddington’s execution, otherwise scheduled for March. The judge’s decision also allowed Coddington to join a pending federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Oklahoma’s lethal injection protocol which includes the controversial drug midazolam. Midazolam has been used in many botched lethal injections, most recently Oklahoma’s November execution of John Marion Grant. Witnesses reported that as soon as the flow of midazolam started, Grant’s “entire body convulsed, shaking and jerking.”

The Washington Post quoted Associated Press reporter Sean Murphy who observed Grant “convulsing about 2 dozen times. Full body convulsions. And then he began to vomit, which covered his face.”

Coddington is required to make known his alternative if he wants to avoid lethal injection because of the Supreme Court’s 2015 Glossip v. Gross decision, which upheld the use of midazolam in lethal injections, but required that an inmate who wants to challenge any method of execution can only do so if he identifies a “known and available alternative method of execution.”

In Coddington’s case, he contended that he had already filed the paperwork needed to satisfy the Glossip requirement. Judge Friot found that in fact Coddington “thought he had already effectively communicated his choice of a firing squad” as his “alternative method of execution.” As a result, Coddington could pursue his lethal injection challenge.

What a sadistic twist of constitutional fate.

Coddington can join a suit contending that lethal injection is cruel only by conceding that there is a constitutional alternative and by electing to die by that method.

Today, many states have a menu of execution methods.

8 states (Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Tennessee) include the electric chair among their available methods of execution. 7 states (Alabama, Arizona, California, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Wyoming) allow for the use of the gas chamber. One, New Hampshire, permits hanging. And 4 states (Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Utah) authorize the firing squad as an alternative to lethal injection.

Coddington is not the first person sentenced to death to reject lethal injection, though he would be the 1st to die by the firing squad since 2010 if his challenge to Oklahoma’s lethal injection protocol succeeds.

In the last half century there have been only 4 executions by firing squad, all of them in Utah. They include the 1960 execution of James W. Rodgers, Gary Gilmore’s execution in 1977, John Albert Taylor’s in 1996, and the 2010 execution of Ronnie Lee Gardner. Gardner preferred this method of execution because of his “Mormon heritage.”

Taylor said he preferred to be shot because he did not want to “flop around like a dying fish” during a lethal injection.

But since 2010, electrocution — not the firing squad — has been the method most often substituted for lethal injection. Electrocution has been used in seven of the more than 350 executions carried out in the United States since that date. Five of those electrocutions occurred in Tennessee following the enactment in 2000 of a law allowing death row inmates who committed their offense prior to Jan. 1, 1999 to choose electrocution over lethal injection.

The first was the 2018 execution of Edmund Zagorski, whose last-minute request to die in the electric chair set off a flurry of litigation before finally being granted. Zagorski chose the electric chair because he was convinced that death by lethal injection is “‘certain torture’” and that electrocution would be quicker and less painful. Like Coddington, Zagorski made his choice immediately following a botched lethal injection in his state. In Zagorski’s case it was Tennessee’s gruesome execution of Billy Irick.

After officials injected midazolam into Irick’s veins, he began to “gulp[] for an extended period of time,” choke, gasp, cough, and snore. A witness said that he moved his stomach, moved his head, and “briefly strain[ed] his forearms against the restraints.” Such movements suggest that Irick was conscious while the executioners injected the second and third drugs which would paralyze and then kill him. News reports quoted a doctor who said that Irick almost certainly felt intense pain during his execution. It took 20 minutes for him to die.

Talking about Zagorski’s choice to be electrocuted, Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor wisely observed that he did not choose the electric chair “because he thought that it was a humane way to die, but because he thought that the three-drug cocktail that Tennessee had planned to use was even worse. Given what most people think of the electric chair, it is hard to imagine a more striking testament — from a person with more at stake — to the legitimate fears raised by the lethal-injection drugs that Tennessee uses.”

In another case, Sotomayor labelled execution by lethal injection a “nightmarish death: The condemned prisoner is conscious but entirely paralyzed, unable to move or scream his agony, as he suffers ‘what may well be the chemical equivalent of being burned at the stake.’”

