Death Watch in Ohio: Dehumanization on Death’s Door
Posted under: Kathryn A. Buschle, Ohio University – Athens, Ohio
Death Watch in Ohio: Dehumanization on Death’s Door
This research examines death watch protocols to evaluate the constitutionality of capital punishment according to Justice Brennan’s principles from the Furman v. Georgia (1972) decision. A thematic analysis of 26 execution timelines from the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections reveals patterns of severe control and dehumanization. These findings suggest that the death watch – and thus the death penalty – is unconstitutional due to its excessive and degrading nature. The study underscores the need to inform the public about execution practices and urges greater awareness of the human rights consequences of capital punishment.
The death penalty has been a contested issue throughout American history, stoking controversy regarding human rights and punishment. A lack of transparency concerning death penalty practices raises questions regarding its constitutional application (Miller & Hunt, 2008). This research is motivated by the belief that broader awareness of the practices and consequences of execution procedures, as illustrated by so-called “death watch proceedings,” can help shift public opinion on the use of capital punishment. Analysis of Ohio execution timelines created during the “death watch” (the final hours of a prisoner’s life under heavy surveillance and security) identified common practices and considered them in relation to U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Brennan’s four principles protecting against cruel and unusual punishment, as outlined in the Furman v. Georgia (1972) decision.[1] Ultimately, this investigation determines that death watch practices in Ohio violate Brennan’s principles, therefore making U.S. death penalty practices unconstitutional due to their excessive and degrading nature. These principles reinforce international human rights norms associated with freedom from torture and the humane treatment of prisoners (see United Nations, 1948). A 1990 United Nations resolution attests: “All prisoners shall be treated with the respect due to their inherent dignity and value as human beings” (United Nations General Assembly, 1990, Article 1).
This study seeks to inspect the death watch and execution processes as depicted by the state. Although previous research has analyzed the theoretical implications of the death penalty, there remains a lack of inquiry regarding state-provided records, including those documenting the death watch and execution. Directly examining timelines made public (although they have now once again been made private) grants the explicit examination and definition of dehumanizing practices. This research utilizes execution timelines from Ohio to comprehend death watch practices and execution protocols outside of the southern United States – where most U.S. executions occur (Death Penalty Information Center, 2025). This paper begins with a review of relevant literature on the death penalty, including the conceptual framework used to determine constitutionality, and outlines the methods used to analyze Ohio execution timelines. The study uncovers themes in the data related to control of movement, social control, control of perception, prisoner complicity, dehumanization, and discomfort. This data is discussed in relation to two of Justice Brennan’s four principles: whether the death watch is so severe that it degrades the dignity of a human being, and whether the death watch is an excessive punishment.
Dehumanization and the Death Penalty
The scholarly literature highlights how the death penalty and execution practices facilitate state control and forced complicity that construct the dehumanizing experience of a “living death.” Prisoners on death row are defined by their impending death, generating a psychologically torturous existence in which they are simultaneously alive and dead (Johnson, 2016). Throughout the operation of the execution, officers demand outright control over the condemned, using social and physical methods of containment (Johnson, 2005). These methods of control force prisoners to partake in aspects of their own execution to an extent that makes them complicit in their death (Johnson, 2014). These mechanisms culminate in a dehumanizing experience for the condemned by relying on the destruction of prisoners’ humanity to complete the job of state-sponsored execution (Johnson, 2016).
Many prisoners and researchers have interpreted the experience of pre-execution confinement as a “living death” (Johnson, 2016). After sentencing, “death gives meaning and purpose to every facet of [a prisoner’s] world” (Johnson, 2005, p. 92). The death row experience renders the condemned lifeless upon reaching the execution chamber due to its mentally degrading character (Johnson, 2005). Nearly all research completed on death row acknowledges the substandard living conditions of capital defendants (Smith, 2008). Every state’s death row has a distinct system of imprisonment, making death row existence unpredictable and inconsistent. Most prisoners on death row are locked in their cells for 22 to 24 hours a day with low levels of human interaction, exercise, and sunlight (Johnson, 2016). Prisoners often have extreme restrictions on “vocational and educational opportunities” (Kovarsky, 2023, p. 1441) and, when allowed physical exercise, are brought to areas that are “more like dog kennels than recreation yards” (Johnson, 2005, p. 81).
Throughout their (on average, 20-year) existence on death row, the condemned have “died psychologically” and only remain alive physically (Johnson, 2016, p. 1214). The culmination of prisoners’ stress and despair has commonly been described by the term “death row syndrome,” although no official term has been designated in any mental health diagnostic manuals (Smith, 2008). Death row syndrome has been defined as “the psychological illness or disorder exhibited by a prisoner who has spent a prolonged time in harsh conditions on death row, combined with the ‘unique stresses’ of living under a death sentence” (Gray, 2019, p. 146). Symptoms of depression, anxiety, emotional instability, and physical illness stem from solitary confinement (Smith, 2008). Additionally, the fear of impending death provokes intense stress, and no death row institution prepares prisoners for the dread of imminent death (Johnson, 2016).
The execution process is designed to be socially, emotionally, and physically controlling, with execution team members obsessed with security (Johnson, 2016). Prisoners are “handcuffed, shackled, and escorted under heavy guard” for all movement during incarceration on death row (Johnson, 2016, p. 1216). When transferred to the death house, prisoners are moved by a team in the middle of the night to a holding cell that allows maximum observation and control (Dayan, 1997, p. 40). On death row and in the death house, the condemned are transformed into powerless beings, relegated to a subhuman status by the removal of self-determination (Johnson, 2014). Officers adopt social and physical control mechanisms to produce the appearance that execution is a “punishment to which one submits voluntarily” (Johnson, 2005, p. 129). Officers comply with prisoners’ specific requests as a technique to establish a cordial relationship, to distract and calm prisoners, and to bolster their position of control (Johnson, 2005). Prisoners are forced to cooperate with officers and are ultimately led to their deaths “one slow and controlled and methodical step at a time” (Johnson, 2005, p. 158).
