Will Lethal Injections Stop Due to Lack of Sodium Thiopental?

The only American manufacturer of a drug widely used in lethal injections for prisoners on death row recently announced it will stop producing sodium thiopental.



Since 1982 the method of execution in Texas has been lethal injection, consisting of three drugs administered in lethal doses.
The first prevents pain...its followed by a muscle relaxer, then a drug that stops the heart.



"One of those drugs is sodium thiopental and that is the drug that was recently announced that would not be manufactured any longer," Michelle Lyons, the public information officer for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice said.
Hospira Inc. temporarily halted production last year, and planned to start again this winter at a plant in Italy, but Italian authorities are not allowing exportation of the drug for the use of capital punishment.
Lyons said, "We do currently have enough sodium thiopental on hand to carry out the two executions that have been scheduled for the month of February."


The anesthetic is used by 34 of the 35 states that use lethal injection to carry out the death penalty.
The Texas Department of Criminal Justice, or TDCJ, carries out more executions than any other state.
"We'll certainly be looking at the drugs that other states have used successfully in their process," Lyons said.
District courts set execution dates across the state.

The TDCJ still has two more executions this year, but their supply of the drug expires in March.
Lyons said, "We have an execution scheduled in May, so we will make every attempt to have another drug in place so we can carry out that execution as we've been ordered."


If time runs out before they can find an alternative, those execution dates will be pushed back.
17 Death Row inmates were executed last year in 2010.

The Huntsville Unit is the only place in Texas where executions can take place, and only by lethal injection.


Alex Villarreal

SPLC Asks Court to Certify Largest Human Trafficking Civil Suit in U.S. History as Class Action

The Southern Poverty Law Center and its co-counsels, who are suing Signal International, LLC, along with its co-conspirators and other entities for human trafficking and racketeering, asked a federal judge today to include hundreds of additional Indian guestworkers in the lawsuit. If class status is granted, the lawsuit would be the largest human trafficking case in U.S. history.

The SPLC, American Civil Liberties Union, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, Louisiana Justice Institute and the law firm Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP filed the original, proposed class action lawsuit on behalf of the seven individuals, who seek to represent a class of approximately 500 former guestworkers. These guestworkers were lured to work in the U.S. after Hurricane Katrina and subjected to racial and national origin discrimination, forced labor, and other abuse by Signal and its agents and co-defendants, including labor recruiters Sachin Dewan and Michael Pol and immigration attorney Malvern Burnett. 

Today’s filing urges the court to certify the class.

"This case illustrates in shocking detail the abuse occurring within the nation’s guestworker program," said Dan Werner, deputy legal director for the SPLC. "These workers only wanted the American dream but instead were bound to an abusive employer and forced to endure horrific conditions."

Signal, a marine and fabrication company with shipyards in Mississippi, Texas and Alabama, is a subcontractor for several major multinational companies. After Hurricane Katrina scattered its workforce, Signal retained labor contractors who used the U.S. government’s guestworker program to import employees to work as welders and pipefitters. Between 2004 and 2006, hundreds of Indian men paid defendants as much as $20,000 each for travel, visa, recruitment and other fees after they were told it would lead to good jobs and permanent U.S. residency for themselves and their families. 
 
However, when the men arrived at Signal in late 2006 and early 2007, they discovered that they wouldn’t receive the green cards as promised, but rather 10-month guestworker visas. Signal also forced them to pay $1,050 a month to live in overcrowded, unsanitary and racially segregated labor camps where as many as 24 men shared a trailer with only two toilets. When the guestworkers tried to find their own housing, Signal officials told them they would still have the rent deducted from their paychecks. Visitors were not allowed into the camps, which were enclosed by fences. Company employees who stood guard at the camps regularly searched the workers' belongings. Workers who complained about the conditions were threatened with deportation.


