Of all the news stories in February, none caught my attention as much as Tennessee governor, Phil Bredesen’s announcement that he was halting all executions in Tennessee for 90 days.

Like a dog hearing a high-pitched whistle I tilted my head to one side to listen more closely. Knowing he’s an avid supporter of the death penalty, I was slow to trust my ears but felt encouraged when he said, "I think all of you know that I consider the responsibility of the state to carry out the death penalty among the very most serious responsibilities we have”. 

He went on to reassure that “I am a supporter of the death penalty” and that he believes it is "incumbent on the state to carry out these sentences constitutionally and appropriately”.

Great news considering Tennessee’s death penalty is “rife with error” according to David Gushee, A university Fellow and Graves Professor of Moral Philosophy at Union University in Jackson TN. Half of all death sentences in our state are overturned on appeal due to serious constitutional error.

Graves also points out “that number does not include those sitting on death row who are, in all likelihood, innocent of the crimes for which they were convicted.” As an example he sites Paul House, a Tennessee death row inmate awaiting execution for over 20 years despite uncontested DNA evidence that he did not rape the woman he was accused of murdering (rape being the state’s theory of the crime). In June 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court found that “viewing the record as a whole, no reasonable juror would have lacked a reasonable doubt”.

But before interpreting the governor’s actions as morally inspired or evidence that Tennessee’s death penalty system is finally recognized as the broken system that it is, look a little closer.

That the system in Tennessee critically and disproportionately impacts those who are poor and uneducated has little to do with the Governor’s moratorium. Of the 102 inmates on death row 58 are white and 40 are African American—although they represent less than 14% of the states population.

This moratorium is about protocols and related written procedures related to administering death sentences by lethal injection and electrocution.

What the governor is requesting is for the Commissioner to provide him with a “comprehensive review, specifically including the state's protocols and any related procedures, written or otherwise, related to the administration of the death sentence.”

According to an AP report, the governor's reprieve came after death-row inmate Edward J. Harbison sued the state over its execution procedures. Harbison challenged the kinds of drugs used in lethal injections, the lack of specific guidelines on how to administer them and an absence of required professional standards for the execution team.

Bredesen also said the state will evaluate the three-drug cocktail as part of its overhaul of the manual.

What some are wondering is why the governor chose to institute a moratorium now when he claims to be convinced, that the two executions that have been carried out in this state over the past decade, were carried out constitutionally and appropriately? “There did not appear to be any difficulties with those executions”, says the confident Bredesen.

Is it possible the moratorium is meant to draw attention away from the fact that when pressed, no one in his administration could actually define the ingredients of the death cocktail or the proper administration used to kill an inmate? Or is it because pavulon, one of the three ingredients used to paralyze the inmate during execution is banned from being used on pets in the state of Tennessee because it is deemed inhumane?

According to Erik Schelzig in an Associated Press story: “Tennessee's procedure manual for executing prisoners is a jumble of conflicting instructions that mixes new lethal injection instructions with those for the old electric chair”.

In addition to not stating a definitive chemical recipe for death, the Tennessee death manual also calls for a doctor to slice deeply into an inmate's limb if technicians cannot insert the catheter into a vein. That procedure has been challenged in other states as cruel and unusual punishment and for violating a doctor's oath to not harm a patient.

Even Jeb Gov. Jeb Bush - then Florida governor - suspended executions after Angel Nieves Diaz required a second dose of lethal chemicals and took twice as long as usual to die. The drugs were mistakenly injected into his tissue instead of his veins.

So not only is the tragically flawed system in which race and social class play a devastating role in who receives the death penalty in Tennessee (nearly every one of the 102 people on death row could not afford an attorney at trial), but the method of killing them is botched beyond conscience.

The governor’s moratorium is a great beginning and demonstrates he is paying attention to an issue of national concern. Executions are also halted in Missouri, California and North Carolina because of lethal injection concerns.

Rather than a quick fix, how about a thorough review of the flaws within a judicial system that often entraps - and ultimately kills - those without the resources to properly defend themselves?

In other words, how about issuing an authentic, unpolitically motivated moratorium rather than a symbolic gesture that does more to protect the state than the citizens facing execution in all of our names?

BC Columnist Molly Secours is a Nashville writer/filmmaker/speaker host of her Beneath The Spin radio program at 88.1 WFSK at Fisk. Her websites are mollysecours.com and myspace.com/mollysecours. Click here to contact Ms. Secours.