Alabama's Governor Calls for a Moratorium on Executions in the State
While the pause comes as a relief to those opposed to the death penalty, Ivey's full-throated defense of the practice makes it clear that she seeks only a temporary pause in executions, not an end to the policy.

On Monday, Alabama Governor Kay Ivey (R) announced that she was seeking a moratorium on executions in the state, following the third botched lethal injection execution in recent months. While Ivey is still a stringent supporter of the state's death penalty, this pause in executions will likely continue until an internal investigation into the state's practices is concluded.
In a press release sent Monday, Ivey wrote that she had requested that Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall withdraw pending motions attempting to schedule the execution dates of two inmates, as well as requested that he refrain from scheduling additional executions until the state's Department of Corrections can conduct a "top-to-bottom review of the state's execution process."
Over the past several months, Alabama has faced an unusually high number of unsuccessful attempts at lethal injection executions. The state has attempted to execute three men, each with considerable difficulty locating the inmate's veins. While the state did successfully execute Joe Nathan James in July, they did so only after a three-hour delay. While the state remains tight-lipped on what exactly happened, an investigation published in The Atlantic argued that the state likely spent hours jabbing James with needles, possibly resorting to physically cutting his arm open in an attempt to find a vein. Following James' death, two more men—Kenneth Eugene Smith and Alan Eugene Miller—had their executions halted after prison officials were unable to successfully place a line for the lethal injection.
These attempted executions have brought increased scrutiny to the state's prison system, apparently motivating Ivey to call for the moratorium. However, anti-death penalty advocates should not mistake Ivey's pause on executions to mean she no longer approves of the practice.
"For the sake of the victims and their families, we've got to get this right," Ivey wrote in Monday's press release. "I don't buy for a second the narrative being pushed by activists that these issues are the fault of the folks at Corrections or anyone in law enforcement, for that matter. I believe that legal tactics and criminals hijacking the system are at play here."
In her statement, Ivey further emphasizes that the review of execution practices will be to make Alabama better at killing death row inmates—seemingly to help victims' families—writing "I simply cannot, in good conscience, bring another victim's family to Holman [Correctional Facility] looking for justice and closure, until I am confident that we can carry out the legal sentence."
However, Ivey forgets that crime victims' families are not universally in favor of the death penalty. In fact, the family of Joe Nathan James' victim were in fact deeply opposed to his execution and called on the state to spare him. Like other politicians favoring the death penalty, Ivey relies on concern for victims' families only when they agree with the state's goal: killing death row inmates. When they disagree with the government's desires, they seem to not exist.
While Alabama's moratorium on executions comes as a welcome reprieve for those opposed to the death penalty—Ivey's continued support for the practice makes it clear that she seeks only a temporary pause in executions, not an end to the policy.
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
There are people that deserve to die
Eventually that will be all people.
I get paid over 190$ per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing..
HERE====)> http://WWW.RICHSALARIES.COM
I would think that if you oppose killing people, then you'd oppose both the death penalty and abortion. Or if you support killing people you'd support both. But for some odd reason most people support one and not the other.
The thought process can be more complex than expected.
How would you know anything about thought processes?
Nice reply, mr. “Rational Debate”.
I'll be happy to have a rational debate with you as soon as you make a comment that isn't some sort of a snipe. Right after I get off the phone with Guinness.
The guy whose first comment of just about every thread is an unprovoked attack on other commenters whines about "sniping" as if he is here for respectful discussion. There is no standard sarc judges others by that he applies to himself. Not one.
Wow, such an original concept! You're so clever to share this apparent contradiction!
And you're so clever to sarcastically call me stupid rather than address what I said!
I suspect you've heard people actually clarify how they can hold a consistent position on this issue before. It's not that hard. I'll even bet, if you had NEVER heard this because you live in a hole deep underground, far from other humans, you could imagine how people justify holding both positions while maintaining a consistent principle. It doesn't take a genius to imagine what positions a person might take on those two issues and how they're different.
Therefore, me telling you one more time that there does exist a principled ground people can stand on to argue these two positions is pointless, since your comment is pure mockery and stale tripe. It's not that you're stupid, it's that you're banal. Repetitive. Uninspired.
Nice tirade against me as a person while ignoring what I actually said. You're getting good at this. Not as good as the pathological liars on this board, but pretty close.