Southern Poverty Law Center

“I am a survivor of torture myself” – new UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Juan E. Méndez

Human rights defender Juan E. Méndez, from Argentina, has taken over as the new Special Rapporteur appointed by the UN Human Rights Council to monitor and report on the use torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the world.
“I am a survivor of torture myself, so my approach to the mandate will certainly be victim-centered,” Mr. Méndez said. “By insisting on the absolute prohibition of torture and of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in international law, I hope to make an effective contribution to the enforcement and progressive development of international norms in this area.”
“Beyond law,” the new UN Special Rapporteur stressed, “we need to do battle in the realm of ideas and political discourse, to counter an attitude of relativism about torture, as something that happens to ‘others’ whose faces we don’t see and whose names we can’t pronounce.”
Mr. Méndez has dedicated his long legal career to the defence of human rights and has a distinguished record of advocacy. As a result of his work representing political prisoners, he was subjected to torture, while under an eighteen month long administrative detention, by the Argentinean military dictatorship. During this time, Amnesty International adopted him as a “Prisoner of Conscience.” In 1977, he was expelled from Argentina and moved to the United States, where he worked in different capacities, including as legal counsel for Human Rights Watch.
Mr. Méndez is currently a Visiting Professor of Law at the American University – Washington College of Law, contributes as an advisor on crime prevention to the Prosecutor, International Criminal Court and Co-Chairs the Human Rights Institute of the International Bar Association. He was formerly, the President of the International Center for Transnational Justice (ICTJ) and Scholar-in-Residence at the Ford Foundation in New York. Mr. Méndez served as UN Special Advisor on the Prevention of Genocide from 2004 to 2007.

From 1996 to 1999, the new Special Rapporteur was Executive Director of the Inter-American Institute of Human Rights in Costa Rica. Between 2000 and 2003 he was a member of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, and served as its President in 2002. Mr. Méndez has taught International Human Rights Law at the Center for Civil and Human Rights at the University of Notre Dame, Georgetown Law School and at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. He also teaches regularly at the Masters Program in International Human Rights Law at Oxford University.
Mr. Méndez is a member of the Bars of Mar del Plata and Buenos Aires, Argentina, and the District of Columbia, U.S., and has a Juris Doctor, J.D. from Stella Maris University in Argentina and a certificate from the American University Washington College of Law. He is a recipient of several human rights awards. The new Special Rapporteur on torture takes over from Mr. Manfred Nowak, from Austria, who also served as Special Rapporteur for six years.
The Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Juan E. Méndez, is independent from any government and serves in his individual capacity.


Tsatsu Dawson

New study shows Monterey County leads California in youth murder rate

The same year Salinas broke its homicide record in 2009, Monterey County led the state in recording the highest youth murder rate, according to a new study released Monday.

The study, "Lost Youth: A County-by-County Analysis of 2009 California Homicide Victims Ages 10 to 24," was issued by the Violence Policy Center, a national educational organization trying to put a stop to gun-related death and injury.

"No. 1 in the State of California ... It's pretty disheartening," said Brian Contreras, executive director of the Salinas-based Second Chance Family & Youth Services.

Contreras lamented that with just under 90,000 young people ages 10 to 24 (as of 2009), Monterey County directly competes with much larger, more urban counties in the state.

"Los Angeles had 2 million [18-to-24-year-olds] and our rate is two times [more] than theirs," he said.

At a murder rate of 31.24 per 100,000 residents ages 10 to 24, Monterey County ranked first among 35 counties. The study's authors only looked at counties with a population of at least 25,000 aged 10 to 24 to ensure steadier rates.

According to the study, Alameda County came in second at 20.69 per 100,000 residents in the age group while Kern County followed closely behind at a rate of 19.98 per 100,000. The study showed Monterey County's rate was nearly three times the state's overall rate.

Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center and a co-author of the study, said the goal is to draw attention to the seriousness of the issue and provide local leaders and stakeholders with tools needed to help shape policy.

It's about supplying information, Sugarmann said, but also "creating greater awareness county-by-county across the state."

Perhaps the most important part of the study, Contreras said, is it outlines the psychological stress youth violence has on family members and others. He said a vital aspect of the study is its message of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder among children exposed to violence of this magnitude.

Salinas broke its record in homicides in 2009, accumulating 29 deaths — all of which were blamed on gangs.

While there is progress in the area, Contreras said, more outreach and community involvement from residents is needed.