In the final hours leading to their deaths, the condemned are forced to partake in decisions portraying them as autonomous actors (LaChance, 2007). The capital punishment process characterizes capital defendants as evil, twisted characters who purposely inflict suffering and terror upon a victim (LaChance, 2007). Small choices in the last moments of a prisoner’s life, such as final meals and statements, serve as a distraction from the execution by providing a meaningful task that not only normalizes but also requires compliance with the authorities (LaChance, 2007). Prisoners are tasked with choosing their final meal, one that is allowed to be special and personalized, suggesting “some sort of twisted celebration” of the execution to come (Johnson, 2014, p. 591). Throughout the death watch process, prisoners are allowed visitors and calls to loved ones, which distracts and cushions the prisoner from the emotional trauma and stress of oncoming death (Johnson, 2005). The condemned almost always walk to the death chamber without physical resistance, which creates the “appearance that offenders are tamed, docile subjects” (LaChance, 2007, p. 703). Some prisoners who struggled to walk to their death were told to do so “like a man,” a call upon gender stereotypes that guilts a prisoner into cooperating with the routinized script of killing (Johnson, 2005). Forced complicities give the impression that prisoners accept the righteousness of their death, in a way telling witnesses that they regret their actions and acknowledge their transgression (LaChance, 2007).
Death penalty research suggests that calculated death penalty procedures may be created and administered with dehumanizing purposes (Johnson, 2005). References to animals in comparison with the execution process establish a history of dehumanization in which prisoners on death row are seen as less than human; for example, the lethal injection process is often likened to putting a dog “to sleep” (Dayan, 1997). The amalgamation of poor death row living conditions, routinization, control, and forced complicity constitutes procedures with dehumanizing repercussions. Death row can be described not as a prison or rehabilitation center, but as a human warehouse (Johnson, 2005). Members of the execution team acknowledge that by the time a prisoner reaches the death house, they are “beaten…shells of their former selves, mentally dead or dying” (Johnson, 2005, p. 156). The process relies on an exhaustive absence of self-determination to complete an execution with no problems; it has a focus on “preserving the body but ignoring the person” (Johnson, 2005, p. 94). A prisoner’s identity is ignored while their body is held for safekeeping until the state decides it is time for them to die (Johnson, 2005).
Brennan’s Four Principles
The major debate surrounding the U.S. death penalty and its relation to the law centers on whether it violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. However, the terms “cruel” and “unusual” have been conceptualized differently throughout American history. The death penalty has only been determined to be cruel and unusual punishment by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1972 case Furman v. Georgia. Furman conclusively found death sentencing (and, therefore, the death penalty) to be unconstitutional due to the high levels of discretion in the capital trial process, which had arbitrary effects (Furman v. Georgia, 1972). In the Furman decision, Brennan applied precedent from the case Wilkerson v. Utah (1878) to reaffirm that cruel and unusual punishment in the death penalty would involve “something inhumane and barbarous, something more than the mere extinguishment of life,” which denies human dignity (Furman v. Georgia, 1972, p. 265). He finds that American states, “even as [they] punish, must treat [their] members with respect for their intrinsic worth as human beings” (Furman v. Georgia, 1972, p. 271). He then constructs four principles that can be employed to conclude whether a punishment comports with human dignity – a condition which ultimately establishes constitutionality. These four principles provide a conceptual framework for this study and for analyzing data from Ohio death watch proceedings.
Brennan first finds that a punishment cannot be so severe that it degrades the dignity of a human being (Furman v. Georgia, 1972, p. 271). He specifically notes that an unconstitutional punishment would “treat members of the human race as nonhumans, as objects to be toyed with and discarded” (Furman v. Georgia, 1972, pp. 272-273). He states that the punishment cannot be arbitrarily inflicted (Furman v. Georgia, 1972, p. 274). He acknowledges that the punishment must not be deemed unacceptable by society at large, and specifically mentions the fact that modes of punishment used by other countries may be analyzed in reference to the American system of punishment (Furman v. Georgia, 1972, p. 277). Lastly, he establishes that punishment should not be excessive. In his terms, he defines punishment as excessive if another lesser punishment can bring about the same purposes – when it is “nothing more than the pointless infliction of suffering” (Furman v. Georgia, 1972, p. 279). Brennan also asserts that these principles can combine to create an unconstitutional punishment, but the punishment need not entirely oppose each principle; the violation of even one principle is sufficient to deem a punishment unconstitutional (Furman v. Georgia, 1972). Notably, the death penalty is different from all other punishments because it is irrevocable (Furman v. Georgia, 1972). Death does not allow for rehabilitation or change; people put to death have entirely “lost the right to have rights,” a punishment Brennan claims is inherently in violation of human dignity (Furman v. Georgia, 1972, p. 290).
This study analyzes data in relation to two of Brennan’s principles: whether the death watch is so severe that it degrades the dignity of a human being, and whether the death watch is an excessive punishment – one that brings about the pointless infliction of suffering. Because this research investigates death watch timelines, it cannot measure whether capital punishment is imposed arbitrarily (although research on this topic largely indicates that the death penalty is arbitrarily imposed; see Flanders, 2019). Moreover, this research cannot conclude whether contemporary society accepts capital punishment (although the literature reflects widespread renouncement of the death penalty by contemporary society; see Stassen, 2008; Shah, 2024).