Dude never heard of a Cuban sandwhich so the live under a rock might not be far off
And you’re so clever to sarcastically call me stupid rather than address what I said!
He addressed what you said. He called it unoriginal (sarcastically). You assumed that you’re stupid. Which is in line with your original statement. If you ascribe no value to human action between (pre-)birth and death, there’s no reason to support or oppose completely random killings one way or the other. A Thinking Mind’s killing you for being stupid is as good or bad as any other reason. You were going to die anyway.
So, all the same if you ignore (or deny) any sense of guilt or innocence?
I don't understand what you're saying.
Those who oppose abortion say it's wrong because it snuffs out innocent lives. Those who oppose the death penalty say the same thing. Yet I don't see many people who oppose both for that same reason.
That is not a fair representation. Those who oppose abortion do say that it's wrong because it ends innocent lives. But those who support abortion don't concede that there is actually a "life" (innocent or otherwise) to be affected yet. On the other hand, those who oppose the death penalty do so on grounds that rarely have anything to do with innocence. Most death penalty opponents argue that killing even the guilty is wrong.
But those who support abortion don’t concede that there is actually a “life” (innocent or otherwise) to be affected yet.
Yep. Which is why there can be no rational debate on the subject, since one insists there is a life while the other insists there is not.
Most death penalty opponents argue that killing even the guilty is wrong.
Most of the opponents I've seen argue one of two things: that the state shouldn't have that power, or that letting guilty people live is better than putting innocent people to death.
I don't know if it's "insists" as much as "assumes". Rational debate is possible but it has to start with agreement on the definitions. The problem with the abortion debate is that too many folks skipped right past that part.
I'm agreeing with you. Since the two sides can't agree on definitions of basic things like "life," rational debate is not possible.
Those are not the same things.
Those who oppose abortion say it’s wrong because it snuffs out innocent lives. Those who oppose the death penalty say the same thing. Yet I don’t see many people who oppose both for that same reason.
Note how he lies (that the guilty are nevertheless "innocent lives") so he can impugn those he hates. He does this all while whining that others misrepresent him. As we have seen there is no standard sarc judges others by that he also holds himself to. Not one.
Innocent people are found guilty all the time because people like you who would knowingly put an innocent person to death if the alternative was admitting to being wrong.
people like you who would knowingly put an innocent person to death
I'm shocked to see sarc lying about what other people believe. Shocked.
After all there's not one standard sarc applies to others that he also holds himself to. Not one. So who could have seen that coming?
But for those who are capable of following logic referring to the entire group sentenced to death as innocent is false unless you believe literally every single person is innocent. The only people who assert this are those who believe it is less stupid than not understanding basic logic.
But for those who are capable of following logic
That would exclude you.
referring to the entire group sentenced to death as innocent
That's not what I said, so everything that follows is a logical fallacy based upon a false premise. Logic fail.
Innocent people are put to death by the system. It happens. Why? Because of hateful people who are incapable of admitting to being wrong. People such as yourself.
To oppose the death penalty because it puts innocent people to death isn't saying that every person put to death is innocent. You have to thumb your nose at logic to conclude that. No, it means that some innocent people are put to death, and it would be better to let guilty people live than to execute people who are innocent.
That’s not what I said,
It's interesting he tries to establish this in the very comment he makes up what other people believe. So in one sentence he tacitly admits what other people actually say is completely irrelevant (because he makes up what he wishes were true), then in the next sentence he acts as if his own words are sacrosanct. This is his core essence: his treatment of others is subject to no standard at all even as he lies about how others treat him.
This is the nature of his trolling as he bragged about and has proven to be every day since. He's only here to be an asshole to everyone else which is why he doesn't care about his hypocrisy. An honest commenter would at least try principled analysis. Sarc doesn't because trolling is a game. He applies not one single consistent principle or standard. Not one.
i>Innocent people are put to death by the system. It happens. Why? Because of hateful people who are incapable of admitting to being wrong. People such as yourself.
It's interesting he continues to lie as though his own accusations establish reality rather than reality being an independent existence.
No one who opposed the death penalty does so out of concern about it 'snuffing out innocent lives'.
You should read what you write before you hit 'submit'. Read it twice.
Lots of people oppose the death penalty because they don't want wrongfully convicted (ie innocent) people to be put to death.
At least one (ostensibly) is about killing people who have violated the most sacred societal trust.