"We've lost touch with our kids," he said. "We don't spend the quality time; there's a tough economy — there's so much going on that's impacting our kids that a lot of the kids have lost hope ... . It's a norm, and it shouldn't be a norm."

One of the top issues to address from the study, he said, is the ease of which guns are accessed by youth.

Salinas police Officer Lalo Villegas said most guns seized from arrested gang members are either stolen or not registered.

"As far as the means of acquiring a handgun, anybody with a little bit of money can get a handgun and it's definitely not done through legal channels," Villegas said.

While the study is sobering, Contreras said, there is hope.

Efforts such as Community Alliance for Safety and Peace and the Building Healthy Communities initiative have been making great strides toward targeting youth at an earlier age to put a stop to the cycle of violence.

Contreras said he is also part of a small group working on helping address the trauma experienced by community members affected by homicides. He said the effort, which includes groups such as schools and behavioral health specialists, is designed to provide grief counseling to the community as a whole — from parents and siblings to students who may only have known of the victim.

Contreras acknowledged the challenges, however, in addressing the issue completely as many groups are strapped for cash right now.

"There's a lot of healing that needs to go on, and it's something we need to work on," he said. "It's going to take a while."

SUNITA VIJAYAN

Alabama prisoners turn to meditation for peace

Deep inside Alabama’s toughest prison, an overcrowded lockup with a reputation for mayhem, convicted murderers, robbers and sex offenders gather in a small room. Eyes closed, they sit silently with their thoughts and consciences.

Lawyers for death row inmates seek to question Schwarzenegger on execution procedures

Lawyers for death row inmates are trying to question former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and other top state officials as part of the ongoing legal challenge to California's lethal injection procedures.

In court papers filed Monday, Attorney General Kamala Harris asked a federal judge to block or limit efforts to depose Schwarzenegger and others in his administration involved in crafting new execution procedures last year, saying the evidence is irrelevant to whether the current lethal injection method poses a threat of an inhumane execution.

State lawyers argued in documents filed with U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel that such evidence has "nothing to do with how California's current lethal injection regulations will work in practice."

Fogel is considering a five-year-old legal battle over the state's lethal injection procedures, and whether they pose an undue risk that a condemned prisoner will suffer a cruel and unusual death during an execution. Executions have been on hold since 2006 as the legal challenge has unfolded in federal court in San Jose.

The judge is scheduled next Tuesday to tour San Quentin's new execution chamber as part of the case. There are currently nearly 720 inmates on the state's death row.

Earlier in the case, Fogel found that the state's execution method was flawed, prompting Schwarzenegger to instruct state prison officials to devise new procedures that would address the judge's concerns. Lawyers for death row inmates are seeking information on how state officials chose to craft the new regulations, including communications from the former governor, as well as his deposition. 

Howard Mintz 

Juvenile Justice: The Case For Local Control

A youth services provider says Mayor Bloomberg's bid to take more control of the state's juvenile justice system is an opportunity not just to save money, but to change lives.

New York City faces a unique opportunity to transform the way we treat young people who come in conflict with the law. On December 21, 2011, Mayor Bloomberg outlined plans that would empower New York City (and other local jurisdictions) to assume responsibility for juvenile justice system services. In his State of the State address, Governor Andrew Cuomo forcefully and courageously called for an end to the practice of sending kids hundreds of miles from their home in the name of saving upstate jobs. Testimony from city administrators, juvenile justice advocates and practitioners at a standing-room-only City Council hearing on January 26th, was remarkable for its consistency: The main current of the statements and questions was not why we need to reform the juvenile justice system, but rather about how we can create a new system that produces the best possible outcomes for young people, their families and their communities.

As a member of the ATI (Alternatives to Incarceration)/Reentry Coalition and Governor Paterson's Task Force on Transforming Juvenile Justice, it was deeply rewarding to hear the overwhelming majority of Council members, advocates and community providers embrace the substance of the mayor's proposal, which calls for New York City to assume responsibility for the care and custody of adjudicated juveniles. Right now, there are less than 600 young people in state facilities, about 400 of whom are from New York City. There was overwhelming agreement that New York City should no longer send our youth to a state juvenile justice system that is out of sync with best-practice research on what works in reducing juvenile crime.

