David Duncan Unveils the Hidden Truth Behind State-Sanctioned Death

David Duncan, a retired federal magistrate judge, has voiced his concerns about Arizona’s lethal injection protocol as the state approaches another execution. His analysis, conducted prior to being interrupted by Governor Katie Hobbs, examines the complexities and failures surrounding capital punishment in Arizona.

Duncan’s motivation to delve into this contentious issue stemmed from a sense of duty. Despite the discomfort associated with studying the death penalty, he recognizes the necessity in tackling such critical subjects head-on. Initially, he and state officials appeared aligned on three key inquiries: identifying issues with previous executions, assessing whether the process can be conducted safely and humanely, and enhancing transparency within the system.

His investigative approach involved extensive interviews with nearly 50 individuals, including prosecutors, defense attorneys, and medical professionals. Additionally, he meticulously reviewed countless court documents related to Arizona’s execution history—empowered to do so by a governor’s executive order. This comprehensive examination aimed to uncover insights into the state’s execution methods.

One troubling observation from Duncan’s review is the isolation within which states operate their execution processes. He found a lack of communication and sharing of best practices among states with capital punishment, leading to a cycle of ineffective and uninformed execution protocols. This foundational flaw complicates attempts to develop a more reliable lethal injection method.

Duncan highlighted three significant hurdles facing lethal injection: the scarcity of the critical drug, a lack of qualified personnel, and insufficient information exchange between states. His criticism extends to financial irregularities in the procurement of execution drugs, pointing out that Arizona spent a staggering $1.5 million on eight jars of pentobarbital, which should have cost significantly less.

The retired judge also proposed alternatives to lethal injection, suggesting that a firing squad could represent a more viable solution. He noted the accessibility of trained marksmen within the penal system and remarked on the importance of regular practice to enhance proficiency.

Duncan described a lack of focus on actual execution rehearsals, emphasizing that significantly more time was allocated to logistical details than to the execution process itself. This imbalance raises concerns about the adequacy of current preparation steps for carrying out lethal injections.

As he sought to interview the execution team for their qualifications, Duncan encountered resistance. He expressed frustration over the reluctance to discuss personnel qualifications openly, despite assurances of confidentiality regarding identities. This opposition only intensified public concern, especially when it seemed to contradict the goals of transparency intended by the review process.

Duncan’s overarching fear as Arizona approaches its next execution is that, irrespective of the death penalty’s existence, it must be administered humanely. He cautioned against a scenario where the execution process inflicts undue suffering on individuals.

Moving forward, Duncan remains committed to sharing his findings and observations. He invited opportunities to speak before legislative bodies and to act as an expert witness if necessary. As an independent observer, he aims to illuminate the facts surrounding Arizona’s execution methods without aligning with any partisan views.