An Alabama Prison Allegedly Botched a Man's Execution. Officials Deny That Anything Unusual Occurred.
Joe Nathan James appeared to have suffered for hours as prison officials tried to establish an IV for lethal injection.

Joe Nathan James was set to be executed by the state of Alabama at 6 pm on July 28. But the execution was delayed by three hours, and when media personnel was finally allowed into the execution chamber, they saw a man who appeared unconscious as prison employees read his death warrant and asked for his last words.
"My initial impression of James was of someone whose hands and wrists had been burst by needles, in every place one can bend or flex," wrote Elizabeth Bruenig, who was present for a private autopsy, in The Atlantic. "James, it appeared, had suffered a long death. The state seems to have attempted to insert IV catheters into each of his hands just above the knuckles, resulting in broad smears of violet bruising. Then it looked as though the execution team had tried again, forcing needles into each of his wrists, with the same bleeding beneath the skin and the same indigo mottling around the puncture wounds." Bruenig also described a deep cut in James' arm, possibly created to expose a vein.
The private autopsy also revealed several puncture wounds found away from any veins. Joel Zivot, a professor of anesthesiology at Emory University and an expert on lethal injection, told The Atlantic they could have been from "intramuscular injections," which "in this setting would only be used to deliver a sedating medication."
The state of Alabama refuses to give information that could make the true nature of what happened to James on July 28 clear. "I can't overemphasize this process. We're carrying out the ultimate punishment, the execution of an inmate. And we have protocols and we're very deliberate in our process, and making sure everything goes according to plan. So if that takes a few minutes or a few hours, that's what we do," Alabama Corrections Commissioner John Hamm told the Associated Press. Hamm claims that "nothing out of the ordinary" had occurred during James' execution. When pressed if there was difficulty in finding a vein for James' lethal injection, Hamm said "I don't know."
Botched executions are becoming increasingly common as death penalty states struggle to source the drugs used to kill their prisoners. For example, in 2014, another inmate, this time in Oklahoma (which hosts a disturbing record of botched executions) was killed after prison officials reported a "vein failure." Lauren Krisai, director of criminal justice reform at Reason Foundation (the nonprofit that publishes this site), wrote that prison officials' attempt to administer lethal drugs left the prisoner, Clayton Lockett, "mumbling, breathing heavily, and appeared to be struggling. Sixteen minutes [into the attempted execution], Lockett said 'man' out loud, and tried to get up. Following this, a female prison official told horrified eyewitnesses, 'We are going to lower the blinds temporarily.' The blinds were never lifted."
James was convicted of murdering Faith Hall, his former girlfriend and mother of two young daughters, in 1994. However, Hall's family has spent the past several years urging the state not to execute James. "We shouldn't be playing God," Hall's daughter Toni, who was only three years old when her mother was killed, told CBS 42. "An eye for an eye has never been a good outlook for life." While the family's wishes do not have any legal standing, this particular detail highlights one of the many cruelties of the death penalty.
When asked what he'd like to tell James, Helvetius Hall, Faith Hall's brother, told CBS 42, "You really hurt the Hall family. You took a big part of our life from us." However, Hall added, "taking his life is not going to bring Faith back."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
And therefore?
I am creating eighty North American nation greenbacks per-hr. to finish some web services from home. I actually have not ever thought adore it would even realisable but my friend mate got $27k solely in four weeks simply doing this best (aim-21) assignment and conjointly she convinced Maine to avail. Look further details going this web-page.
.
---------->>> https://googlechoice.netlify.app
Seems like a local story
Something tells me the people concluding 'the execution was botched' while performing an autopsy weren't biologists.
This.
Them: Botched execution!
Me: So the prisoner survived?
Them: No
Me: Sounds like a successful execution to me.
Correct
45 shot this weekend in Chicago 7 dead and we are worrying about a convicted murderer being made uncomfortable?
I just worked part-time from my apartment for 5 weeks, but I made $30,030. I lost my former business and was soon worn out. Thank goodness, I found this employment online and I was able to start working from home right away. (res-21) This top career is achievable by everyone, and it will improve their online revenue by:.