The dismal 80 to 90 percent recidivism rates of young people placed in OCFS facilities and the harms documented by last year's U.S. Department of Justice report were repeatedly cited as evidence of the failures of the current system. The annual cost of placing a youth in OCFS—well over $200,000 per youth per year—were compared to community-based programs that cost between $10,000 to $18,000 a year and boast recidivism rates that rarely exceed 20 percent.

As director of an organization that has been providing alternative-to-detention and alternative-to-incarceration services to youth in the juvenile justice system since 1987, I believe that a locally operated system will be far preferable to our current system for the following reasons.

It's Better For Families: Keeping young people close to home simply makes good sense. Community-based services, even those that include some out-of-home-placement, are the only way to involve parents and other family members in services.

It Builds On Existing Resources: The city's alternative-to-incarceration programs for juveniles are nationally recognized and admired. We have a proven track record of providing effective alternatives to detention for young people in the city's juvenile justice system.

It Will Be Less Expensive: Most alternative-to-incarceration programs cost between $10,000 to $18,000 per child per year, significantly less than the $270,000 it costs per year to incarcerate a child in a state-run facility.

Local Control is More Accountable: Citizens typically have more opportunity and ability to connect with local government and come to expect local government to be the "first responder" to their needs and concerns. Local control would allow for more flexibility in developing responses to juvenile crime, and the ability to expand ATI and other community-based services that research shows are more effective in addressing delinquency. Local government—the Council and the mayor—are concerned with the well-being of their citizenry, and the condition of youth in their care. They do not face competing interests of representatives from jurisdictions whose concerns may be, as Governor Cuomo has pointed out, about employment opportunities for their upstate constituents.

The first three reasons to support juvenile justice reform are no longer a matter of debate. What remains under discussion is the question of local control. But there are a number of states and jurisdictions that have already taken control, with early evidence indicating improved outcomes for kids and lower costs for taxpayers.

For example, Wayne County, Michigan, home to Detroit, assumed most of the control over their juvenile justice population in 2000. The average daily population of youth sent to state facilities dropped from nearly 750 in 1999 to about 16 youth in 2010, for a savings of $50 million a year. Instead of paying their state for an ineffective system, the savings were reinvested in a comprehensive network of locally-operated community based programs. The approach not only saved money, it improved community safety (as evidenced by a low, 18 percent reconviction rate after two years) and helped young people get off a track that often leads to a lifetime of incarceration.

That said, local control does not guarantee accountability. It is for this reason that my organization, and other community-based agencies working with court-involved youth, support strong independent oversight mechanisms to ensure that the juvenile justice system is transparent and accountable to elected officials and the public. We view oversight not as a "Gotcha!" mechanism, but rather as a preventive tool that can identify problems before they become crises and work to resolve issues in a proactive manner.

New York City's proposal presents the opportunity to create a new juvenile justice system that betters addresses the needs of young people, their families and communities. The Council appears to be on board, as are most advocates and providers. We owe it to New Yorkers—and I'm talking about all of us, not just those within the five boroughs—to capitalize on this unique moment and do right by our young people.

Marsha Weissman

National White House Call-in Day to Support Bradley Manning, Thurs., Feb. 3

Join us in calling the White House in support of Bradley Manning this Thursday!

Thursday, February 3rd, 2011
White House switchboard: 202-456-1414
(or White House comments: 202-456-1111)

Call the White House Thursday to voice your support for accused WikiLeaks whistle-blower US Army PFC Bradley Manning, specifically that his human rights be respected by the Quantico, Virginia, brig authorities. Bradley has been held in solitary confinement-like conditions for over eight months, and his trial is still months away. This American citizen-soldier has been convicted of no crime, yet continues to endure inhumane conditions of pre-trial confinement like no other inmate at the Quantico brig. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs recently stated that the White House was not paying attention to Bradley Manning’s extreme confinement conditions, or the fact that recent pre-approved visitors of Bradley’s have been detained and interrogated by military police in order to block their scheduled visit. It is critical that we educate the White House of this ongoing injustice!