Methodology
Twenty-six execution timelines from the U.S. state of Ohio were analyzed to discern the constitutionality of the death watch, using Brennan’s principles against excessiveness and degradation to human dignity. The timelines were assembled by prison officials and document each prisoner’s final hours of life during the death watch. These timelines ensure control, routine, and structure in the execution process, serving as a technique of documentation. They are structured on a minute-by-minute basis and include all actions and behaviors of the prisoner deemed relevant by prison officials constructing the timelines, as well as the movement of visitors, witnesses, and prison officials. Ohio execution timelines were made public following a lawsuit related to the legality of a botched execution (American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, 2007).[2] The sample included timelines of 26 men (17 white and 9 Black), all executed by lethal injection between the years 1999 and 2007. The age of prisoners ranged from 28 to 62, with the average age being approximately 44 years. The sample also included 7 prisoners who were volunteers, meaning they waived all rights to appeal, essentially “allowing” the execution to take place expeditiously. Of these 7 volunteers, the average age at death was 38.4 years (7.9 years younger than the average age of non-volunteer prisoners at death, 46.3).
These timelines were coded to identify patterns or themes within qualitative data (see Maguire and Delahunt, 2017). Preliminary themes were developed through a literature review, where past literature regarding the death row and death watch experience was analyzed and synthesized. Emerging themes discovered in the execution timelines were later added to the coding sheet. All 26 timelines were reviewed for themes by hand using an open-ended approach, which allowed for the development of themes throughout the analysis. First, the researcher became familiar with the data by previewing the information with a preliminary reading. Next, initial codes were formulated through knowledge from a literature review and preliminary reading of the execution timelines. Broad thematic categories were created and operationalized by searching for multiple definitions and combining them to establish a definition most related to this study. These themes included organization (the structured sequencing of events, tasks, or processes), control (anything that restricts the autonomy of another person; including, but not limited to, restriction of movement, behavior, activity, and emotion), prisoner complicity (the involvement of a prisoner in the processes of their execution), dehumanization (to deprive a person of human qualities), and discomfort (the experience of mental or physical unease). Marked/coded elements were further arranged into thematic sub-categories and analyzed through the lens of Brennan’s principles governing cruel and unusual punishment.
There are some noteworthy limitations and strengths of this project. This research utilizes a select sample of execution timelines made public by the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections from the years 1999 to 2007. The data sample did not include execution timelines before the reinstatement of the death penalty, excluding the opportunity to compare the application of the death penalty both before and after guided discretion statutes. The data sample also did not include timelines after 2007, which could have depicted the present-day state of death penalty administration in Ohio. (As many execution timelines are not publicized, this study researches a data set that has a lack of prior research and analysis. This absence of research can be linked to the privatization of the death penalty and highlights the need for further study, as discussed later in this paper.) Notably, a large amount of research on the death penalty has been conducted in southern areas of the United States, which typically have higher execution rates. This research was based in Ohio and therefore analyzes the execution proceedings in a state that has not commonly been researched. Lastly, execution timelines are recorded by prison officials, which produces the possibility of bias in the transcripts themselves. For example, prison staff members record interpretations of prisoners’ states of mind without directly quoting the prisoners. Additionally, considering the large number of type-o’s, grammatical errors, misspellings, and inconsistencies, there is a possibility that these timelines are incomplete or were misrecorded. While this is a potential limitation, it is also a strength: these timelines demonstrate which aspects of the execution process the involved officials deem important and illuminate elements that are omitted.
Results
This analysis of death watch timelines uncovered key themes that directly relate to Brennan’s principles – and in turn, provide evidence of the unconstitutionality of the U.S. death penalty. These themes are control[3] of movement, social control, control of perception, prisoner complicity, dehumanization, and discomfort.
Control of Movement. For the purposes of this study, “control of movement” describes strategies used to dictate and restrict the movement of an individual. In the death watch timelines, movement was highly governed by prison officials to ostensibly maintain security and order. All prisoner movement outside cells was documented, including recording the moment a prisoner returned to his cell. Physical elements controlling movement included handcuffs, restraints, leg irons, the prisoner’s cell walls and door, and the bodies of prison officials. Movement of the prisoner inside the cell was also recorded and monitored, down to seemingly banal observations, removing any sense of privacy from the prisoner.
“Restraints removed from I/M Martin and secured in cell” (ODRC, 2007, p. 312)
“Preparing to move to the visiting area. I/M Roe is secured in the visiting area, awaiting his visitors.” (ODRC, 2007, p. 333)
“I/M doing #2 on toilet” (ODRC, 2007, p. 361)
“I/M Brewer ate about 1/4 of cereal. Nothing else.” (ODRC, 2007, p. 307)
Visitors were not allowed to enter the prisoner’s cell to give them a hug in their final moments. Touch with visitors was limited and could only take place through the cell bars. Any item going to a prisoner or being passed from a prisoner to a visitor was checked by an officer. Prisoners had no access to their personal items and had to ask permission to receive them.
“They sit down and ask is there anyway [sic] to hug him, they are informed they may hold hands” (ODRC, 2007, p. 396)
“I/M reaches through the hatch and hugs mom” (ODRC, 2007, p. 385)
“I/M Dennis’ mom reaches in threw [sic] the hatch rubs his cheek and gives him a kiss” (ODRC, 2007, p. 385)
“I/M gives his Bible to Father Weber to take with him-the Bible is checked by Team Leader” (ODRC, 2007, p. 437)
The highest level of controlled movement occurred at the onset of the execution process. At this point, there was a strict routine followed in each timeline, including the prisoner lying on their bed during the insertion of heparin locks (IV catheters placed in a vein to aid with administering medication/drugs), movement to the execution chamber, and the application of restraints. If a prisoner did not comply with the movement to the execution chamber, they were forced.