.
After reading this article:>>> https://googleservice045.netlify.app/
"Cruel and unusual punishment" ? ring any bells?
If We the People take a life, it damned well better be as quick a matter as possible. Not because the condemned deserve it, but because it does each of us harm to inflict unnecessary suffering on another human. For the same reason that torture is wrong, fucking up an execution is wrong. It's beneath us.
Then we should be arguing for the return of firing squads. It's far faster and more efficient than lethal injection, if those are our metrics.
^+10
Having trouble finding a vein sounds like something that occurs in every emergency room dozens of times a weekend. It's not good but that doesn't make it inherently cruel or inhumane.
The body had been viewed "days" after execution. I've met dozens, maybe hundreds of professional phlebotomists, nurses, and doctors over the years, all better phlebotomists than myself. If there's even one that can run a catheter that doesn't leave a bruise *days* after insertion *or removal* I haven't met them. Moreover, while I am no doctor or coroner, I am a phlebotomist (no longer professionally) and I'm of a reasonable mind that even if I did meet someone who could leave no bruises on a live person, they would still leave bruises on a corpse.
I give blood. Have given gallons, do the double red bit when i have the time.
Nicest people on earth, but they have, on occasion, beat me up trying to get a vein. And that's what they do all day, every day.
Some of us just aren't the type with nice, big, shallow veins and the poor person with the needle is left poking around like they are trying to use a chopstick to stab the last piece of pork floating around in the ramen bowl.
Again, even with people best phlebotomist working on someone with veins the size of an asparagus stalk with 32 gauge needle are going to leave a bruise, even if only slightly, the next day. Most of my draws, usu. 25 gauge, were like this, a yellow bruise the next day, usu. gone in 3-5 days. I could imagine a corpse, where the bruising will continually get worse after the needle is withdrawn, would always look like somebody just jabbed a line of bruises with a knitting needle down the vein, even if they only performed one stick (not that that's what happened here). Once the heart stops, whatever's in the catheter stops flowing and every pulse that pulled something out of the syringe is where blood is going to pool and lyse differently than the area immediately around it.
Exactly.
Y'all are pros and it can still happen. Doesn't prove much of anything. Especially considering the autopsy conditions listed regarding this body.
"I give blood. Have given gallons, do the double red bit when i have the time."
Good for you! I do too!
Ten billion years ago when I was in the military, I donated blood to myself ahead of scheduled, non-life-saving, optional "elective" surgery (yes, they do that; donating blood to self if needed!). Nurse tried to hit me. Ooops-sorry, missed, try again... After FIVE times (I didn't make any fuss), another nurse hit me and it went well. Then I learned that I had served as "first pincushion" for a newbie!
SOME ONE has to be first, right?!?!
I once tried to pre-donate to myself months before elective surgery. I figured I'd avoid the small chance of getting some disease from a stranger.
The phlebotomist told me that studies show that they screw up so often in matching stored blood that I essentially wasn't going to be any better off.
I found it hard to believe, but I didn't give blood for myself.
I'm sorry, but given this publication's history of blatant and brazen lies about the death penalty, I must question the accuracy of this article.
Secondly, dying from medication is so easy that we have an entire field of specialty dedicated to preventing it (anesthesia). Lethal injection is administered to hundreds of thousands of animals every single day without trouble.
Any suffering caused by lethal injection is the result of deliberate malfeasance of the anti-death penalty lobby, which has resulted in near-impossible standards for administering specific medications that are almost impossible to get.
Sure enough, click the link and the quote supposedly starting with 'My initial impression...', even capitalized as though it were the beginning of a sentence, is actually:
So not only did they view it in a completely compromised state, but they are coming at this from explicitly biased perspectives. From this perspective, they went in intent on finding some reason to condemn the execution. Can we trust a word they say?
The actual coroner, Datnow, seems to be pretty impartial. But he isn't quoted except to say, "James had been [according to Datnow]a generally healthy man, prior to his execution". Everyone else seemed ready to exhume every last corpse in a search for wrongdoing.
