There are news stories that go beyond the event itself and force us to confront much deeper questions. The case of Christa Pike in Tennessee is one of them. Pike, who was sentenced to death for the 1995 murder of Colleen Slemmer, has survived two attempts to execute her by lethal injection. She was taken to a hospital in critical condition, where, according to her lawyers, she is receiving “life-saving medical care.” And this is where the irony begins.
The very same state that attempted to take her life is now called upon to do everything possible to save her. The paradox, however, runs even deeper. The failure of the execution does not automatically nullify the death sentence. That specific execution warrant has now expired, and any new attempt would require a new legal process and a new date. Theoretically, then, an almost inconceivable reality is created, namely, that every medical effort is made today to keep a person alive and, if he recovers, the possibility remains open that the state will attempt once again to end that life. That is, to be saved from the consequences of the attempt to execute him, so that he may eventually be executed again.
There is perhaps no more vivid illustration of the profound contradiction inherent in the death penalty. Of course, the victim must never be forgotten in this discussion. Colleen Slemmer lost her life in an extremely violent manner. The administration of justice, the protection of society, and respect for victims and their families are fundamental obligations of every organized state. But precisely because we are talking about an organized state, a different question arises: How far can the state’s authority extend over the individual?
A state governed by the rule of law is not judged solely by its ability to punish. It is also judged by the limits it sets on its own power. And the death penalty lies precisely at the extreme end of this authority, since it is the moment when the state does not merely restrict a person’s freedom, but decides that their very life must end. The Tennessee case adds yet another dimension. When an execution fails and the condemned person finds himself between life and death, the logic of the state is reversed. The mechanisms that were activated just moments earlier to bring about death are now activated to preserve life.
And this is not merely a technical or procedural paradox. It is a profound question about the nature of state power, human dignity, and ultimately the very concept of justice. For the true test of a state governed by the rule of law does not lie in the easy cases. It lies precisely where social condemnation is strongest and the crime is most serious. The strength of a state is not demonstrated by how far it can go against human beings. It is demonstrated by the limits that, even in the most difficult moments, it chooses to place on its own power.
P.S. By the end of 2025, 113 countries had completely abolished the death penalty (including all European Union member states), and a total of 145 had abolished it either by law or in practice. At the same time, however, Amnesty International documented at least 2,707 executions in 2025, a figure that does not include the thousands of executions estimated to have taken place in China.
