Executions have traditionally been conducted in public view, whether in town squares or prisons, to ensure accountability and transparency. However, Indiana took a different route recently, but ultimately allowed a reporter to witness the execution of Joseph Corcoran despite initial plans that barred independent witnesses.
While the state’s earlier statements indicated no media presence due to laws governing death penalties, Corcoran facilitated the inclusion of a journalist from the Indiana Capital Chronicle on his list of approved witnesses. This modification was communicated on social media shortly after the execution took place in the early hours of Wednesday.
Prior discussions highlighted concerns from First Amendment advocates and experts in capital punishment regarding Indiana’s efforts to keep execution proceedings opaque, raising alarm about the implications of such secrecy. Robin Maher, the executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, emphasized that media witnesses are crucial for providing fact-based, firsthand accounts of the execution process, promoting government accountability, and transparency in these serious matters.
Notably, various news organizations have been instrumental in highlighting instances when executions have gone awry, shedding light on the varied execution practices across the country, including in states like Idaho and Alabama. The role of media in documenting these processes is paramount, as formal accounts provided by prison officials often downplay the harsh realities faced during lethally administered injections.
After a request for clarification on Indiana’s restrictive stance regarding independent witnesses, a spokesperson for the Indiana Department of Correction cited specific state laws that delineate who may attend executions, which notably do not include media personnel. A brief statement from the Department announced Corcoran’s execution process commenced shortly after midnight, with him being pronounced dead at 12:44 a.m.
Corcoran’s attorney revealed that the witnesses present at the execution included himself, the reporter from the Indiana Capital Chronicle, and two family members. Reports indicated that the visibility in the chamber was limited, observing Corcoran’s initial alertness before he ceased further movement a few moments later. The prison warden reportedly drew the blinds before the official time of death was announced.
Historically, the death penalty has roots in ancient practices, dating back 3,800 years to Babylon’s code of law. Over the centuries, various forms of public execution including burning and hanging were prevalent. In the U.S., public executions continued until 1834, when Pennsylvania was the first state to perform executions behind prison walls.
Currently, Indiana and Wyoming stand alone in prohibiting media witnesses during executions, despite many states recognizing the significance of including public oversight. The U.S. Supreme Court’s last significant ruling related to media access at executions occurred in 1890, affirming a complete ban in Minnesota. Even while the ban existed, incidents such as the botched 1906 execution highlight how essential media presence can be.
In later years, rulings have ensured increased access for the public and media to criminal proceedings, aligning with the public’s demand for transparency in government actions. Nonetheless, recent trends indicate a regression in public access to execution processes, with numerous states adopting secrecy laws for death penalty protocols post-2010, raising concerns about a shift toward opacity.
Efforts from news organizations have compelled changes in some states. For instance, in Arkansas, a previous restriction on media note-taking was overturned following reports highlighting the issue. In Idaho, several news organizations are currently suing for access to areas of execution facilities that are currently obscured from view, aiming for increased transparency in lethal injection procedures.
Prior to Corcoran’s execution, various journalistic organizations expressed their concerns over the state’s secrecy in a letter to Indiana’s governor, underscoring the necessity of impartial witnesses during such serious state actions. They argued that the gravity of carrying out an execution necessitates transparency, holding the state accountable to the public.
