Arizona Advances Execution Plan as Federal Government Walks Away from Controversial Drug

Aaron Gunches, sentenced to death for a 2002 murder, stands on the brink of execution, but significant legal and ethical questions loom. Gunches has expressed a desire for the state to proceed with his execution, yet concerns arise over the methods proposed for carrying it out, particularly related to the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

On Thursday, Virginia law professor Corinna Barrett Lain submitted a second “friend-of-the-court” brief urging the Arizona Supreme Court to refrain from issuing a death warrant for Gunches. Lain argues that the state’s plan violates constitutional protections, citing evidence that the lethal injection drug, pentobarbital, can cause severe suffering through a process likened to drowning.

Lain’s initial brief was rejected for technical reasons, but she reapplied after the court allowed resubmission on the matter of its authority. “It’s critical that the legal and ethical requirements of lawful execution are upheld,” she stated. This aligns with growing apprehension over the methods employed in capital punishment across the United States.

As Arizona prepares for potential execution dates as early as mid-March, the state maintains it has procured the necessary drugs. Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes has asserted readiness to proceed, contingent on the Supreme Court’s approval of the execution warrant.

The ongoing debate about execution methods intensifies as doubts arise over the availability and efficacy of pentobarbital. Following disastrous executions in other states, a federal judge mandated that only specific drugs, including pentobarbital and sodium thiopental, be used in executions. However, both drugs remain difficult to source domestically.

Moreover, reports indicate that the state’s supply of pentobarbital may not be suitable for use, raising concerns about its effectiveness. David Duncan, a former federal magistrate hired to evaluate Arizona’s execution protocol, expressed skepticism regarding the chemical viability of the state’s drug supply.

In a letter from Ryan Thornell, director of the Arizona Department of Corrections, confirmation was given that protocols had been resolved and the state was prepared to resume executions. Conversely, Lain’s brief contests this assertion, presenting evidence that suggests Arizona’s lethal injection protocol could yield a torturous death due to expired or improperly manufactured drugs.

“The overwhelming evidence shows that Arizona’s execution protocol cannot meet lawful standards,” Lain argued. She further articulated the necessity of maintaining lawful execution practices, irrespective of one’s stance on capital punishment. “Just because a state has the death penalty doesn’t mean it can ignore the law.”

As the Arizona Supreme Court deliberates, a potential execution date looms closer. Regardless of the method, fundamental questions about the humanity of the process persist. Will Gunches face a swift and painless death, or is that assurance far from guaranteed? The court’s next decisions will be pivotal not only for Gunches but also for the broader conversation surrounding capital punishment in America.