Supreme Court rejects challenge to lethal injections

The Associated Press

The court heard arguments on the lethal injection case in January.

Featured Topic | Posted 4 weeks 2 days ago

Supreme Court rejects challenge to lethal injections

The Supreme Court today upheld the three-drug lethal injection method used by the state of Kentucky in a 7-2 decision, clearing the way for an unofficial moratorium on executions to be lifted. "Some risk of pain is inherent in any method of execution no matter how humane -- if only from the prospect of error in following the required procedure," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. "It is clear, then, that the Constitution does not demand the avoidance of all risk of pain in carrying out executions." Is lethal injection a cruel and unusual method of punishment?

Ben likes: Not surprising

Ann Althouse

Justice Thomas thinks it's "obvious" that death penalty opponents will do what they can to obstruct the death penalty, which makes it important to establish a "bright-line rule" that will spare the states the pain of further litigation. But the Court has denied the states this mercy: "(T)oday’s decision is sure to engender more litigation. At what point does a risk become 'substantial'? Which alternative procedures are 'feasible' and 'readily implemented'? When is a reduction in risk 'significant'? What penological justifications are 'legitimate'? Such are the questions the lower courts will have to grapple with in the wake of today’s decision."

Justice Stevens concurs. Noting that the case today does not foreclose further litigation of the issue, he gives the states some advice: consider ending the use of the paralyzing drug (pancuronium bromide). The Court won't find its use unconstitutional, but the states might be well-advised to end it on their own.

Stevens also writes at length to take the position that the death penalty itself -- because of its "negligible returns to the State" -- is "patently excessive and cruel and unusual" in violation of the 8th Amendment. This, as Justice Scalia puts it in his separate opinion, "repudiates (Justice Stevens') prior view and ... adopts the astounding position that a criminal sanction expressly mentioned in the Constitution violates the Constitution."

Joel likes: Lethal injection

Washington Post

Kentucky and most of the other states with the death penalty use a three-step process to administer a so-called lethal injection. First, an inmate is injected with a barbiturate general anesthetic that essentially renders him unconscious; if administered correctly and in the right dose, this drug should prevent the inmate from feeling pain. A second drug is then administered to paralyze the inmate; this drug is meant to prevent disturbing muscle spasms that sometimes accompany death. The third drug stops the heart and causes excruciating burning sensations. The most significant problem with this lethal cocktail is that because the second drug paralyzes the inmate and prevents him from reacting, there is no way to know whether he feels pain from the injection of the third and lethal drug.

Medical monitoring of the inmate could help prevent administration of the heart-stopping drug unless the inmate is unconscious and unable to feel pain. But the plaintiffs offered an even simpler alternative: administer a lethal overdose of the barbiturate general anesthetic, which would render the inmate unconscious and stop his breathing. States should not rely on a flawed execution method that carries the unnecessary risk of pain when a more humane alternative is available.