Arizona Carries Out Execution Amidst Controversy
Gunches Executed for 2002 Murder
On Wednesday, March 19th, Arizona officials executed Aaron Gunches via lethal injection. News sources reported that the state put him to death for the “kidnapping and murder of 40-year-old Ted Price, who was fatally shot four times in the Arizona desert.”
Unusual Case and Delayed Execution
Gunches’s case presented several unusual aspects, notably his initial cessation of legal appeals and expressed desire for execution, followed by subsequent reversals. His execution had been initially scheduled nearly two years prior but was postponed when Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs initiated an independent review of the state’s capital punishment protocols following concerns about prior executions.
Governor Hobbs’s Role and Expert Review
However, in recent months, Governor Hobbs actively pursued Gunches’s execution. This included the controversial dismissal of retired Judge David Duncan, the expert she had appointed to conduct the review, before he could finalize his report.
Firing of Judge Duncan
The decision to terminate Duncan’s appointment drew considerable criticism. Governor Hobbs justified her action by stating, “Your review has, regrettably, encountered repeated obstacles, and I no longer possess confidence that I will receive a report from you that will fulfill the purpose and objectives of the Executive Order I issued almost two years ago.”
The Governor also mentioned that the Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation & Reentry had undertaken “a comprehensive examination of past executions and implemented significant revisions to its policies and procedures.” However, the initial reason for appointing Duncan was precisely to address doubts about relying solely on a review conducted by the department responsible for state executions.
This raises questions about whether Governor Hobbs dismissed Duncan due to dissatisfaction with his emerging findings or anticipated conclusions.
While facts remain constant, their dismissal appears to carry minimal political repercussions in the current climate. The reliance on expertise seems to diminish when it obstructs desired outcomes.
Governor Hobbs’s unprecedented move to dismiss the expert observer marks a concerning juncture, reflecting a societal trend echoing the sentiment from the film “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence”: “When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.”
In the context of capital punishment, the prevailing “legend” promoted by political figures like Hobbs suggests that it enhances public safety and justice. They aim to persuade the public that their support for the death penalty stems from a desire to provide closure for victims’ families, rather than political gain.
Following the execution, Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes stated during a press conference: “An execution is the most serious action undertaken by the state, and I assure you it is not approached lightly. Today, Arizona resumed capital punishment, and justice for Ted Price and his family has finally been delivered.”
Karen Price, sister of the victim, Ted Price, echoed this sentiment after Gunches’s death, calling the execution “the concluding chapter in a process spanning nearly 23 years.”
Ted Price’s daughter added that Gunches’s death signified the end of her need to continually revisit “the circumstances surrounding my father’s death” after decades of legal proceedings. “Today,” she affirmed, “marks the conclusion of that painful chapter, for which I am profoundly grateful.”
This resolution would not have occurred had Governor Hobbs adhered to the counsel of her appointed expert.
Prior to his dismissal, Judge Duncan had drafted his report and communicated his preliminary findings to the Governor’s office. He characterized lethal injection as an unreliable method of execution, stating: “Drug manufacturers do not permit states to utilize the necessary drugs.”
Duncan, having dedicated nearly two years to examining Arizona’s lethal injection practices, explained, “Initially, I believed lethal injection would be viable. However, the more I investigated, the more I realized this was a misguided hope.”
Duncan advised the Governor that, in his assessment, lethal injection posed excessive risks. He recommended that Arizona adopt the firing squad as a preferable alternative, citing that “it possesses the lowest rate of botched procedures.”
This recommendation apparently deviated from what Governor Hobbs anticipated from her expert, leading to Duncan’s removal. It appears he failed to grasp her expectation that his role was to facilitate the resumption of lethal injection executions, rather than suggest alternatives or express reservations about the method itself.
Duncan was not alone in questioning Arizona’s reinstatement of lethal injection executions. In January, law professor Corinna Lain, a prominent authority on lethal injection, asserted: “The evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that Arizona cannot lawfully conduct an execution by lethal injection at this time. Its pentobarbital protocol is highly likely to inflict a torturous death, even under ideal circumstances.”
She further elaborated: “The present conditions are far from optimal. The State is poised to employ an inexperienced, untrained team to administer potentially expired drugs stored in unlabeled mason jars, sourced from a company not producing drugs for human use, and compounded by a pharmacy that the state has previously disavowed.”
Wider Trend of Disregarding Expertise
Dismissing expert knowledge is becoming increasingly common across various aspects of American society, extending beyond the death penalty debate. Tom Nichols of The Atlantic observes that “Trump allies voice concerns about expert failures… [and] demonize what their constituents perceive as the medical establishment’s attempts to restrict civil liberties during the coronavirus pandemic.” He contends that Elon Musk’s criticism of civil servants is fundamentally an attack on the “very concept of apolitical expertise.”
Nichols clarifies that this skepticism is not limited to Washington DC, but permeates “ordinary American families.” Within these households, “knowledge of all kinds is also under attack. Parents dispute vaccine safety with their children’s physicians. Celebrated athletes contemplate the possibility of a flat Earth. College administrators consider removing algebra from curricula due to high failure rates.”
Therefore, it is unsurprising that this trend of dismissing knowledge extends to decisions regarding methods of capital punishment. Political leaders, including Democrats like Hobbs, recognize the political advantage in capitalizing on the growing public distrust of experts, leading them to disregard figures like Duncan and Lain.
Increased public displays of this disregard can translate to greater political advantages.
Historical Contrast: Expert-Led Decisions
Historically, the approach to selecting execution methods differed significantly. In the late 19th century, prior to New York’s abandonment of hanging, the state convened a commission to evaluate and propose alternatives.
This commission sought guidance from leading specialists to inform their decision, ultimately selecting the electric chair.
The determination of whether electrocution would utilize Alternating Current (AC) or Direct Current (DC) was influenced by the competition between Thomas Edison and George Westinghouse, pioneers in electrical development.
This historical example contrasts sharply with the current Arizona situation, demonstrating that expertise no longer dictates the selection of execution methods.
Future of Lethal Injection in Arizona
Following Gunches’s execution, Governor Hobbs and those who dismiss expert opinion may feel vindicated by the apparent lack of complications during the procedure. However, complacency would be unwarranted, both for them and for the 112 inmates on Arizona’s death row.
Studies indicate that lethal injection has the poorest track record of all execution methods employed in the past century in the United States. Therefore, it appears inevitable that a future execution in Arizona will demonstrate the imprudence of disregarding expert counsel and the insights they provide.