Recommended points to make:

• US Army PFC Bradley Manning, the accused WikiLeaks whistle-blower being held at the Marine brig in Quantico, Virginia, is an American citizen who is innocent until proven otherwise. Yet, he has been subjected to continuous illegal pre-trial punishment since his arrest in May 2010. Based on these abuses alone, Manning should be freed pending court martial.
• Military pre-trial confinement is supposed to be about ensuring a soldier’s presence at court martial, yet for eight months now Manning has been subjected to extreme pre-trial punishment through the arbitrary use of rarely applied regulations–specifically the “maximum security classification” and the “prevention of injury” order. If he is not freed pending court martial, then at the very least, Manning’s human rights need to be respected, and the illegal pre-trial punishment must end.
• The arbitrary restrictions placed on Manning, and no other inmates at Quantico, mean that: Manning is allowed no meaningful physical exercise, he is allowed no social interaction with other inmates, he is kept in his cell at least 23 hours per day, and he is not allowed out of his cell without restraints.
• If the charges against him are true, then Manning is a patriot acting to advance an informed democracy. There is no allegation that Manning did anything but share truthful information with the American public regarding the realities of our nation’s ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, with absolutely no benefit to himself, in order to spark public debate regarding foreign policy.

Remember to tell your friends about our call to action, spread it on Facebook, Twitter and via email.

The Bradley Manning Support Network: www.bradleymanning.org
Sign-up and join us: www.standwithbrad.org
Voters for Peace: http://votersforpeace.us/press/index.php?itemid=4663

Read more: http://www.bradleymanning.org/16081/national-white-house-call-in-day-to-support-bradley-manning/#ixzz1CizORvUd

Stand up for the fight against HIV/AIDS

Cates to testify in support of expanding death penalty

The widower of Kimberly Cates will testify in support of expanding the state’s death penalty to cover heinous home invasions like the one that took his wife and caused severe injuries to his daughter.

David Cates, of Mont Vernon, will make an appearance to support the death penalty bill of House Speaker William O’Brien, said Greg Moore, O’Brien’s policy director.

“The speaker said David Cates has reached out and said he would be there,” Moore said.

The hearing, scheduled for 10 a.m. today, has been moved to cavernous Representatives Hall, where the 400 members of the House sit, to accommodate an expected crowd.

The legislation, HB 147, would widen New Hampshire’s capital punishment law, which is limited to a fixed number of premeditated murders of police officers, judges and court personnel and murder while carrying out rape, kidnapping or a major drug deal.

O’Brien has proposed the law be named as a legal memorial for Kimberly Cates.

After the brutal slaying of Cates and stabbing of daughter Jaimie Cates, O’Brien tried to convince the House to take up the bill during the 2010 session.

The Democratic-led House, however, refused to admit the bill after it came in following a calendar deadline, and it quietly fizzled.

That isn’t what’s happening this time.

Three weeks ago, Gov. John Lynch announced he supported the concept of the bill to include home invasions as part of the capital murder law, as long as it was tightly defined.

Leaders in both political parties give this expansion effort a solid chance for success, given the Republican super-majorities in the Legislature the voters endorsed last November.

Last fall, David Cates testified he was away on business when the Oct. 4, 2009, murder took place, and had text messaged his family a few hours before the break-in.

Steven Spader, 19, was sentenced to life in prison, plus another 76 years to life, for breaking into the 4 Trow Road home and hacking Kimberly Cates to death with a machete. She was 42. Christopher Gribble, 21, has plead not guilty by reason of insanity, and his trial is to start later this month.

The most severe sentence either can face under existing state law is life in state prison without parole.

A commission that studied the death penalty for more than 18 months was led by retired Superior Court Chief Justice Walter Murphy. The panel voted last fall not to change the scope of the law’s definition.

No one has been executed in the state since 1939, but Michael “Stix” Addison is appealing his death sentence for the slaying of Manchester Patrolman Michael Briggs four years ago.

