Gruesome Spectacles Revisited: News Coverage of Botched Lethal Injections Since 2010
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research is a continuation of the work done by one of the authors (Austin Sarat) in Gruesome Spectacles: Botched Executions and America’s Death Penalty. That book examined newspaper coverage of botched executions, from hangings, the electric chair, and the gas chamber firing to the early usage of lethal injection. It covered the period 1890 to 2010 and paid particular attention to changes in newspapers’ reporting of botched executions. It argued that the treatment of botched executions as “mishaps” rather than injustices blunted botched executions’ impact on the death penalty abolitionist movement. In this paper, we discuss newspaper coverage of botched lethal injections since 2010, looking closely at nine such executions identified by the Death Penalty Information Center website. Recent news reporting has mainly confirmed Sarat’s findings. However, a new component of the coverage of botched executions— interviews with the victims’ families— further dampens the impact of botched executions on support for the abolition of the death penalty.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".