“Entering chamber. Inmate being placed on bed. Restraints being applied. Restraints now applied” (ODRC, 2007, p. 310)
“Team is carrying inmate to chamber. Inmate is now in chamber, placing inmate on bed.” (ODRC, 2007, p. 328-329)
Social Control. Social control can be defined as strategies used to restrict an individual’s behavior and maintain control. Whereas physical control restricts the movement of a person, social control impacts the emotions, beliefs, and behaviors of a person. The primary method of social control used in the death watch records was interaction between the execution team members and the prisoner. Prison officials involved in the death watch process engaged in conversation with the prisoner to keep them calm and maintain momentum without disruption – a goal that was explicitly stated by a prison director: “I would also like to recognize Warden ___. Warden ___ played a major role to keep him [the inmate] calm” (ODRC, 2007, p. 257). (The names of wardens and other prison officials are blacked out.) Notably, officers usually aided prisoners after particularly difficult moments, such as when the prisoner said goodbye to their family members, or when the prisoner was informed their appeal had been turned down. For example:
“Family members leaving the death house, I/M Fox said it is not goodbye just see you later.
_____ ask [sic] I/M Fox if he needs anything” (ODRC, 2007, p. 297)
“Atty Tkacz informs I/M Roe that his stay has been denied…Director ask I/M Roe how he is doing” (ODRC, 2007, p. 338)
However, the prisoner was simultaneously reminded that the officers were ultimately in control because the prisoner was required to request permission for everything they wished to do. Even when giving their last statement, the Warden “allowed” the prisoner to speak. In the final moments before the execution began, the prisoner was once again implicitly told that the officers were in control as the team leader entered the prisoner’s cell, sat down, and told him the procedures that would occur. Some prisoners verbally recognized their lack of control throughout the execution process by referencing their inability to change their situation during the appeals process of capital sentencing: “States this thing hasn’t been in his hands a long time” (ODRC, 2007, p. 393).
Control of Perception. Depictions of the death watch process in the timelines rarely noted moments of discomfort or pain. No prisoner was quoted as scrutinizing the work of the execution team members, but rather there were many instances when the prisoner thanked or praised the team. Throughout the timelines, specific phrases and words were used to impose emotions on the prisoner, creating a positive portrayal of the execution process. Timelines consistently stated that the prisoner was “in good spirits,” “upbeat,” or in a “good mood.” Officials declared that visits were “going well” in almost every timeline, and determined that prisoners were “enjoying their visit,” or “holding up well.” The timelines also used these phrases on multiple occasions in conjunction with a piece of negative feedback or after an uncomfortable situation. None of these depictions of emotion came directly from the prisoner or visitor, but were instead determined by the team leader or person writing the timeline.[4] For example:
“Still a lot of laughter with tears. More sounding of joy than sorrow” (ODRC, 2007, p. 308)
“Warden ___ states I/M Martin took the news of his denied appeal well” (ODRC, 2007, p. 314)
Out of the 26 timelines, four had a complication with the execution process itself, such as an issue with inserting the IV or the drugs not properly taking effect. During these instances, the complicity and emotions of the prisoner were directly stated. In an execution without complications, however, there was no reference to the prisoner’s emotions. For example, during Christopher Newton’s execution, it took approximately 1.5 hours to insert the heparin locks – requiring a break for both medical staff and Newton. At this time, the timeline stated: “Inmate Newton remains calm” (ODRC, 2007, p. 475).
Prisoner Complicity. Prisoner complicity can be defined as the involvement of the prisoner in the process of their execution. Most prisoners included in the data set complied with the procedures stated by the execution team members. If they did not comply, the condemned were forced to follow the execution agenda. Prisoners were compelled to participate in the process if they wished to have temporarily eased restrictions, such as requesting food and drink or using a television. Some death watch processes, such as the special meal request and the last statement, reinforced a sense of prisoner control as they took part in the ritualistic events of their final hours of life. While these events may seem like a personal choice, they ultimately follow the prescribed guidelines of the execution process and ensure the prisoner complies with the death watch script. The most extreme instance of prisoner complicity was showcased in the seven volunteers included in the execution timelines; these prisoners decided to stop the appeals process to effectively shorten their time on death row, allowing the execution to occur.
Dehumanization. The timelines contained many references to dehumanization, which is anything that deprives a person of human qualities. Prisoners on death watch experienced a slow dehumanization process as exemplified by how prisoners were referenced in the timelines. Upon arrival, prisoners were referred to as “Inmate (last name),” as they followed the structured schedule of the timeline and engaged in activities. The timelines specifically delineated the death watch from the execution process by stating “process to begin.” From that point forward, prisoners were only referred to as “inmate.” Although it was usually stated that a prisoner made a final statement before death, the content of the final statement was never included in the timeline. Once the execution ended, the prisoner became “body.” The use of the passive voice was also often used when referring to prisoners. This grammatical structure references a prisoner as an object that has things done to them, rather than being a person who is doing an action; “I/M Dennis placed in shower” and “I/M Byrd “given shower” (ODRC, 2007, p. 384, 266).
