Christa Pike’s botched execution exposes the deep contradictions of a ‘painless’ state-imposed death

A US woman sentenced to death is now receiving life-saving medical treatment, after surviving a botched execution in Nashville that involved two doses of the drug pentobarbital.

Christa Pike, now 50, was convicted for the 1995 murder of a classmate, committed alongside her boyfriend when she was aged 18. She was set to become the first woman executed in Tennessee in more than 200 years, but was sent to a medical facility when the drug failed to kill her.

Late on Thursday, US time, Pike’s lawyer said the failed execution “was not just inefficient, it was cruel and it was torturous”.

Witnesses described Pike breathing, snoring and opening her eyes as the drug was being administered. One said Pike lifted her head up to ask if it was “normal” to feel a burning sensation.

Unsurprisingly, critics of the death penalty have condemned the incident. But here’s why it should trouble even those who support this type of punishment.

The ethics of capital punishment

Advocates of the death penalty typically make one of two arguments.

The deterrence argument says the death penalty has good consequences overall, as it discourages people from committing crimes that are punishable by death.

The retributivist argument says criminals who have committed certain offences deserve to die, either because this punishment is proportionate to their crime, or because any lesser punishment would fail to show proper respect for the victim.

These arguments are contested. Some doubt deterrence works; others question whether killing is an appropriate form of retribution; and both secular and religious commentators argue all humans have a right to life that cannot be forfeited, no matter what they have done.

Opponents of capital punishment have seen many political successes – a dwindling number of countries still carry out executions. Pike, however, was sentenced in Tennessee, which retains the death penalty.

If we are against the death penalty, it is easy to criticise the decision to sentence Pike to death in the first place. But the case should also trouble those who believe the death penalty can be an appropriate punishment.

What it means to kill a prisoner

It is easy to articulate what is bad about physical pain. We consciously experience pain, and the experience is a negative one. Put simply, pain hurts.

The same is not true of death. While dying can involve pain, we do not suffer from death itself, because when it comes we are no longer around to experience it.

Some philosophers argue that it’s this feature – the deprivation of experience – that distinguishes what is bad about death from what is bad about pain. Death is a punishment not because we suffer from it, but because it deprives us of all the good things about living.

In Pike’s case, however, what she experienced was not the deprivation of death, but rather the physical suffering associated with the administration of the drugs, and whatever medical complications may follow. These may include brain injury.

If she survives this botched execution she may face returning to death row, with the prospect of a rescheduled execution ahead of her.

To accept death as an appropriate punishment for some crimes does not automatically mean we should also accept the infliction of physical suffering.

Even states that permit capital punishment typically reject punishments such as whipping or physical mutilation. They also reject execution methods that involve significant suffering beyond the death itself, such as burning prisoners at the stake.

Whatever our view on whether death can be an appropriate punishment, the suffering involved with botched executions should give us pause.

Where to from here?

For defenders of the death penalty, it is important to show that executions can be carried out without involving additional suffering. In the case of lethal injections, this is easier said than done.

While a “lethal injection” resembles a medical procedure, they are typically not carried out by doctors, as major medical associations prohibit their members from participating in executions. For example, the American Medical Association considers assisting in executions to be incompatible with the profession’s dedication to saving lives.

It can also be difficult to source the drugs for executions, as most pharmaceutical companies that manufacture the relevant drugs refuse to sell them for this purpose.

Given these restrictions, states sometimes source drugs from compounding pharmacies or the grey market. But compounded drugs may be improperly mixed, while drugs bought on the grey market may be diluted or otherwise compromised. Indeed, Pike’s lawyers have speculated that degraded drugs could have played a role in her case.

In a statement, the Tennessee Department of Correction said it “followed every step of the State’s lawful, established execution protocol approved by the Attorney General’s Office”.

What about other execution methods? Marsha Blackburn, a US senator, responded to Pike’s botched execution by calling for the state to bring back the electric chair. However, this method has its own history of failures.

If executions cannot realistically be carried out without involving significant risks of additional suffering, it is unclear whether it can be justified – even for those who believe that death, in principle, is an appropriate punishment for certain crimes.

Such advocates face an uncomfortable choice. They must either accept that capital punishment is justifiable in principle but not in practice. Or they must accept that it is sometimes legitimate for the state not only to inflict death, but to risk the kind of physical suffering legislators abandoned when they abolished the whipping post and the stake.

Julian Koplin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.