Given this prospect, it is not hard to understand why Chapman might prefer to be shot.

His choice should give us no solace.

All shreds of dignity and humanity are stripped from those America puts to death in an illusory quest to even out the scales of justice. Making them choose how they will die is the final indignity and the cruelest choice of all.

Source: The Hill, Austin Sarat, December 28, 2021. Austin Sarat is the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College. He is author of numerous books on America's death penalty, including "Gruesome Spectacles: Botched Executions and America's Death Penalty.


🚩 | Report an error, an omission, a typo; suggest a story or a new angle to an existing story; submit a piece, a comment; recommend a resource; contact the webmaster, contact us: deathpenaltynews@gmail.com.


Opposed to Capital Punishment? Help us keep this blog up and running! DONATE!



"One is absolutely sickened, not by the crimes that the wicked have committed,
but by the punishments that the good have inflicted." -- Oscar Wilde

Most viewed (Last 7 days)

Iran: Flogging still a common practice

Flogging of Sufis in Gonabad: Fourteen Ne’matollahi dervishes received 25 lashes each for allegedly disturbing the public security "The lash ruling against 14 Ne'matollahi dervishes of Gonabad was carried out. They were residents of Baydokht and had been arrested and condemned by the Public Prosecutor of Gonabad after a protest against the illegal treatment dealing with the Sufis in June of last year [2010]. According to the website of Majzuban-e-Nur, Mr. Sa'id Kashani, Mr. Amir Roshan-Mojaver-Sufi, Mr. Alimohammad Amanian, Mr. Ruhollah Safari, Mr. Ali Abbasi-Baydokhti, Mr. Ebrahim Abbaszadeh, Mr. Mohammadali Ja'fari, Mr. Hossein Mahdavi, Mr. Hossein Abbaszadeh-Baydokhti, Mr. Rahmat Hosseini, Mr. Reza Kakhki, Mr. Behruz Mojaver-Sufi, Mr. Ali Mir, and Mr. Hassan Baluchi-Baydokhti are the fourteen dervishes whose requests were not only rejected, but who were condemned to 25 lashes for disturbing the public security. It should be mentioned that Ruhollah Safari, the ...

Japan’s Internet Wants Uchida Riko Executed. Here’s Why That Won’t Happen

This week, the prosecution in the case of a murder of a 17-year-old girl in Hokkaido came out with its sentencing recommendation. Japanese social media reacted by clamoring for the accused woman’s blood. But, while the facts of the case are heinous, the prosecutor’s decision not to seek the death penalty is grounded in long-standing precedent. Murdered for looking at the accused wrong Uchida Riko (内田梨瑚), 23, and her friends stand accused of murdering 17-year-old Murayama Runa (村山瑠奈) in Hokkaido’s Asahikawa. Prosecutors say the dispute began after Murayama posted a photo of Uchida to social media. They say Uchida’s group abducted the girl, made her undress, and then forced her to jump from a bridge.

I watched Ohio's last execution. Here's what it was like

As Gov. DeWine calls for Ohio to end capital punishment, the state’s last execution remains the one I witnessed in 2018 Inside Ohio's death house, there is a room for executions and separate witness rooms: one for those connected to the victim and another for those connected to the inmate. Windows separate the death chamber from those watching, the condemned from the living. I was there on July 18, 2018 – during Ohio’s most recent execution. Robert Van Hook was put to death that day for killing David Self in 1985. He sat on death row for three decades. I was one of three media witnesses to the execution.

Kansas AG urges governor to deny clemency to 8 sentenced to death

TOPEKA — Attorney General Kris Kobach on Tuesday urged the governor to deny clemency to Kansas inmates who have been sentenced to death. Eight of nine people sentenced to death in Kansas formally filed clemency requests in May, according to a press release from the Attorney General’s Office. Kobach urged Gov. Laura Kelly to reject them.

