死刑困境与分歧：从田纳西注射失误到佛罗里达提速处决

Rachel Abrams: From the New York Times, I'm Rachel Abrams and this is the Daily.

Christa Pike: I run through this execution every day in my heart, especially with the day coming closer.

Rachel Abrams: Last week, a Tennessee woman named Christa Pike was set to be executed by lethal injection. The concerns I have on our lethal injection method are simply that I do not have good things.

Rachel Abrams: In the days leading up to her planned execution, Pike told my colleague Emily Cochran about her fears of the state's ability to kill her without complication.

Christa Pike: The drug supposedly burns very bad. They use the word doano and the thought of suffocating and drowning on my own bodily fluid and blood. That sounds scary to me.

Rachel Abrams: In the end, Pike survived two doses of a lethal injection drug and regained consciousness in a Nashville hospital where her condition remains severe. And on top of that, this was Tennessee's second botched execution in just a few months and has led the governor to pause executions for the remainder of the year. Today, Pamela Kolaf talks about the waning public support for the death penalty and why despite it, some states are still doubling down. It's Thursday, October 8th. Pam Kolof, welcome to the Daily.

Pamela Colloff: Thank you so much for having me.

Rachel Abrams: So Pam, I think a lot of people have been really stunned by the Christa Pike case. And Christa Pike, of course, is this woman who confessed to and was convicted of a really gruesome murder back in the '90s, but that obviously is not what people are talking about this last week. What people are focused on are the really grizzly details of this botched execution attempt of Chris Pike in Tennessee. This execution attempt has really ignited this national conversation about the death penalty, how we do it, why we do it, and we wanted to talk to you because you are a reporter who has covered the death penalty for years. You recently wrote a book about it called Catch the Devil. So tell us what your reaction to this case has been and where you think it fits into the broader conversation that we're having right now about the death penalty in America in this moment.

Pamela Colloff: I think when we look at what happened to Christa Pike, who to be clear survived lethal injection, which is something we are not familiar with having happened andual sort of lays bare the gruesomeness of the task at hand, we can see that this is sort of the worst example of something that's been building and building and that I think sort of finally broke through to people who don't spend all their time like me wondering why it is that we do this and why we do it the way we do it.

Rachel Abrams: There have been so many issues for the past few years with lethal injection. There was another botched execution in Tennessee with a completely different issue in May. And I think something important to understand is this is happening at a time when support among Americans for capital punishment has taken a nose dive. We currently have, I think it's just above 50% of Americans who support the death penalty. And so these questions are percolating to the surface in a way that they weren't back in the 1980s and 1990s. M but what's interesting is while we have a decline in public support we have these outlier states Tennessee being one of them that are executing more people than they have in recent years. So I want to get into the reasons why some states might be doubling down in this moment. But first I just want to understand the history of that declining public support. Where would you start that story and how would you tell it?

Pamela Colloff: Yeah, I think it goes back to the 1980s and to the tough on crime era. Crime is on the increase in the United States. There was such a degree of violent crime at that time that we have trouble imagining now. In 1980, nearly 5 million households were touched by rape, robbery, or assault. It was more than twice the rate of violent crime then in the 80s and early 90s. It's the same story everywhere. the fear. People are afraid to leave their houses. People are afraid and looking for ways to fight back. And so people were looking for answers to how do we get control of what's going on? How do we feel safe again?

Rachel Abrams: And the death penalty seemed like an answer.

Pamela Colloff: The death penalty seemed like an answer. Long sentences seemed like an answer. Just a much harsher approach. You know, there was so much both real fear and a lot of fearmongering on the part of politicians. It was very very politically expedient to be pro-death penalty to to use all that language. We had hundreds of death sentences being handed down during that period, hundreds of executions.

Rachel Abrams: And just remind us, Pam, in this period in the 80s and 90s that you're talking about, was lethal injection the main way that the US executed people?

