Reporters seem to be infatuated with the word "botched" when it comes to executions. This word choice has an unwarranted and detrimental effect. Cameron McWhirter has this article in the WSJ, referring to the postponed execution of Kelly Gissendaner in Georgia as "a botched attempt."
McWhirter has it completely backwards. When the execution drug was found to be cloudy, Georgia officials prudently postponed the execution precisely so that there would not be a "botched" execution.
Let's get it straight, folks. There has only been one "botched" execution in recent times, that of Clayton Lockett. Other executions, where an unconscious inmate's body struggles for breath, have been uncomfortable for observers to watch, but the inmate still died a less painful death than most of us are going to have.
McWhirter has it completely backwards. When the execution drug was found to be cloudy, Georgia officials prudently postponed the execution precisely so that there would not be a "botched" execution.
Let's get it straight, folks. There has only been one "botched" execution in recent times, that of Clayton Lockett. Other executions, where an unconscious inmate's body struggles for breath, have been uncomfortable for observers to watch, but the inmate still died a less painful death than most of us are going to have.
I believe it was Mark Twain who said: "Choose the right word, not its second-cousin."
The correct choice of word would be "aborted."
Isn't Romell Brown in Ohio really the best (and arguably only) recent example of a botched execution? To me "botched" means the execution was not completed -- everything else may be ugly or even painful, but to me not botched if the condemned ends up dead since that is the whole point of the process.