Many prisoners were aware of the dehumanization process at work and made references to their impending death, often as self-deprecating jokes that can be interpreted as defense mechanisms. One prisoner even referenced his escort trip from his regional prison to the death watch prison by “laughing about being the weight for traction” (ODRC, 2007, p. 294). Other examples include:
“Inmate Buell stated that, ‘I am the pre-election kill’” (ODRC, 2007, p. 287)
“IM Mink talking with team members said ‘I think I’ll have one more cigarette and then quit.’ He starts to laugh.” (ODRC, 2007, p. 377)
Discomfort. The timelines included evidence of discomfort – the experience of mental or physical unease, most represented as emotional discomfort. During final visits and goodbyes, both prisoners and visitors were reported to cry, “show emotions,” hold hands, have “low spirits,” and be “visibly shaken.” In the timelines, potentially passionate language was neutralized, portraying emotions as actions rather than feelings. For example, prisoners’ discomfort was typically characterized through phrases such as “pacing in cell,” “very quiet,” “blowing nose,” or “restless.” Many prisoners referenced physical discomfort attributed to the prison experience as a whole, or linked that suffering directly to their presence on death row:
“States he hadn’t had real food in ten years” (ODRC, 2007, p. 381)
“I/M states to team member that it’s Hotter thean [sic] Hell in here can I open my window” (ODRC, 2007, p. 435)
“They say it will be somewhat of a celebration to see I/M suffering end” (ODRC, 2007, p. 346)
“IM Vrabel talking with the Team Leader about his decission [sic] to go this way than wait out the rest of his time waiting for a date” (ODRC, 2007, p. 366)
“Inmate Buell said that his wife would have visited but he ask [sic] her not to come into the belly of the beast, Death Row” (ODRC, 2007, p. 287)
As the executions approached, many prisoners made statements regarding their nerves:
“I/M Williams states to Rev. Sims, “I getting [sic] very nervous now” (ODRC, 2007, p. 327)
“I/M Smith talking with team members lets them know it is getting harder to handle” (ODRC, 2007, p. 396)
Four prisoners experienced problems with their IV, making it necessary for the IV to be inserted many times and/or inserted into another part of their body – a process that can be physically and emotionally painful.
“Heparin lock in left arm a ‘no go,’ will start over” (ODRC, 2007, p. 338)
“Medical is still attempting to find a good vein. Medical checking leg & feet area, along with neck area.” (ODRC, 2007, p. 443)
While all prisoners had their vitals checked upon arrival, many prisoners also requested to see medical staff throughout their confinement to respond to physical and mental ailments. Some of the most common ailments included upset stomach, sinus congestion, headache, body pain, and high blood pressure. All prisoners were advised of sedative availability, and many received sedatives such as Valium, Ativan, Vistaril, and Hydroxyzine – illustrating how prison officials are aware of and actively attempt to combat the anxiety-inducing experience of the death watch and execution processes.
Discussion
Execution timelines can be understood as a mechanism to control the interpretation and portrayal of the execution process in a format that appears organized but is inconsistent. Type-o’s, incorrect grammar, different formats of organization, punctuation errors, and varying censoring of names reflect that the execution process – while seemingly controlled down to the minute – is a process that differs with each execution and is only practiced a few times a year, usually with multiple months in between executions. Prisoners have their emotions decided by the authors of the execution timelines, who frequently note that the prisoner is in good spirits, calm, or having a nice conversation without the prisoner directly stating their emotions. This finding is interesting in light of the contradictory finding that many prisoners request and receive medications for upset stomachs, headaches, and other physical discomforts related to anxiety (see Harvard Health Publishing, 2024). Considering how these execution timelines were released following a records request by the ACLU of Ohio regarding a botched execution (American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, 2007), the rigid documentation of movement, security, and emotion in the timelines could represent a preoccupation with controlling the interpretation of the death watch process.
The use of execution timelines suggests that prison institutions seek to define the execution process as a highly practiced, consistent, and reliable procedure. However, the death watch process can be understood as a microcosm of the capital trial and sentencing legal process. The death penalty has received constitutional critiques and has even been deemed unconstitutional in a decision that has now been suspended, Furman v Georgia (1972). Furman found that death penalty sentencing was administered with too much discretion, which allowed for arbitrary applications of capital punishment – referred to by Justice Potter Stewart as being cruel and unusual in the “same way that being struck by lightning is cruel and unusual” (Furman v. Georgia, 1972, p. 408). This decision promoted a new era of death penalty administration by popularizing mandatory sentencing for capital crimes; a process that was also deemed unconstitutional because it failed to individualize the death sentencing process to account for the unique necessity of discretion when considering a human life. The combination of these two issues leaves the death penalty process in a “Goldilocks” situation, where both the proper amount of discretion and regulation are necessary to produce a fair capital sentence.
The 1976 case Gregg v. Georgia reinstated the death penalty by relying on guided discretion statutes; in short, the Supreme Court ruled that the use of procedural safeguards could make the death penalty constitutional (Gregg v. Georgia, 1976). Jurors and judges analyze both mitigating factors (that may lead a jury to impose a lesser sentence) and aggravating factors (that may motivate a jury to impose the death penalty) in a capital crime to determine whether the crime warrants execution (Gregg v. Georgia, 1976). Mandated appeals in capital sentences and guided discretion statutes leave the public with the feeling that capital punishment is a highly regulated process that leaves no room for error, allowing for the moral diffusion of responsibility. This process has the outward resemblance of a checklist; when certain elements are checked off, the defendant should receive the death penalty. In practice, however, the process allows for immense discretion from state to state, allowing room for inconsistency and error (Steiker & Steiker, 2017).