Incentives matter.
No where is there an incentive to let innocent people go. Quite the opposite.
Cops look bad when crimes go unsolved. So they have an incentive to catch someone, regardless of if they did it or not.
Prosecutors look good when they get convictions. So they have an incentive to prosecute people to the end, even if they know the person is innocent.
To reach the conclusion both should be treated the same you have to believe guilt or innocence is irrelevant. That's pretty a pretty revealing position.
Thing is - these are not the same things.
That you can't see the difference, coupled with today's demonstrated lack of knowledge of both how immunization and the English language work, show a lot about your lack of intelligence.
Ohhhhhhh, I get it. You're saying that I'm wrong about how vaccines work because what I said disagrees with what you read in the dictionary? Well golly gee. Thank you mister language police. I bet you think anyone who calls a smart phone a "telephone" doesn't understand the language because smart phones don't plug into the telephone lines.
Wait, *now* you say the dictionary isn't authoritative but your totally made up explanation of how immunization works is?
One of these things is not like the other, as the song says.
shemale saint etienne is fauvorite web platform for lonley guys to find hot ladies for casual contacts in France
I’ve made $1250 so far this week working online and I’m a full time student. I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’AM made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Here’s what I do for more information simply.
Open this link thank you..............>>> onlinecareer1
I am opposed to capital punishment on the grounds of Inherent Fallibility. No matter how good our justice system is, it will inevitably make at least some mistakes if only because it is run by fallible humans. When society makes a mistake and jails someone for a crime they did not commit, we can at least throw money at them to try to make up for the mistake. When society executes someone for a crime they did not commit, we have no opportunity to make it right. No matter how strongly I believe that X committed the crime and deserves to die, the chance that I'm wrong argues for life imprisonment instead.
All that said, if you're going to execute someone, do it properly.
Properly in this context means inflict no greater pain than the criminal inflicted on the victim(s). Properly also means that we should minimize psychological harms to the executioners. Lethal injection as currently practiced does not meet those criteria. It's inefficient and when it fails it burdens those assigned to carry out the executions. Firing squads are far more reliable, though harder on the executioners. Ditto for hangings. Nitrogen asphyxiation, on the other hand, is simple and highly reliable. I really don't understand why states with the death penalty continue to use the same problematic protocols.
No matter how good our justice system is, it will inevitably make at least some mistakes if only because it is run by fallible humans.
It's worse than that. Prosecutors know that executing people is good for their career, and cops will never admit to catching the wrong guy. So both of them have an incentive to intentionally put innocent people to death.
So, you're pro-abortion but anti-death penalty and you think the people who are the opposite have it wrong?
No. That's not at all what I said. But I know better than to argue with someone who will correct me and call me a liar when I disagree with what they declare my beliefs to be.
I know better than to argue with someone who will correct me and call me a liar when I disagree with what they declare my beliefs to be.
It's so weird he whines about this and then does it to others in the very same thread as if people can't read. We do know there is not a single standard he judges others by that he also holds himself to. Not one. But you'd think maintaining a shred of credibility would make him hide it a little better.
So you're trying to take over for JesseAz by dropping a personal attack onto every one of my comments. How cute. I would suggest you find a role model who isn't an insufferable liar, but you do you.
It's interesting he pretends my criticism of his hypocrisy is a personal attack. By this standard any criticism is a personal attack, including his of every other commenter. But this is not surprising since we already know there is not a single standard he judges others by that he holds himself to. Not one.
That is exactly what you said.
For a firing squad half of the people have blanks, so no one knows who fired the fatal shot
A couple minor clarifications and corrections:
First, that's a relatively recent innovation.
Second, it's never half of the firing squad. That many could compromise the reliability of the execution (since you also must assume that at least some of the firers will miss). Generally, it's a only single member given a rifle loaded with the blank.
Third, that practice reduces but does not eliminate the psychological impact on the firing squad members.
Third, that practice reduces but does not eliminate the psychological impact on the firing squad members.
This is speculative. Some evidence exists that some people are relieved, but the lack of reliability or even a formal method of teasing out a legitimate firing squad from other personnel, military or not, filling ditches with the bodies of undesirable men, women, and children makes the 'psychological impact' effect highly suspect.
Ever fired a blank from a rifle? There's is a distinct difference in felt recoil
When society makes a mistake and jails someone for a crime they did not commit, we can at least throw money at them to try to make up for the mistake.
