The electric chair has been used as a method of execution in the United States since the late 19th century. First introduced as a more humane alternative to hanging, the electric chair soon became notorious for frequent botched executions that caused intense suffering. While most who have been subjected to judicial electrocution have not survived, there have been some rare instances of people living through initial attempts to execute them via electric chair.
Early History of Electrocution
The electric chair was first conceived by a New York State committee in 1885 as a replacement for hanging, which was then the main method of execution. The committee viewed electrocution as a more modern, technologically advanced way to execute criminals that was also supposedly more humane than other methods. On August 6, 1890, convicted murderer William Kemmler became the first person to be judicially executed by electric chair at New York’s Auburn Prison. However, the execution was botched and Kemmler was severely injured but not immediately killed by the initial 17-second burst of electricity. A second jolt was administered, finally resulting in Kemmler’s death. This first botched electrocution raised concerns over whether death by the electric chair truly was quick and painless.
Nonetheless, use of the electric chair soon spread to other states as a replacement for hangings and shootings. Early nitroglycerin dynamite-powered electric chairs were replaced by more efficient AC-powered chairs designed by Harold Brown and Arthur Kennelly in the late 1890s. Throughout the early 1900s, many more executions by electrocution took place, including some high-profile convicted murderers such as Bruno Hauptmann, the kidnapper of the Lindbergh baby. However, botched electrocutions continued to occur regularly, with flames, burning flesh, and slower deaths not uncommon.
Botched Electrocution Cases
While the vast majority of the over 4,300 judicial electrocutions in U.S. history have resulted in death, there have been occasional instances where the executed prisoner improbably survived the initial attempts to electrocute them before finally being killed by subsequent shocks or other means.
Willie Francis (1946)
One of the most famous survival cases was that of Willie Francis, a 17-year-old African American convicted of murder in Louisiana and sentenced to death by electrocution in 1945. When his initial electrocution was carried out on May 3, 1946, faulty equipment and improper set-up caused him to survive after the deadly current failed to kill him. Francis reported that he felt the painful electric shock but did not lose consciousness as the chair malfunctioned. He was returned to prison for nearly a year while debates ensued over whether it was constitutional to attempt a second execution. Francis unsuccessfully appealed his case to the U.S. Supreme Court but was eventually returned to the electric chair and successfully executed the second time on May 9, 1947.
Pedro Medina (1997)
In one of the more modern instances, Pedro Medina was alive for a short time after Florida’s electric chair first malfunctioned during his March 25, 1997 execution. Sparks and flames were seen coming from Medina’s head during the electrocution. Florida prison officials initially claimed he died instantly, but autopsy results later showed that Medina was still alive after the first 2,000-volt surge of electricity. A second jolt killed him after approximately a one-minute delay. This botched electrocution led to the temporary suspension of electrocutions in Florida.
Allen Lee Davis (1999)
Another high-profile Florida electric chair survival case involved Allen Lee Davis, who survived the first surge of electricity on July 8, 1999 before dying from a second jolt. Davis’ botched execution resulted in graphic images of blood flowing from under his death mask, which further galvanized opposition to electrocution as unnecessarily cruel.
These and other botched executions helped lead the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that continued use of the electric chair violated the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Although still legal in some states, lethal injection has now become the predominant method of execution in the United States.
Medical Explanations for Electric Chair Survival
There are a few medical reasons why some prisoners have improbably survived initial electrocution attempts before finally succumbing to subsequent electrical jolts.
Improper voltage or insufficient current flow to the head can prevent immediate unconsciousness and cardiac arrest. Modern electric chairs are supposed to deliver a minimum of 2,000 volts and 7 amps of current for 20 seconds, which generally induces fatal brain and heart damage. However, equipment failures have frequently caused lower voltages and amperages that stun the prisoner but do not immediately kill.
The electrode configuration on the prisoner’s head also significantly impacts current flow to the brain. Ideal positioning over the temples, forehead, and back of the head is required to ensure sufficient current passes through the brain to induce immediate loss of consciousness and respiratory and cardiac arrest. However, in some cases, poor electrode contact and positioning have led to current missing the brain and vital organs.
Pre-existing medical conditions like heart abnormalities may also make some prisoners more resistant to electrical shocks. The heart must be functioning normally in order to reliably go into fatal arrhythmias and cardiac arrest from the strong current.
Regardless of the cause, initial survival of judicial electrocution almost always results in severe burns and extreme pain and suffering before death finally occurs from additional shocks.
Legal and Ethical Implications
The fact that some inmates have initially survived judicial electrocution before ultimately dying raises troubling legal and ethical issues. The Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution forbids the use of cruel and unusual punishment by the state. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that it is permissible to administer a second lethal electrical jolt if the first attempt fails, as prolonging the execution process with a malfunctioning chair constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
Opponents have argued that any attempt to execute someone who survives an initial jolt is both unethical and unconstitutional. Not only is the prisoner subjected to extreme pain and mutilation from botching the process once, but seeking to electrocute them again violates human rights protections against torture, intentional harm, and cruel treatment. Regardless of their crimes, subjecting a surviving prisoner to repeated execution attempts is seen by many as excessively punitive and morally reprehensible.
On the other hand, supporters contend that completing executions in these rare cases may be legally and ethically justified to provide closure to victims’ families and enact the will of the courts. However, public favor has increasingly turned against the use of the electric chair at all due to the significant risk of botching the process and needlessly prolonging death compared to lethal injection.
Prevention Measures
The fact that any prisoners at all have survived judicial electrocution is seen by many as proof of the unacceptable risks involved with this method of execution. However, there are measures that can be taken to help prevent situations where inmates initially live through attempts to electrocute them.
- Proper training of execution teams in the correct use of equipment and procedures.
- Adequate testing and maintenance of the electric chair apparatus prior to executions.
- Ensuring sufficient voltage and current is delivered for a long enough duration.
- Meticulous application of electrodes and mediums like conductive gels to facilitate current flow.
- Allowing for rapid administration of subsequent shocks in the event of initial survival.
Some states have instituted checks like minimum voltage thresholds that must be met for an execution to proceed. However, human error remains an intractable factor, and botched electrocutions are likely to occur from time to time.
Conclusion
Willie Francis, Pedro Medina, Allen Lee Davis and other convicted prisoners who initially survived attempts to execute them highlight the severe risks involved with judicial electrocution. The fact that any inmates at all have lived through initial electric chair shocks before then experiencing tremendous pain and suffering is one of the strongest arguments against the use of electrocution as a method of capital punishment. While exceedingly rare, even one botched case resulting in prolonged agony for a condemned inmate is seen by many as evidence of unjust cruel and unusual punishment that violates ethical bounds. The gradual decline in the use of the electric chair in the United States reflects societal discomfort with a method of execution that unavoidably carries an intolerably high probability of error, undue harm, and needless suffering in the name of state-sanctioned justice.