Gov. Mike DeWine calls for Ohio to abolish the death penalty

COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) — Gov. Mike DeWine Tuesday morning called on Ohio to abolish the death penalty, citing data that he said proves it is no longer a deterrent to violent crime. “For the state to take a human life, there must, in my opinion, there must be evidence that in doing so it will help protect the public, that the threat of that action will deter someone from committing murder,” DeWine said. “I do not believe that argument today can be successfully made.” DeWine cited data showing a decline in the last four decades of executions being carried out and an increase in the time inmates spend on death row.

New Mississippi billboard warns criminals: ‘Firing squad is legal’

DESOTO COUNTY, Miss. (WREG) — A billboard standing on Interstate 55 southbound as you cross the Tennessee state line and enter Mississippi from Memphis is sending a grim message to those coming into the state. DeSoto County District Attorney Matthew Barton recently announced the new billboard campaign, which features the sign reading, “WELCOME TO MISSISSIPPI. WHERE THE FIRING SQUAD IS LEGAL. THINK TWICE.” It references Mississippi’s law permitting execution by firing squad under certain circumstances for inmates sentenced to death. Barton says this campaign is aimed at deterring violent crime and sends a direct message to criminals entering Mississippi.

20 Minutes to Death: Witness to the Last Execution in France

The following document is a firsthand account of the final moments of Hamida Djandoubi, a convicted murderer executed by guillotine at Marseille’s Baumettes Prison on September 10, 1977. The record—dated September 9—was written by Monique Mabelly, a judge appointed by the state to witness the proceedings. Djandoubi’s execution would ultimately be the last carried out in France before capital punishment was abolished in 1981. At the time, President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing—who had publicly voiced his "deep aversion to the death penalty" prior to his election—rejected Djandoubi’s appeal for clemency. Choosing to let "justice take its course," the President allowed the execution to proceed, just as he had in two previous cases during his term:   Christian Ranucci , executed on July 28, 1976 and Jérôme Carrein , executed on June 23, 1977. Hamida Djandoubi , a Tunisian national, was sentenced to death for killing his former lover, Elisabeth Bousquet. He was execu...

Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch wanted an execution that a Trump judge deemed illegal

The Supreme Court these days is generally in the business of helping executions go forward. But on Thursday night, the court did something notable: It told Alabama no. Even then, the court wasn't unanimous. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented from the refusal to let the nitrogen gas execution of Jeffery Lee proceed. What prompted the rare rejection? In line with the typical shadow docket practice, the court didn't explain itself. Nor did the dissenters, who merely noted their disagreement. But a deeper look at the case helps us understand why a majority of the court was unwilling to help the state this time.

With nitrogen gas blocked, Alabama seeks to execute inmate by lethal injection

Jeffery Lee, who successfully challenged his scheduled Thursday execution by nitrogen gas, argued that execution by firing squad would be less painful. The Alabama Attorney General’s Office Friday sought to put an Alabama death row inmate to death by lethal injection a day after the U.S. Supreme Court rebuffed the state’s attempt to execute him by nitrogen gas. In a filing with the Alabama Supreme Court Friday afternoon, the state sought an expedited motion to set a new execution date for Jeffery Lee, 49. The state said that with a permanent injunction in place against nitrogen gas, the method by which the state intended to execute Lee on Thursday, it could execute him by lethal injection or the electric chair.

SCOTUS: Alabama can’t execute Jeffery Lee by nitrogen; Thursday execution called off

After a week of legal volleyball, Alabama death row inmate Jeffery Lee’s execution—scheduled for Thursday evening—was called off after federal courts called the state’s nitrogen gas execution method “likely unconstitutional.” The state took the fight to the U.S. Supreme Court, hoping Lee could still be put to death tonight.  In an order issued at 8:10 p.m., the U.S. Supreme Court ordered that it would not lift a ban on Alabama executing Lee via nitrogen . In a short court order, the justices denied Alabama’s motion to go ahead with the execution.  Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch would have granted the appeal and let the execution proceed, according to the order.