The Ohio execution timelines mimic this effect. At first glance, the execution timelines themselves seem to be highly organized. Upon closer evaluation, however, there is an abundance of errors and inconsistencies in each timeline. This suggests that the death penalty process struggles to achieve the appropriate balance of discretion and regulation, illuminating an ongoing issue with capital punishment that may impose the death penalty arbitrarily. Without consistency in the capital sentencing process and transparency in the death watch and execution process, botched executions and inhumane procedures can occur without public knowledge. Furthermore, public conception that the execution process is essentially fool proof resigns the public to complacency; those who do not study the death penalty assume that errors in the execution process are unavoidable.
With those observations in mind, the following sub-sections discuss the research data in relation to two of Justice Brennan’s four principles: whether the death watch is so severe that it degrades the dignity of a human being, and whether the death watch is an excessive punishment. The first principle set forth by Brennan centers on how punishment “must not be so severe as to be degrading to the dignity of human beings” (Furman v. Georgia, 1972, p. 271). The Furman v. Georgia decision emphasizes that all human beings have an innate right to dignity, which cannot be eroded or disregarded during punishment (Furman v. Georgia, 1972). Yet, “the calculated killing of a human being by the States involves, by its very nature, a denial of the executed person’s humanity” (Furman v. Georgia, 1972, p. 290). The second principle forces us to investigate whether a punishment “serves no penal purpose more effectively than a less severe punishment” (Furman v. Georgia, 1972, p. 280). While the death penalty has largely been determined as a deterrent with no greater effect than life imprisonment (Furman v. Georgia, 1972), this research primarily focuses on Brennan’s second definition of “excessive” in relation to the Eighth Amendment: a punishment is severe when it is “nothing more than the pointless infliction of suffering” (Furman v. Georgia, 1972, p. 279).[5]
Human Dignity
A prisoner’s need for human contact and comfort in the final hours of their life is exploited by prison officials as a weakness. Conversation with prisoners is used as a mechanism of domination (as indicated by goals directly stated by prison directors), including when conversations occur after prisoners experience emotionally upsetting events. Prison guards on death row often receive direct orders to avoid conversation with prisoners to avoid building personal connection (Johnson, 2005; Osofsky et al., 2005), yet personnel are praised for engaging in discussion with prisoners on death watch – specificallyto calm and distract them. The immediate switch from the importance of avoiding discussion to the necessity of engaging in discussion demonstrates how conversation is used as a method of control during a prisoner’s final hours.
Such control removes autonomy from the prisoner; a right which is routinely acknowledged as a basic human freedom (Harrison, 2020). Various aspects of the death row process are substantially different from the death watch process. For example, prisoners on death watch can make requests for specific food, visit with family members multiple times, and make unlimited phone calls. However, to take part in these temporary diminishments of restriction, prisoners are forced to comply with procedures by making requests through prison officials. If a prisoner did not follow the usual course of action (such as not wishing to make a final meal request, make a final statement, or have witnesses at their execution), prison officials pressured them to follow the normalized execution process. These moments of forced complicity give the impression that the prisoner has agency while granting prison officials authority over the procedure.
The denial of physical and emotional privacy for prisoners on death watch further illustrates their lack of recognized human status. Officers watch every move of the prisoner, including when they use the bathroom, shower, or change clothes. Officers also witness every emotion of the prisoner, including emotional breakdowns after a final visit with family members. There is an implicit cruelty in a complete lack of privacy, a direct dereliction of dignity derived from being relentlessly monitored and documented by a third party. This rigid documentation serves to define the prisoner less as a human and more as a lab-rat to be experimented on and observed – or Brennan might say, “as objects to be toyed with and discarded” (Furman v. Georgia, 1972, pp. 272-273). Even during a prisoner’s final moments with loved ones, a prison official enters the visiting room to take a morbid final photo of a prisoner smiling with their family. While institutions have a responsibility to protect against potential violence inside prisons, security incentives do not justify the exhaustive restriction of privacy for prisoners.
Further representing the subhuman status of prisoners, the timelines utilize grammatical structures that deem a prisoner not as a human but as an object. The timelines employ the passive voice, such as “the prisoner is being moved by the officers.” This structure, in a literal sense, dehumanizes the prisoner by referring to them as an object – indicating that an object is being acted upon, rather than reflecting what a person did or does. Upon arrival at the death watch institution, the prisoner is referred to as “Inmate [last name].” Over the coming hours, the prisoner will slowly be referred to only as “inmate” and eventually as “body.” The prisoner was never seen as a human by officials, only as an object, or as termed by the prison officials writing the timelines, an “inmate” (Osofsky et al., 2005). Although a prisoner is always offered the opportunity to make a final statement, the content of final statements is not included in the execution timeline; a detail that represents the dehumanization and lack of dignity afforded to prisoners in their final moments.
Prisoners experience a lack of human dignity during their treatment on death watch. The absence of both physical and emotional privacy dehumanizes prisoners while simultaneously granting power to officers, creating a power imbalance that suggests a hierarchy of human needs, where officers receive dignity and prisoners do not. Prisoners’ dignity is decayed as they are referred to only as “inmate” and eventually as a “body.” The conjunction of these practices, along with death row conditions which place humans in cells resembling dog cages, can be understood as the degradation of human dignity, violating Brennan’s principle against “a refusal to accord the criminal human status” (Furman v. Georgia, 1972, p. 273).