Pamela Colloff: Yeah, this was the era of the modern supposedly humane execution. Yesterday, Oklahoma Governor Borne signed into law a bill providing for execution by introvenous injections of a quick acting drug. Lethal injection was developed as a method in Oklahoma in 1977. The bill's sponsor, Benz. Grant, says the new method will do away with the more brutal aspects of the death penalty. Texas was the first state to use it in 1982 when a man named Charlie Brooks was put to death. Brooks sat in his cell, his plane cell all day long waiting. He had three visitors, two Muslim chaplain, and his niece Barry Mitchell. But at 6 p.m., the visitors were let out. Brooks was given his final shower and ate his final meal. T-bone steak, French fries, and peach cobbler. And that marked this new era where states began to shift to lethal injection. The idea was that lethal injection was more humane.

Rachel Abrams: More humane than like the electric chair or some of these other methods that the US had been using.

Pamela Colloff: Exactly. Less barbaric. And so the introduction of lethal injection, I think, made people more comfortable with the practice. It looked like the medical procedure. And so I think that coupled with this incredible rise in violent crime made people feel that this was an answer to that problem that leads to this sort of high watermark of public support for capital punishment. Gallup found that in 1994 80% of Americans supported capital punishment. But that support slowly started to erode.

Rachel Abrams: Well, that is really interesting because you have a problem, you have a solution that people like and you have a lot of support for it. So why why would that support start to wayne given all of that?

Pamela Colloff: I think there were a few different things in play. I think the most important thing first of all was the falling rate of violent crime. we can see this sort of precipitous drop that starts in the '9s and then uh goes through the as by the time we get to 2012 2013 we're looking at a crime rate that's roughly half of what had been just two decades earlier. So as we see the violent crime rate rapidly decrease, I think the urgency of the language around this tough on crime ethos and around capital punishment in particular starts to wayne in combination with other issues such as the growing costs of these kinds of cases.

Rachel Abrams: Growing costs. What do you mean by that? Like you're saying it's more expensive to prosecute a capital punishment case or

Pamela Colloff: Much much much more expensive. And so, especially for a rural county with limited resources, when we're talking millions of dollars, which it is every time you do a capital prosecution, you're talking about taking resources away from many other very important things. And I think these combination of factors start to erode some public confidence in the death penalty. So less violent crime means less demand for an urgent solution and also by the way these cases have been very very expensive and maybe you could put that money towards something else.

Rachel Abrams: Exactly.

Pamela Colloff: But I think there's a third big reason for the decline in public confidence in the death penalty and I think it's the most interesting one and that is the advent of DNA analysis. Today's science is on the threshold of a new era. It completely transforms the future of criminal investigations, but it also does something for past convictions because it allows defendants and their attorneys to go back and look at did prosecutors get it right. It would not be the first time innocent people were sent to prison for crimes they did not commit. DNA could be the instrument of vindication. Twice convicted for the murder of a girl in 1984, a Maryland man faced the death penalty. Tonight though, Kirk Bledsworth is a free man because of DNA evidence. With DNA analysis, they're able to hold up these old convictions to scrutiny and to see whether the correct person was behind bars. For 27 years, he was known as inmate number 082629. Now, William Dylan, or Bill, as his family calls him, is spending time in his mother's backyard. And that then resulted in a cascade of a tremendous amount of exonerations. It wasn't me. That is what Earl Ruffin has said all along after he was charged with raping a woman in the Gent section of Norphick. It wasn't until DNA evidence weighed in. 21 years later that justice was served.

Rachel Abrams: This is where I think I remember becoming kind of aware of this issue because I remember the Innocence Project in particular getting a lot of attention in this moment. They they took this up as their mission, right? Like using DNA to go back to old cases and exonerating a lot of people. And I think I think that that was probably the first time that people understood that convictions could not be taken as fact. And it raised a lot of questions about whether we had been wrongly executing people.

Pamela Colloff: I think it's hard to even envision now, but I'll just say that when I started as a reporter in the '9s reporting on the criminal justice system, if you suggested that there were innocent people on death row, you were considered a little fringe.

Rachel Abrams: Really,

Pamela Colloff: very much so.