The problem seems to be those that don't quite die. There also seems to be a range out outcomes in between "perfectly fine" and "dead"
This is a somewhat grotesque consequence of the anti-death penalty movement pushing for more sanitized forms of execution. Those who do get executed die in more complicated, and likely less humane ways than ever before. Which is perverse.
I'm against the death penalty, but if you're going to do it, bring the firing squad or the guillotine.
Also, something the anti-death penalty movement should be more careful of. The final line is this quote:
However, Hall added, "taking his life is not going to bring Faith back."
That's true. But that's true of anything you do to him. This could be used as an argument against imprisoning him at all. Or doing anything to him in response to him murdering a person. A lot of criminal reform folks have a tendency to forget the victim very, very quickly. This is particularly true in murder cases, as the victim is dead and we forget our dead quickly these days.
I think we should be careful of this. I think there are arguments against the death penalty, including one given by the family in the paragraph right above the last one. But we must work to avoid forgetting that a woman was murdered here.
Or give the same solution and dosage given to great danes or horses. If it's good enough for our closest companions, it's good enough for us.
The double-think needed to think that lethal injection is simultaneously the most humane way to kill an animal and the most barbaric way to kill a human is astounding.
Or give the same solution and dosage given to great danes or horses. If it's good enough for our closest companions, it's good enough for us.
Bingo! Having held a beloved pet while the doctor did his job, my impression was that she just stopped. No pain. No surprise. No tremor. She just relaxed and I set her gently on the floor and thanked the vet for doing it quickly.
The firing squad is surprisingly hard on the psyches of the men detailed to the execution. It's also messy and not entirely reliable for the .01% or so who have dextrocardia.
I am also opposed to the death penalty but if you're going to do it, nitrogen asphyxiation has practical advantages.
That is precisely what Alabama intends to do henceforth. I presume death penalty opponents are researching ways that will be inhumane, too.
I'm fine with that criticism. I have no particular fondness for any given method, just that I fear we've had a series of moves to end the death penalty that has actually increased the risk and suffering of those executed.
The movement in general, I think has somewhat moved to functioning in symbolism rather than on the facts of individuals being executed.
Just find one psycho guy who isn't traumatized by shooting people in cold blood and have him shoot them in the brain in a room that can easily be hosed down.
I'm generally against the death penalty, but if you're going to do it, just fucking do it.
Or nitrogen asphyxiation is good too. But I always feel like there's something wrong with trying to make it all clean and clinical. If we're going to kill people as part of our legal system, people ought to understand what that really means.
Agreed. Of note: 50 states, 50 solutions.
one psycho guy who isn't traumatized by shooting people
And I'm sure that there's a generous supply of such guys right there in the prison.
in cold blood
Shouldn't cold blood be the non-psychotic or normie MO? The guy is just showing up to do a job. Seems like the guy that's excited or anxious to shoot someone he doesn't know should be the one you're worried about.
No, you've got it backwards.
You are aware that James dated Hall, stalked stalked her for years, harassed her, and threatened to kill her before eventually breaking into a friend's apartment where she was staying and shooting her, right?
Yes, but he was turning his life around, applying to college.
That's what I mean. For the regular firing squad guys who have a hard time with it, it's in cold blood. The ideal executioner is the one who doesn't give a fuck one way or the other, not the guy who wants to shoot people in the head.
It's also messy and not entirely reliable for the .01% or so who have dextrocardia.
I'm gonna need to see a cite on the morbidity/mortality of center mass GSW on dextrocardic subjects before I jump to any conclusions. Whether the tip of the heart is oriented left or right, it's still a mass that takes up roughly one-third of the width of the chest. If you've got a lot of ex-convicts where the bullet failed to penetrate the heart, you really need to get some better executioners.
It depends on who you have do the shooting. The military tradition was ten random guys all aiming center-mass. Often with muskets. And if you got a lot of lung shots and it took the guy a few minutes to die, nobody cared. The police, for whatever reason, starting bringing in "sharpshooters" and giving them very specific aimpoints at the heart, presumably for an "instant" kill. To clarify, they are not told to shoot center-mass. With that level of (unnecessary) precision, dextrocardia could start to matter. The guy's still going to end up dead but of wounds to lung and surrounding tissue, not an
instant "heart-shot".
