Of all of the powers of government, the one worthy of the most serious attention is that of execution. Whether one agrees or disagrees with capital punishment, surely all can agree that any time a state makes the conscious decision to kill a person, every step of that process should be undertaken with the utmost diligence, and that the Constitutional provision barring cruel and unusual punishment be met.

In order to assure that government is properly performing its duties when it exercises its power to execute, it is up to the public to monitor the actions of the state, and to do that citizens have both a right and a need to have available as much information about executions as prudence allows. That is why it is unconscionable that Kentucky currently stands on the verge of codifying arbitrary and unreasonable restrictions on the ability of the media to deliver that very information to the public.

The state has proposed regulations governing how it conducts executions. Included in the proposal are several restrictions on media witnesses to executions that will hamper the ability of newspaper, radio and television reporters to observe and record the facts, and thereby preclude society from being able to make an informed decision about whether the state is properly satisfying its duties.

These restrictions run the gamut, including: The well-intentioned but misguided: The regulations go into great detail about when witnesses will be allowed to see into the execution chamber. During electrocution, for example, the proposal calls for the curtains to be closed as the inmate enters the chamber, opened for a final statement, closed again while the inmate is placed into the chair, reopened as the electrocution takes place, closed while the warden checks for signs of life, and finally reopened again if it is necessary to run electrical current through the body once more. Similar requirements are in place for lethal injections. It would appear obvious that such regulations were written out of concern for public taste, but what they actually do is prevent the media from being able to report whether the prisoner was mistreated or if certain parts of the process satisfy the Constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

The unconstitutionally vague: The proposal would ban the use of audio or video recording equipment on "grounds of the penitentiary," without defining precisely what is meant by "grounds of the penitentiary." Taken at its most broad meaning, the term would seemingly bar reporters from interviewing those who gather on prison property to demonstrate both for and against the specific execution or capital punishment in general. Such a prohibition would clearly violate the First Amendment rights of the press.

The unexplainable: The proposal also prohibits reporters from being able to bring pen and paper into the witness room, without giving any justification for the ban.

This is an obvious intrusion upon the ability of the press to do its job, and should be rejected.