Rachel Abrams: God, in hindsight, it just feels like that would be so natural to question, but

Pamela Colloff: but that's because of so much of what happened in the '9s and beyond. So this shift that we see in public consciousness that we just assume has always been there that we understand that the criminal justice system is highly imperfect. This brought this into focus in in a very very sharp way and I think especially for populations who hadn't thought about these issues before this became shocking and every few months there was a DNA exoneration. We now have since the early 1970s over 200 death penalty exonerations. So that's over 200 people who received a death sentence, who went to death row, who now walk free. That's a a staggering number and it's hard to imagine that this system is working well when you know that.

Rachel Abrams: And beyond people sort of changing their ideas about capital punishment and faith in the justice system, how did governments respond or or did anything else change?

Pamela Colloff: Well, there was sort of a lag period. I mean, I was very aware as a reporter in the late 1990s of this huge upsurge that we had had where it peaked in 1999 with 98 people being executed that year. In Texas alone, there were 35 people executed and it was a relentless drum beat of executions at that time. Then in 2000, Governor George Ryan in Illinois instituted a moratorum on the death penalty. And he did so after an incredible Chicago Tribune investigation really showed just how many problems there were with the cases that were on Illinois's death row, including 13 men who ended up being innocent. It would take a while for more things like that to happen, but slowly in the years that followed, more states began to follow suit, putting moratoriums in play or simply just not acting upon the death penalty. And then in 2003, the federal government started this sort of unofficial moratorum. So they really seem to be taking a cue from what the states are doing.

Rachel Abrams: That's what it seems like. But obviously Pam, there are people who still support the death penalty during this period despite all of these revelations who do not feel that they should be stopped.

Pamela Colloff: Absolutely. And I think that was highly concentrated geographically, but broadly we can see that the victim's rights movement and prosecutors associations strongly believed in the death penalty and fought for the death penalty. But the overall trend across the country was so dramatic. What I was seeing on the ground was was this not the end of the death penalty, but was this a new era that was leading toward the end of the beginning of the end of the death penalty, which is something I really could not have imagined even a decade earlier.

Pamela Colloff: If we don't get tough on the drug dealers, we're wasting our time. Just remember that. But all of that began to change when President Trump came into office in his first term.

Rachel Abrams: And that toughness includes the death penalty.

Pamela Colloff: And it quickly became clear that he was going to be taking a much more aggressive stance on the death penalty.

Rachel Abrams: We'll be right back. Okay. So, Pam, talk to us more about what President Trump did to try to encourage use of the death penalty.

Pamela Colloff: Well, the first really important thing he did was in his first term. So this was after the federal government had not carried out any executions in 17 years and Trump restarted them in July of 2020 and there were 13 federal executions in the final 6 months of his first term.

Rachel Abrams: So that's a pretty powerful statement about how he feels about the death penalty.

Pamela Colloff: And I think from there we can see the seeds of what then happened in his second term. On his very first day back into office, January 20th of 2025, he signed a sweeping executive order which was called restoring the death penalty and protecting public safety.

Rachel Abrams: Okay. Very explicit.

Pamela Colloff: Exactly. And this really signaled to everyone that he was doubling down on the death penalty at this time that it's ebbing everywhere else. And so he did everything from instructing the attorney general to pursue death sentences more aggressively, calling on the justice department to challenge the Supreme Court decisions that limited the death penalty. And I think most significantly, you know, he does not control state district attorneys offices, but he made clear that he wanted them to seek the death penalty as often as they possibly could. He was doubling down on it.

Rachel Abrams: He was trying to send a message to the states.

Pamela Colloff: Absolutely. Trying to send a message to the states.

Rachel Abrams: But how would that actually work though? Because as you've explained to us, at this moment in time, a lot of the states have turned away from the death penalty. So what practical effect does that message actually have?

Pamela Colloff: So, it can be everything from a legislature deciding to expand who's eligible for the death penalty to, you know, prosecutors have a lot of discretion in whether or not they are going to seek the death penalty in certain cases. We talked about how expensive it is, what a hit, especially rural counties take when they pursue it. And Trump was basically saying, "Go for it."

Rachel Abrams: And how receptive were the states to this message?