State Rep. Phil Greazzo, R-Manchester, has proposed to more dramatically expand the law to cover all first-degree murders. Even many death penalty supporters in the Legislature have remarked that the bill (HB 162) is too broad and that Lynch wouldn’t support it.

Case grows clearer: Justice system fails the indigent

A lack of state standards and little oversight over criminal defense services for the indigent, along with shamefully low pay for court-appointed attorneys, have made Michigan a McJustice state that fails to meet constitutional standards.

The system cannot be fixed by the current hodgepodge of poorly funded county programs. They now dispense discount justice with low-bid contracts or inadequate fixed fees for exams, pleas, motions and other legal tasks, regardless of how long court-appointed attorneys work. Attorneys too often settle for wages comparable to fast-food workers' or take more cases than they can competently handle.

Michigan must establish uniform standards and oversight of its public defense system -- and assure adequate funding. It is now one of only a handful of states that rely almost entirely on counties to pay for and run their public defender systems.

Shifting public defense spending from local governments to the state; creating, measuring and enforcing statewide standards for indigent defense; and adequately funding such a system were among the most important recommendations unveiled last week in a sweeping report on how to overhaul Michigan's court system.

"Delivering Justice in the Face of Diminishing Resources" summarizes the conclusions of the Judicial Crossroads Task Force of the State Bar of Michigan, a group of 125 lawyers, judges and criminal justice experts that has been studying how to create a more efficient and accessible court.

Michigan now ranks near the nation's bottom in per capita spending on indigent defense. The report notes that fixing the system won't be cheap but notes that "the cost of not fixing it is even greater.''

The Bar task force's recommendations on indigent defense -- the results of 18 months' work -- are in line with those made by the Michigan Campaign for Justice.

Unfortunately, a long line of governors and legislators in Michigan have looked the other way. When innocent people are convicted and others are convicted of unjustifiably serious offenses, it should concern everyone -- especially taxpayers who foot the bill for unnecessary incarceration. Getting it right at trial time is especially important today, when appellate courts practically rubber-stamp criminal convictions.

It's the state's responsibility to ensure that constitutional standards for indigent defense are met. Now that those who know the criminal justice system's shortcomings most intimately have shown them how, it's time for Michigan legislators and governor to act.

Drug maker asks Ohio, Oklahoma not to use sedative for putting inmates to death

The sole U.S. manufacturer of a sedative that Ohio plans to use to execute death row inmates — and that Oklahoma already uses to do so — said Wednesday it opposes the practice and has asked both states to stop using the drug.

Pentobarbital maker Lundbeck Inc. says it never intended for the drug to be used to put inmates to death.

"This goes against everything we're in business to do," Sally Benjamin Young, spokeswoman for the Denmark-based company's U.S. headquarters in Deerfield, Illinois, told The Associated Press.

"We like to develop and make available therapies that improve people's lives," she said. "That's the focus of our business."

State prison officials in Ohio and Oklahoma both said they hadn't seen copies of the letter Wednesday and could not comment.

Oklahoma has used the drug in combination with two others in three executions, while Ohio announced Tuesday it is switching to the sedative as the sole drug used to put inmates to death.

Lundbeck does not sell the product directly to end users and has no way of preventing either state from using the drug.

"While we cannot control how our products are administered, it is our intent that our products be used in a safe and appropriate manner and encourage use consistent with the label," the company said in a statement.

Ohio has not yet purchased its first supplies and Oklahoma has said it obtains its supply from a private pharmacy.

Both states switched to pentobarbital as a national shortage worsened of the drug they used previously, sodium thiopental.

That drug's sole U.S. manufacturer, Hospira Inc., of Illinois, deplored the drug's use in executions and also asked states not to use it, to no avail. The company announced last week it was discontinuing the product.

Pentobarbital is a barbiturate used to induce comas during surgeries to prevent brain damage when blood flow is interrupted, and to reduce possible brain damage following strokes or head trauma. It is chemically related to the same product used to euthanize pets.

Medical experts say Ohio and Oklahoma's dosages are so big they're lethal by themselves.

The amount that Oklahoma uses and Ohio has proposed — 5 grams (0.18 ounces) — is 50 times the normal dosage used in hospitals, said Howard Nearman, chairman of the Anesthesiology Department at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine in Cleveland.