With that level of (unnecessary) precision, dextrocardia could start to matter.
Ultimately, Zeb's right. "Instant" heart shots are not instant as the blood drains out of the brain. Not as instant as the famed 'lights out' or 'peach pit' shots. That said, no, assuming the police sharpshooters aren't using muskets and aren't firing from 500+ yds. away, a 7.62, even if it's off of center by an inch left or right, is still going to poke a hole big enough in the middle of the circulatory system for air to get in and the blood to drain out. Except for maybe the size of the hole, whether it empties from the left or right, veinous or arterial side is immaterial. Speed on the order of seconds may be a question, reliability is not.
It depends on who you have do the shooting.
I missed that part. That was my point. Yeah, if you just grab somebody (or several) off the street, close your eyes and pull a gun (or several) out of the confiscated weapons bin, yeah, you're probably going to lung shot a lot of people who will bleed until their lungs collapse or fill with their own blood and then suffocate. If you've got someone who can shoot sub-MOA with a sub-MOA rifle and hand them a rifle that shoots 2 MOA with enough energy to penetrate the sternum (pretty much any full-power and most intermediate power cartridges), at 50 ft. or even 100 ft. they're going to hit the heart regardless of its orientation.
Vacuum Chamber
Agreed. I'm also anti-death penalty because it gives the state way too much power over the autonomy of the individual, but if we are going to have it, let's make it public and swift.
I say this every time these stories come up here, but—I don't understand why they can't just put these guys under with standard surgical anesthetics, then kill them with whatever is handy. A bullet, a garrote, whatever. They won't feel a thing. There's no need for unique medications and procedures for humanely killing someone.
I certainly don't mean to agree with the anti-capital punishment crowd too much, but I could see how just giving people 50 mg of phenobarbital and then garroting them could produce some pretty cruel and unusual outcomes.
I don't. It might be aesthetically distressing, but so is surgery. Once they're unconscious, there is no longer any possibility of inflicting pain on them. Just drown them if you don't want a mess.
Maybe just unusual.
Wow, that's pretty impressive statement for the guy calling people out for being cold blooded psychos above. A 50 mg dose of phenobarbital is an analgesic for most people, walking around completely lucid and ambulatory on 3, 50 mg doses a day. I think, for the right pay and bennies, I could fit the description of the cold blooded guy pulling the trigger above. I don't think I could garote someone sedated but lucid and ambulatory without exigent circumstances. Further, I can understand the mindset that letting them swing from a rope by the neck would get the job done but admit that there would be a lot of pretty horrific outcomes for plenty of people to say "We really need a better way *or not do it at all.*"
You've lost me.
No one is suggesting mild dosage and then cruel murder.
Everyone is saying give them a massive overdose that would kill a horse using any of several dozen drugs and potentially follow it up with physical trauma to make doubly sure.
I hear that Fentanyl works fast and they should have plenty laying around in the evidence locker. Just put some in their orange juice and call it a day.
No one is suggesting mild dosage and then cruel murder.
Again, I'm not in favor of anti-capital punishment prescriptions of making increasingly fewer and fewer options available in the name of human decency is the right way to go, but I don't think "kill them with whatever is handy" is exactly humane, or maybe, doesn't definitively rule out the inhumane. Moreover, as I indicated, it will leave room for lots of more valid "OMG! That's horrific!", putting us right back where we started. I think bullet to the brain stem or N2 asphyxiation is the way to go. Seems like we ought to be able to vaporize people or parts of them too.
Purely anecdotal but, more than half of the times I've been fully sedated, I've woken up mid-operation. I could see how people who've permanently chemically altered their physiology would present additional complications.
Good question.
They sort of do that.
They give a series of shots to relax the convict, then put him deep out and then stop his heart.
One reason that it is difficult is that MDs can't participate or they'll have their licenses revoked. Similarly, left-wing interest groups put a lot of pressure on drug companies not to sell to prison systems.