Pamela Colloff: Overall, most states are really not engaging with the death penalty in any significant way, but I think there was a small cohort of states which had been implementing the death penalty that were open to this message. But the problem was one of how do you practically carry it out? M this had become so difficult by this point because drug companies were heavily restricting or simply not making the drugs that were needed for lethal injection

Rachel Abrams: because they were being pressured public support

Pamela Colloff: absolutely not great business to be in the business of making execution drugs and that's not the only problem the American medical association says physicians should not participate in executions so It's increasingly hard to find qualified people to carry these out and it becomes much more logistically challenging.

Rachel Abrams: So they're expensive, they're logistically much tougher. And I mean I feel like in the past few years is when we really started hearing about botched executions and sort of some of these grizzly cases like Christa Pike.

Pamela Colloff: I think there have always been botched executions, but we have been getting more news of this. And I think that has to do with the fact that as these drugs have gotten harder to get, these states are often using either stockpiled expired drugs or they're using drugs that they had made at a compounding pharmacy. And so you have this combination of it's very hard to get these drugs. the drugs that these states do have are of uncertain quality and then it's harder and harder to get people to administer them who have a medical background.

Rachel Abrams: Mhm. So, for all of these reasons, states that may have even wanted to heed Trump's call are not perhaps able to or able to in the way that they would want

Pamela Colloff: or they're trying and we're getting all these botched executions. But there is one state that really heated the call.

Pamela Colloff: Florida is quickly becoming the capital of capital punishment and that was Florida. Starting in 2025, there are some crimes that are just so horrific. The only appropriate punishment is the death penalty. Governor Ronda Santis started signing a flurry of death warrants. Santis signed a death warrant for a serial killer. Governor Ronda Santz just signed the death warrant for Edward James. Is set to execute Pulk County killer David Pitman. Tonight, an Orange County man became the ninth person executed. He'll be the 12th execution in Florida. Record 19th execution. Governor Ronda Santz has signed Florida's 20th death warrant of the year, putting the state on pace to set a new record for executions. He did so at such an extraordinary rate that last year 19 men were executed. That's 40% of the people who were executed in the US last year. And this year so far, Florida's executed more men than all other states combined.

Rachel Abrams: Wow. So what is Florida doing that other states seem either unwilling or unable to do that has allowed them to accelerate this so much?

Pamela Colloff: I think one thing is the very unusual setup that Florida has. So typically a case works its way through the courts and in a capital case there are a number of appeals and when those appeals are exhausted a judge sets an execution date. But in Florida this works differently. There's one person in Florida who can sign death warrants, that being Governor Ronda Santis, and this is unique among active death penalty states. Another thing is that there's no telling when or why he's going to choose who he chooses. M so there are men who are on Florida's death row right now who've been there since the 1970s who languish there while there are other men with much more recent convictions who have received these execution dates.

Rachel Abrams: We don't know how he's picking these men is what you're saying.

Pamela Colloff: There is zero transparency. It's like in a black box how Governor Dantis picks these men and why. One victim's family was so frustrated with how many years the defendant had been awaiting the death penalty that they sent Governor Dantis customized Sharpies. He signs his death warrants and other legislation and Sharpies. and the Sharpies were sent to him asking for him to sign a death warrant for the defendant in this case, which Governor DeSantis subsequently did.

Rachel Abrams: Oh, wow.

Pamela Colloff: And in other states, typically there's 90 days, sometimes it's much longer, between when the death warrant is signed and when the execution actually takes place. Why that time frame is so important is there are issues that have often not been litigated that suddenly you can litigate in the present day. In Florida, you have a 30-day period in which to do this kind of work. So the chance for error is so great. And this is an issue of particular concern in Florida, which holds the record for having the most death row exoneries, 30 in all.

Rachel Abrams: Wow. So basically, they've removed a lot of the breaks that other states have in order to sort of speed up these executions.

Pamela Colloff: Yes. And there are other things that have gone on in Florida as well, and that includes legislative efforts to make more crimes eligible for the death penalty. also to allow for nonunanimous juries to vote for death. That means just eight jurors out of 12 are enough to recommend a death sentence. And so these are all ways in which this is being expanded in Florida, but also it puts defendants at danger of not having the due process that they need. And just to give a sense of the pace of things, there are executions taking place in Florida typically at least once a month. There are four active death warrants right now. And there could be a double execution this coming Tuesday, October 13th.