Ancillary to or derivative of your argument of Inherent Fallibility, it's been shown lots of times in lots of ways that the belief that you can just throw money at bad decisions causes you to make more bad decisions, including throwing money at making bad decisions.
Properly also means that we should minimize psychological harms to the executioners. Lethal injection as currently practiced does not meet those criteria. It’s inefficient and when it fails it burdens those assigned to carry out the executions. Firing squads are far more reliable, though harder on the executioners.
Along the lines of bad decisions and throwing money at them. This is between speculative, wrong, and oxymoronic. I’ve had trouble, both on myself and others, with veins collapsing several times and failing was actually unburdening as I got paid either way. I’ve never had a problem pushing anything through an IV once it’s in the vein because the two acts are distinct. I’ve never been part of a firing squad, but I’d imagine that if it’s as psychologically damaging as you suggest, (failing) to find a vein would still be a piece of cake relatively. If you said you were going to pay me $50 to find a vein, pull the trigger, or hook up and activate a nitrogen tank I’d probably (ask for $150 to do all 3) choose pull the trigger, find the vein, and then hook up the nitrogen in order of preference. The resulting death being equivalent between the 3 rendering the psychological distinction a moot point.
I don’t quite understand the anti-death penalty people getting so bent out of shape about their moral high ground that they’re so concerned about the mental health of failing phlebotomists *after* they’ve ceded that an execution is going to happen. Run the IV in the jugular and the collapsed vein problem solves itself. Or, you know, go through the psychological torture of carrying in a nitrogen tank, hooking it up, and turning the valve. Whatever.
I’ve made $1250 so far this week working online and I’m a full time student. I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’AM made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Here’s what I do for more information simply.
Open this link thank you..............>>> onlinecareer1
>>comes as a relief to those opposed to the death penalty
the timeout is fine yes.
possibly resorting to physically cutting his arm open in an attempt to find a vein
Has ultrasound not made it to Alabama yet? Because it's been used to find veins on me.
did they find any?
Yes. But no heart.
the Whos will change that.
So they weren't able to listen to barracuda using an ultrasound on you?
No. Because I'm Heartless.
only on the Magic Man.
Not familiar with all the cases, but at least some, the issue was with veins collapsing, which, pushing an ultrasound probe onto the person's skin facilitates.
Good. The death penalty should be abolished.
The government should not have the authority to take your life as punishment for a crime they wrote down and then captured you for doing.
and, I might add, for which they got a bunch of morons on a jury to convict you of, within a system stacked against you.
Someone who isn't smart enough to get out of jury duty is too dumb to be on a jury.
How hard is it to find veins? I suspect this is the result of a disruption campaign by left wing activists.
Or they could hire a better executioner.
The death penalty is one of those issues that I'm conflicted on. Someone like Bundy or Dahmer, or Goering or others of his ilk, (not that they all got the death penalty or were executed) I find it hard to oppose death in their cases. Some other cases with more ambiguity I'm more sympathetic to those that oppose it. The pragmatic argument that it costs more has to be balanced with the possible pragmatic argument that it possibly acts as a deterrence (it's impossible to prove one way or the other definitively).
Additionally, the Constitution does allow for the death penalty for treason and sedition but doesn't indicate that these are the only cases for which it should be utilized. So, from a strictly Constitutional prospect, it would appear that the Constitution doesn't restrict executions, at least in certain cases. However, the Bill of Rights was ratified after the Constitution and therefore possibly cruel and unusual punishment arguments could be applied. This, however, is prone to revisionism, as the death penalty was much more common and used, even by the framers of both the Constitution and the BoR.
Personally, I probably fall in the camp that the death penalty is more trouble than it's worth, except in extreme cases. So, basically, I'm splitting the difference because I am unconvinced either way. I definitely don't find the argument that it's unconstitutional to be very strong, but can empathize with the argument that in some cases, it's probably immoral.
The problem isn’t the death penalty, it’s the method. If lethal injection is an issue, go back to firing squads, hangings or electrocution. Murderers should not escape Justice because a doctor can’t find a vein.
Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit..
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> http://WWW.WORKSFUL.COM
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35000 dollars each month simply by (ins-53) doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28000 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
Just open the link———————————————>>> http://Www.RichApp1.Com