So, executions have to be carried out with nearly untraceable market drugs by medical techs who have no licenses.
I am fine with that. But I'd be fine with a 9 mm in the back of the head too.
Pure nitrogen works well, good enough for euthanasia and suicide. It ought to be good enough for executions.
Too expensive. Carbon monoxide - easy to make, puts them to sleep - permanently.
How is pure N2 expensive? I pay about $70 for a 160 liter LN2 tank that will produce enough N2 to fill a good sized room.
CO is nasty to handle, the safety paperwork is a PITA.
One thing is for sure, if Trump is executed for Treason, all of the marks on his body will be AOK with Reason
It's outrageous that the state didn't exercise the same tender care with James that he exercised with the execution of Faith Hall.
What's wrong with an executed murderer experiencing a little pain and suffering?
What's wrong is that you have to ask someone to inflict that suffering.
Some of us like to think we are better than the murderers.
That seems to be a tough one for Republicans to understand.
Maybe Republicans just aware that people who think they're better than murderers will lock 15,000 old people out of hospitals so they can contract a disease and die in an old folks home.
Or maybe Republicans... and Libertarians... are just aware that, currently, we lock tens of thousands of people away in overcrowded conditions for that are routinely highlighted as providing even passable medical care and being generally inhumane.
*not* providing even passable medical care...
Aah. The Mises Caucus libertarians for the state killing people are meeting
What if the victim had killed the murderer?
I don't like the death penalty, but the use of doublethink and outright lies disgust me.
If you want to ban it, put forth honest legislation and ban it. There's plenty of good reason to.
Don't pretend that lethal injection is a horrific and cruel way to die. It's not, even as practiced, and if we allowed standard veterinary practices, it would be even easier.
Don't pretend that every person executed is a persecuted saint. Reason is notorious for flat-out lying about what the murderer did to make it look like self-defense, an accident, or otherwise not that bad.
I don't like the death penalty, but I feel forced to defend it's practice from the outright falsehoods that are routinely spouted by the anti-death-penalty lot.
Sorry, until the state, overzealous show-boating prosecutors and deliberately under-informed juries stop convicting people in error, this Libertarian won't support capital punishment.
Pretty sure I know what would change your mind..
No, false convictions are a darn good reason to stop capital punishment. If someone is locked up forever, we can at least let them out if we find out later that it was wrong.
So... locking up Jeff Dahmer forever just in case he DIDNT kill and eat all the people that coincidentally 'died' and were eaten at his place?
You don't make law based on the worst and most egregious cases. Few people will deny that Dahmer deserved to die or doubt that he was legitimately convicted. But there are lots of much less strong cases with much weaker evidence. People have been wrongly executed.
That people have been wrongly executed is not an argument against executing people that are obviously correctly convicted. That was my point. That there are cases that are classifiable as beyond a reasonable doubt - even if, say, if Dahmer were to suddenly try to claim innocence while gnawing on a human shin-bone of a freshly cooked guest.
Is your argument that because we shouldn't make laws based on worst case - then we cant have worst case carve outs? Or, maybe - 'not worst case' carve outs from existing death penalty laws.
I think I'm getting less clear the more I type. Will death penalty abolitionists be against clear cut verdicts against people who - in your words - deserve to die? What would be the reasoning?
Well, one fatal flaw in your argument.
Those that get the death penalty automatically get lots of reviews and appeals etc.
Those that get life (or even ANY) prison sentence have a much harder time to get anyone to take a second look.
Almost all those reviews and appeals are on procedural matters. And ever since AEDPA, the process has become far more important than questions of innocence - though IIRC Rehnquist in Herrera said that there's no constitutional obstacle to executing an innocent man if the process has been followed properly.
insert "even before AEDPA" after "though".
Several fatal flaws actually.
As I point out above, it's not like suicide in prison is unheard of or conditions in prison aren't routinely described as "over crowded and inhumane".
Also, whether you steal the last 50 yrs. of someone's life or steal 50 yrs. and let them keep the last 5, you've still stolen 50 yrs. that you can't give back.
Why wpuld juries convict people in error?
Is this a serious question?