Rachel Abrams: Pam, you mentioned all these problems with drugs, for instance, finding drugs, finding medical professionals to administer the drugs. Is Florida just not having those problems or are they just finding ways around them? Like why are they not encountering the same issues as other states?

Pamela Colloff: I think there's so many questions we don't know the answers to because of the blackbox nature of how this is done in Florida. They may have stockpiled drugs that are expired. We don't know the quality of those drugs. We do know that one of them is a paralytic which was not present in Tennessee where Christa Pike was able to articulate that she felt her arm burning and was able to move. So when you introduce a paralytic, there are all sorts of new questions involved about how much that prisoner is suffering during the execution itself. Because if they are suffering the idea is they wouldn't be able to tell you or it might not be apparent.

Rachel Abrams: Exactly.

Pamela Colloff: I see.

Rachel Abrams: So it depends how we're talking about botching, right? We can see some things and other things are more hidden.

Pamela Colloff: That's exactly right. I think having covering this issue for a long time, I feel that it's inevitable that something will happen in Florida and other states like what we've seen in Tennessee. This has to do with an aging prison population where it's harder to access a vein. Different states are experimenting with different drug protocols and different ways to do this. So I think what happened to Christa Pike is really a preview of what lays ahead.

Rachel Abrams: It feels sort of ironic actually because as you explained to us, lethal injection was introduced because it was seen as the most humane way to execute somebody, right? It was promoted as this humane solution compared to the electric chair or a firing squad or hanging all of which have been used in this country.

Pamela Colloff: That's exactly right. When lethal injection was first introduced as a method of carrying out executions, I think part of the idea was to sanitize what was being done, which was the taking of a life by the state. And as lethal injection has failed more often, we're also seeing states moving toward things like firing squads and the electric chair. Just last week, the likely next governor of Tennessee, Marcia Blackburn, said she wanted to bring back the electric chair. And one could argue that the electric chair or firing squads are more honest and more transparent about what is taking place. But states obviously take a risk when they carry out executions that way because it shows what they are doing in a way that a quiet act that is supposed to look like something medical does not.

Rachel Abrams: Right. All right. I mean, on some level that does make sense because you're seeing something and maybe experiencing it in a more visceral way that really makes you kind of reckon with what's actually happening in front of you and the fact of death. And maybe for some people that's fine. Half the population supports the death penalty. And so maybe for them, firing squads, the electric chair, none of that will be a problem. But I would imagine for a lot of people, they just can't stomach that. Like it might be going too far.

Pamela Colloff: Yes. I often think about the fact that when I witnessed an execution in 1998 in Texas, it was as if I were watching someone go to sleep. I think when we see Florida ramping up, when we see other states trying some of these what we think of as sort of more more barbaric ways to execute people, it engenders a lot of bigger questions about where we're headed with the death penalty and whether this is about to peter out because people will be so horrified by what they see or whether we're seeing a resurgence in these states that have clung so hard to the death penalty.

Rachel Abrams: Pam Kolaf, thank you so much.

Pamela Colloff: Thank you so much for having me.

Rachel Abrams: We'll be right back. Here's what else you need to know today. Russian authorities said on Wednesday that a researcher at a Siberian anti-plague institute who died from a mysterious pneumonia had been vaccinated against the pathogens that she worked with and that no quote emergency situations had occurred at the lab. The statement from the Russian health regulator came after the US urged Moscow to be more forthcoming about the possible public health incident and after the World Health Organization asked for more information to make an accurate assessment of any threat. The lack of on-site health investigators and the lack of details from Russian officials have fueled doubts about the Russian government's insistence that it has the situation under control. Today's episode was produced by Olivia Nat, Adrienne Hurst, Jessica Chung, and Eric Rupkey. It was edited by Devon Taylor and Chris Hel with help from Michael Benis. Research help from Susan Lee and contained music by Alicia Beetup, Leah Shaw Dearon, and Marian Lassano. It was engineered by Chris Wood. And our theme music is by Wonderly. Special thanks to Emily Cochran. That's it for the daily. I'm Rachel Abrams. See you tomorrow.