Not only would a dosage that size stop someone's breathing, it would also likely cause a drastic drop in blood pressure, all of which would easily lead to a person's death, Nearman said Wednesday.

Experts who testified in a federal lawsuit trying to stop Oklahoma's proposed switch to pentobarbital were split on the drug's effectiveness in putting humans to death.

The size of Oklahoma's dosage "by itself would cause death in almost everyone," Mark Dershwitz, a University of Massachusetts anesthesiologist, said in a report submitted to a federal judge in an Oklahoma hearing last year.

"It's a massive overdose," Dershwitz said Wednesday in a phone interview.

A second expert testifying in Oklahoma said the lack of clinical evidence for using pentobarbital as an anesthetic raises questions about its effectiveness in capital punishment.

"The use of pentobarbital as an agent to induce anesthesia has no clinical history and is non-standard," Harvard medical professor David Waisel told the court.

"Because of these significant unknowns, and a lack of clinical history related to using pentobarbital to induce anesthesia, using pentobarbital as part of a 3-drug lethal injection protocol puts the inmate at an undue risk of suffering."

Waisel confirmed his comments in a follow-up phone interview Wednesday, saying there's no way of knowing the drug's effects.

The prisons department said it will use its remaining supply of sodium thiopental for the scheduled execution Feb. 17 of Frank Spisak, who killed three people at Cleveland State University in 1982.

The first use of pentobarbital is planned for March's scheduled execution of Johnnie Baston, condemned to die for shooting the owner of a store in the back of the head during a 1994 robbery.

The drug has been used in 200 of the 525 assisted suicides in Oregon since 1998, according to data compiled by the Oregon Public Health Division. It also was prescribed for 5 of 47 assisted-suicide patients in Washington state in 2009, state health statistics show.

100 Sled Dogs Killed In British Columbia Due To Slump In Tourism

The heinous slaughter of 100 dogs in British Columbia has revealed a  "dirty secret" of the dog sled industry, according to CKNW.

Following the 2010 Olympic Games, there was a slump in business at Outdoor Adventures Whistler. CBC News reports that an employee was ordered to kill 100 dogs from a pack of 300. The dogs were repeatedly shot and had their throats slashed before being dumped into a mass grave.

The employee describes one dog whose "eye was hanging off, and it was still running around." Another dog was dumped into the grave while  still alive, and the Outdoor Adventures Whistler employee watched as the dog tried to climb out. The employee has been reportedly compensated for experiencing  post-traumatic stress disorder after conducting the killings.

It is  unclear if the company will actually face criminal charges. According to  Marcie Moriarty, general manager for cruelty investigations with the BC SPCA, it is actually legal to shoot an animal if it dies instantly. But the report seems to demonstrate that these dogs did not instantly die, and thus SPCA  plans to now dig up the mass grave to determine if there is substantial evidence for a criminal investigation.

These 100 dogs were used for human entertainment, and were then murdered when humans were no longer entertained by them. While this story is horrific, similar events happen regularly - many race horses are slaughtered once past their prime, and up to  4 million pets are killed in shelters each year, often due to bored or unprepared owners abandoning them.

As for the inhumane slaughter of these dogs,  farm animals are frequently tortured and killed for human consumption. The murder of these 100 dogs is not unique, and animal slaughter is often performed in the name of human interests.

What do you think? Is it okay to use and then dispose of animals for human sport or consumption?

Fredrick Bell - Mississippi Death Row Update.

Today (Monday January 31) Road2Justice received an e-mail from Fredrick Bell's legal team. They note, the delay in a judgement from the Supreme Court on the filing made in November suggests the Justices' realise there are some serious issues. They also pointed out, while this delay is no guarantee of success, it is highly unusual in capital cases.

We will keep you updated as and when we can. 

Women and Prison: A Site for Resistance

The Women and Prison project is a website, installation + zine created entirely from the work + lives of America's incarcerated women. Women and Prison: A Site for Resistance is a project of  Beyondmedia Education.  Learn more about the project.


http://womenandprison.org/