Excessiveness
Frequent notes about the administration of medication are one way the timelines highlight the excessive nature of the death watch. All prisoners are offered a sedative before the execution, demonstrating that officials are aware that the execution process is stressful. Prisoners commonly requested medication for upset stomachs and headaches, which are symptoms commonly associated with stress or anxiety (Harvard Health Publishing, 2024). Many prisoners also required medications for physical ailments, potentially representing conditions that began or were exacerbated by the extreme physical conditions of imprisonment. For example, medications are commonly prescribed for high blood pressure and body aches. High blood pressure can often be linked to lifestyle factors, such as a lack of physical activity, consumption of unhealthy foods, poor-quality sleep, and high-stress experiences – all common features of death row (Johnson, 2005; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2024). Twenty-seven percent of prisoners depicted in the timelines volunteered for their execution by waiving legal rights to appeals; many of these volunteering prisoners mentioned that they did not wish to spend their remaining time on death row, conveying that the death row experience caused them severe distress.
The most uncomfortable experience cited in the timelines regarded problems with the execution process itself. Four of the 26 timelines (15%) demonstrated an issue with the execution process, most commonly issues with IVs that required multiple attempts at inserting an IV – including inserting an IV in other body locations, such as a leg or neck. Notably, the execution timelines used for this study were made public after a lawsuit concerning the botched execution of Christopher Newton. Newton’s execution took approximately an hour and a half – an amount of time so lengthy that both the medical team and Newton had to take breaks before continuing attempts to insert the heparin locks (ODRC, 2007).
Another striking example of an excessive death watch punishment is the denial of physical contact between a prisoner and their loved ones before execution. For instance, prison officials did not allow a mother to hug her son for the final time before his death. A focus on security may be the claimed purpose for this policy, but both the prisoner and all visitors are thoroughly searched before entering the death house. Prisoners and visitors are watched by a large team of officials, and the prisoner does not have access to any items that have not been approved by a team member. There is no real threat to safety and security in allowing a final embrace, but rather it seems to be done to prevent any source of comfort from coming into close contact with the prisoner.
Philosopher Albert Camus (1963) wrote that there are “two deaths” inflicted upon a capital defendant: the execution, and the time leading up to the execution when the prisoner must wait for their impending death (p. 156). However, it can be argued that in the modern day, there are three deaths inflicted upon a prisoner. First, the prisoner must survive death row, which not only causes bodily destruction but also emotional suffering that dehumanizes prisoners (Johnson, 2005). Next, a prisoner is transported to the death house to experience the death watch. During these final hours, prisoners face extreme uncertainty surrounding their possible death. Upon their arrival at the death watch institution, most prisoners have not exhausted the appeals process completely. In fact, only briefly before their execution do prisoners find out their final appeals for life are denied. For example, Inmate Lewis Williams’ execution timeline states that the Supreme Court denied his final appeal for stay just two hours before his execution. Up until their final appeal is denied, prisoners are left sitting in a heavily guarded cell, considering the possibility of their death. One can imagine the prisoner picking the petals of a flower like a powerless child: “They’ll kill me, they’ll kill me not.” After being told the execution will occur, the prisoner must immediately attempt to come to terms with their death, while simultaneously meeting with loved ones, following the instructions of the guards, and putting on a brave face. Finally, the prisoner faces the execution itself; while being watched by onlookers, the prisoner is killed by the hands of the prison officials who tended to them for their final hours.
Each of these processes has distinct goals defined by the execution team members. During a prisoner’s time on death row, they are “warehoused” (Johnson, 2005). Prison officials are directly told to avoid emotional connection with a prisoner and to ensure maximum security and control (Osofsky et al., 2005). On the death watch, conversation is used to achieve goals of control and distraction (Osofsky et al., 2005). Upon reaching the execution chamber, prisoners are completely ignored, and the only goal is the controlled killing of the prisoner without disruption (Johnson, 2005). The prisoner experiences emotional whiplash throughout their punishment; sometimes they feel as though prison officials can be trusted and confided in, while at other times their humanity and dignity are completely ignored in the pursuit of control. Discrepancies between treatment at each juncture of the execution process suggest that each aspect is a distinct punishment, and therefore that prisoners experience three separate punishments rather than just one, making this punishment excessive in nature. Additionally, prison officials take part in crude actions that have no discernible impact on safety or security. The only apparent outcome of denying a prisoner final physical comfort from family members is the degradation of human dignity, a consequence that has already been determined to constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Considering these findings, the death penalty can be defined as excessive punishment.
Conclusion
Based on the analysis of the death penalty and Ohio death watch timelines, this paper argues that capital punishment violates the Eighth Amendment protections against cruel, unusual, and excessive punishment. The execution timelines reveal the troubling experiences and treatment of prisoners facing the death penalty. Prison officials utilize techniques of medicalization and routinization to emotionally distance themselves from the execution process, which not only contributes to the dehumanization of prisoners but creates end-of-life care that is impersonal and undignified. Along with these processes, consistent secrecy regarding execution procedures limits public knowledge about the death penalty and conceals dehumanizing mechanisms that may be publicly rejected. Prison officials create execution timelines in a format that allows for complete control of perception by the prison institution, and even include biased statements that portray the execution process in a superior light. After close examination, however, Ohio execution timelines were severely disorganized, exemplifying an issue in death penalty administration analogous to arbitrariness caused by discretion, which was found to be unconstitutional in Furman v. Georgia (1972). After taking part in the planned death of another human, officials congratulate each other and exchange prideful words during events that resemble celebrations.
The timelines directly inform readers about practices contributing to dehumanization by recording the experiences and emotions of prisoners before their execution. Death watch prisoners are strictly controlled, both physically and emotionally, in a manner that restricts autonomy and degrades human dignity. One method of social control employed is forced prisoner complicity, in which prisoners must take part in aspects of their own execution, such as final visits, last meals, and last statements, to sustain the execution process. Prisoners made many references to uncomfortable experiences, including physical ailments and emotional collapse, which inform the public of the dehumanizing quality of death row and death watch confinement.