I hear fentanyl is pretty effective at causing death.
Firing squads don't have all these difficulties.
State executions should be brutal precisely to remind everyone of exactly what's happening there. The state is ending a man's life because he's guilty of some crime so heinous that there is no conceivable future where he could be set free. It's the most anti-freedom thing a state can do to someone. The medicalization of execution is the problem. It's not medicine. Medicine heals people, this is the exact opposite.
Fast. Brutal. 100% success rate. That's what you want from an execution. The guillotine is an ideal tool for this.
Its brutal and ironically probably one of the most humane.
Should the executioner reach down into the basket, pickup the head (by the hair or with suction cup?) and yell "here is a murderer"?
BTW, "guilty of some crime so heinous that there is no conceivable future" ..... so all those serving life.....
Of all the things the government does for us to get our knickers in a twist, this is not me of them.
So we're believing Elizabeth Bruenig now?
Execution should hurt.
And it should be something that will destroy the memory of the killer.
It should deter others from even thinking about doing what the killer did.
It should never be a good death. No one should ever say, after someone is executed, 'well, at least he's at peace'.
Because the killer ripped someone else's life away. They need to go into darkness screaming and terrified.
And it needs to be widely publicized just how awful execution is.
Keep Capital Punishment safe, legal, and rare.
At first I was surprised Reason mentioned the victim and her surviving relatives by name, and had photos, but maybe that's so Reason can publicize their anti-execution views.
As for execution protocols, they should involve less lethal injecting and more shooting.
I'll start with full disclosure that I am not generally considered to be "warm and fuzzy" or a "soft" person. Understand that I support capital punishment when guilt has been established beyond all doubt - not beyond "reasonable doubt", and in a system where those who are part of the system are subject to the same penalty if they misuse the system. That having been said, all the folderol about lethal execution is just an attempt to mollify the squeamish about the death penalty, which is to put it bluntly, the purposeful killing by the state of certain malefactors. If we weren't so squeamish about it, we'd have a lot less trouble in getting the task accomplished.
A 9mm or .45 HP to the occiput works essentially every time, and it is instant and painless. In the exceedingly rare instances when the gun fails to fire, it is reasonable to consider this "divine intervention" and let the malefactor go free.
Drop hanging with a good, greased hemp rope works in the vast majority of cases. Even if the neck does not snap, the executed passes on the next world in short order. In the rare cases where the hangman miscalculates the drop and tears off the condemned's head, while it does get a little messy for the clean-up crew, the general mission is accomplished. As with the above, if the rope breaks it is reasonable to consider this divine intervention and release the condemned.
Lastly comes drowning, where the condemned is put into a small cage, or cell with bars on all four walls and ceiling, either tall enough for him to stand in comfortably or equipped with a suitable chair, and the cage is lowered into a tank or body of water of a depth so that the water level reaches 1 or 2 feet above the top of the cage and is allowed to remain immersed for 10 minutes or so. This is also 100% effective, not prone to "malfunctions", and has the advantage that it is silent (if the mewling and weeping of the soon-to-die malefactor is upsetting to the "hangman" or the witnesses.
And no, if the about-to-die perpetrator's victims were not tranquilized to relieve their anxiety before he dispatched them to the next world (or the grave, depending on your personal beliefs regarding an after-life), neither should the condemned's anxiety and fear of death be chemically ameliorated.
I'm agnostic if executions should be public or viewing should be limited or restricted.
So - do you, dear reader, think it is justified to kill certain malefactors? If you do and have the nutz, pick one of the above that works and doesn't depend on drug supply or electric switches. If you don't, then make the argument against capital punishment altogether and attempt to get various legislatures to abolish it. If you do supposedly "believe in" capital punishment, but resist essentially 100% effective means that are not prone to failure or delay - i.e., you lack the nutz to put your "belief" into practice, realize that wittingly or not, you are an ally of those who would abolish capital punishment.
"An Alabama Prison Allegedly Botched a Man's Execution. Officials Deny That Anything Unusual Occurred."
Both could be true - not only in Alabama, and not only in an execution, but in any government operation.