There was an interesting story in the New York Times today that I would like to encourage people to read:
Shortage of Widely Used Anesthetics Is Delaying Executions in Some States
This is not a "classic" anti-capital punishment story, but I think it is in many ways just as outrageous as many of the stories over the years about immoral executions. The reasons are different, but the immorality is still there, and moreover it exposes an unexpected (and in my opinion intriguing) weakness in the system.
So, we've got a shortage of this drug that is used in surgery as anesthesia. The fact of the matter is that we're having critical shortfalls that are causing trouble at hospitals. So what is the government doing with the limited supplies they have on hand? Why, killing people, of course!
Pardon me for being more than a little outraged, but let me say that even a supporter of the death penalty ought to have a little bit of outrage in their system at this situation. There is something flatly wrong with a scarce (in this case, a lack of production meeting normal medical demand) resource being sat on by states for the sole purpose of killing somebody. There is something just flatly (immoral, wrong, outrageous...take your preferred term) with this.
Of course, I bring this to your attention not just for the fact that there is an outrage being committed (though indeed there is one, let us have no doubt), but because this situation also presents an unusual observation: As state governments are unable to obtain these drugs, which have an extremely limited number of suppliers, 17 states (most notably Texas) have capital punishment brought to a screeching halt, while in many others the law is set up whereby the state cannot force another method on prisoners (Virginia falls under this category, as does Florida and Missouri (where the death penalty was brought to a full stop because of issues with their execution method a few years ago, though executions have since resumed there). A number of the other states with a mixed method have the law structured such that one cannot be involuntarily executed by another method.
So, while I know I am being idealistic (I think we're entitled to that at least once in a while), considering that these state governments make up but a minimal fraction of these companies' sales of their drugs, why not take aim at these companies instead and get them to put clauses in their sales contracts forbidding the use of these drugs in executions? It's a long shot, I know, but it also appears to be (at first glance, at least) an Achilles' heel in the process: The Supreme Court is not likely to intervene on the matter, I can't see Mississippi or Texas ditching capital punishment, but what I can see is them being hamstrung in the most inglorious of ways, namely through a supply chain problem. And in the case of the companies, they have virtually nothing riding on the side of their balance sheets with respect to this (even 100 doses per year does not a profitable market make).
Finally, let me admit that I don't know how to go about this...I'm not an activist by training or habit, so I don't know where to start. That's part of why I'm writing here...in the hope that I can trigger the imagination of someone else on this. It may not have the glory of vigils outside of prisons or of a normal abolition campaign, but it would appear to be just as effective as any of that...and in more than a few states, quite possibly moreso.