The execution timelines and prisoners’ words reference three separate punishments that accompany a capital sentence: death row imprisonment, death watch imprisonment, and the execution. The combination of these punishments, each with distinct goals and expectations, conceives excessive punishment which goes beyond justifiable discipline and reaches into “something more than the mere extinguishment of life” (Furman v. Georgia, 1972, p. 265). Using Justice Brennan’s principles against cruel and unusual punishment, decided in the only United States Supreme Court case to have found the death penalty unconstitutional, there are clear violations of the principles against excessive and degrading punishment. Therefore, based on the Ohio execution timelines, the death penalty is unconstitutional and must be abolished.
References
American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio. (2007, May 31). ACLU launches investigation into Newton Execution. Retrieved from https://www.acluohio.org/en/press-releases/aclu-launches-investigation-newton-execution.
Camus, A. (1963). Resistance, Rebellion, and Death. New York: The Modern Library.
Dayan, J. (1997). The Blue Room in Florence. The Yale Review, 85(1): 27-46.
Death Penalty Information Center. (2025). Executions by state and region since 1976. Retrieved from https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/executions/executions-overview/number-of-executions-by-state-and-region-since-1976.
Flanders, C. (2019). What Makes the Death Penalty Arbitrary (And Does It Matter If It Is). Wisconsin Law Review, 1: 55-128.
Furman v. Georgia. (1972). 408 U.S. 238. Retrieved from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/408/238/.
Gray, E. (2019). Decades in Death’s Twilight: Cruel and Unusual Punishment on Texas’s Death Row. New Criminal Law Review, 22(2): 140-163.
Gregg v. Georgia. (1976). 428 U.S. 153. Retrieved from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/428/153/.
Harrison, K. (2020). The Human Right to Health: Autonomy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Harvard Health Publishing. (2024, July 29). Recognizing and easing the physical symptoms of anxiety. Harvard Medical School. Retrieved from https://www.health.harvard.edu/mind-and-mood/recognizing-and-easing-the-physical-symptoms-of-anxiety.
Johnson, R. (2005). Death Work: A Study of the Modern Execution Process. Cengage Learning.
Johnson, R. (2014). Reflections on the Death Penalty: Human Rights, Human Dignity, and Dehumanization in the Death House. Seattle Journal for Social Justice, 13(2): 583-598.
Johnson, R. (2016). Solitary Confinement until Death by State-Sponsored Homicide: An Eighth Amendment Assessment of the Modern Execution Process. Washington and Lee Law Review, 73(3): 1213-1242.
Kovarsky, L. (2023). Suffering Before Execution. Virginia Law Review, 109(7): 1429-1490.
LaChance, D. (2007). Last Words, Last Meals, and Last Stands: Agency and Individuality in the Modern Execution Process. Law and Social Inquiry, 32(3): 701-724.
Maguire, M., & Delahunt, B. (2017). Doing a Thematic Analysis: A Practical, Step-by-Step Guide for Learning and Teaching Scholars. All Ireland Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 8(3): 3351-3354.
Miller, K. S., & Hunt, S. A. (2008). Exit Stage Left: A Dramaturgical Analysis of Media Accounts of Executions in America. Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture, 15(2).
Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction (ODRC). (2007). Timelines.
Osofsky, M. J., Bandura, A., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2005). The Role of Moral Disengagement in the Execution Process. Law and Human Behavior, 29(4): 371-393.
Shah, P. (2024). Reevaluating Capital Punishment: An Ethical and Pragmatic Examination. Righting Wrongs: A Journal of Human Rights, 14(1).
Smith, A. (2008). Not “Waiving” but Drowning: The Anatomy of Death Row Syndrome and Volunteering for Execution. The Boston University Public Interest Law Journal, 17: 237-254.
Stassen, G. (2008). The Death Penalty is Losing. Tikkun, 23(4): 43-47.
Steiker, C. S., & Steiker, J. M. (2017). Courting Death: The Supreme Court and Capital Punishment. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
United Nations. (1948). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights.
United Nations General Assembly. (1990, December 14). Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners. General Assembly resolution 45/111. Retrieved fromhttps://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/basic-principles-treatment-prisoners.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2024, April 30). Causes and risk factors. National Heart Lung and Blood Institute. Retrieved from https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/high-blood-pressure/causes.
© Copyright 2025 Righting Wrongs: A Journal of Human Rights. All rights reserved.
Righting Wrongs: A Journal of Human Rights is an academic journal that provides space for undergraduate students to explore human rights issues, challenge current actions and frameworks, and engage in problem-solving aimed at tackling some of the world’s most pressing issues. This open-access journal is available online at www.webster.edu/rightingwrongs.
[1] The Furman decision found that the death penalty violated the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and its prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, thereby commuting the sentences of prisoners on death row. However, the court reversed its decision on the death penalty with its decision in Gregg v. Georgia (1976) by ruling that new state statutes, including procedural safeguards, could make the death penalty constitutional.
[2] These timelines from the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction (ODRC) were captured for academic study before they were removed from the public record.
[3] Elements of stringent physical and social control were present in all 26 timelines, based on the definition of control being anything that restricts the autonomy of another person. That is, restriction of movement, behavior, activity, or emotion.
[4] For a prisoner who was not complicit with the officers, the timeline writer stated: “I/M appears to be aggitated [sic] with everything that is and isn’t going on. Sarcastic when he does speak” (ODRC, 2007, p. 352).
[5] Although beyond the scope of this study, it is worth noting that the death penalty includes suffering during a prisoner’s time on death row – often averaging more than two decades without sunlight, interaction, and opportunities for mental stimulation (Johnson, 2016).