• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Supreme Court Rules Lethal Injection Not Cruel and Unusual Punishment

BPSCG

Penultimate Amazing
B
Joined
Mar 27, 2002
Messages
17,539
Link
The Supreme Court today upheld the constitutionality of execution by lethal injection in Kentucky, rejecting claims that the procedure amounts to cruel and unusual punishment and clearing the way for a resumption of executions in states that were awaiting the court's decision.

By a 7-2 vote in the case, Baze v. Rees, the court ruled that the three-drug combination used by Kentucky and most other states to execute prisoners does not violate the Eighth Amendment. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. announced the judgment and delivered one of several opinions. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David H. Souter dissented.

In an opinion joined by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Samuel A. Alito Jr., Roberts wrote that the petitioners, two convicted murderers sentenced to death in Kentucky state court, had not proved that "the risk of pain from maladministration of a concededly humane lethal injection protocol, and the failure to adopt untried and untested alternatives, constitute cruel and unusual punishment."

Executions using the lethal injection method were put on hold in many states after the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in September. The court previously ruled that the death penalty is constitutional. At issue in Baze v. Rees was the more specific question of whether the three-drug protocol passed constitutional muster.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
balrog666 said:
I wonder what this will mean for Ol' Sparky? Will we have to switch to lethal injection or go back to hanging?
Click to expand...

Only if they find the chair to be cruel or unusual.

I would have voted with the majority I think. I am against the death penalty but not because it is cruel or unusual. If we are going to have the death penalty...injection is probably the way to go.
 
I don't really think there is much dispute regarding if lethal injection is the most humane method of execution - from what I know it's used in euthanasia, which is a pretty good qualifier - but whether or not the current methods for it constitute a humane death. It's a good idea to look into it, since humanity has not exactly shown a lot of mercy when it comes to executions in the past.
 
Why the heck does an execution have to be painless? Experiencing a certain amount of pain before death is neither cruel nor unusual.
 
Region Rat said:
Why the heck does an execution have to be painless? Experiencing a certain amount of pain before death is neither cruel nor unusual.
Click to expand...

Especially considering what people generally had to have done to merit the death penalty to begin with.

I dislike the death penalty, but if we must have it I think it might as well be cheap, effective, and fast. Like the guillotine. Not many people complained of pain and discomfort or slowness with the guillotine. As a method of execution, it's ahead of the rest.
 
Last edited:
TragicMonkey said:
I dislike the death penalty, but if we must have it I think it might as well be cheap, effective, and fast. Like the guillotine. Not many people complained of pain and discomfort or slowness with the guillotine. As a method of execution, it's ahead of the rest.
Click to expand...
Indeed. But then again, Guillotine was a doctor and opposed to death penalty. The problem is that most such people today want nothing to do with the process of execution. Understandable, but a great loss.
 
I'd personally favour a bullet to the head, but that method, like the guillotine, has been shown to be rather messy, and is thus unusually cruel to those who have to clean it up, whether those who clean up are prison guards or trustees.

Now, hanging and lethal injection usually don't result in blood and/or brains being splattered, sprayed, or squirted around the execution chamber. But there is the risk of having feces and urine to clean up after the body's sphincters relax and let loose their contents -- a bit disgusting, but not too cruel. The guards can wear gloves and a filter mask, and even change uniforms before they go home, take a shot of Jack Daniel's, and watch CSI on the telly.

As for good old Sparky, if adequate ventilation is not provided, the fumes and smoke arising from the deceased's body may drive the guards and clean-up crew to vegetarianism -- or worse, veganism -- and what greater cruelty is there to suffer than to lose one's desire for barbecued brisket?

I tell ya, all this talk about "Cruel and Unusual" is a bit baffling.
 
What a split decision.

I like how Scalia and Thomas believe any pain is OK as long as it wasn't planned.

"Hey, we discovered this method of execution causes people to die in screaming horror"
"Did you build it to do that?"
"No"
"Ok by me!"
 
Keep your hands off the buttons Sunni Man. Once was too many; twice is just cruel and unusual.
 
It seems to me that "cruel and unusual" depends on the nature of the crime and hence no method should be considered "cruel and unusual" in an absolute sense.

It would be "cruel and unusual" to sentence a first-time offender to 10 years in prison for shoplifting, but not a repeat armed robber.

In the case of Khalid Sheikh MohammedWP, if he is actually guilty of even half of the crimes he stands accused of, even one of the more medieval methods of capital punishment (List of methods of capital punishmentWP) would seem justified to my mind.
 
From the linked story:
At least 30 states, including Kentucky, use the same combination of three drugs: sodium thiopental, which induces unconsciousness; pancuronium bromide, which paralyzes the muscles; and potassium chloride, which causes cardiac arrest. An attorney for the petitioners, who were backed by other death row inmates around the country, argued that if the first drug does not work, the second induces a "terrifying, conscious paralysis" and the third causes an "excruciating burning pain as it courses through the veins."

(...snip...)

The Kentucky inmates were not asking to be spared execution or injection. Rather, they wanted the court to order the state to switch to a single, massive dose of barbiturates -- the same method used to euthanize animals.
Click to expand...
What I don't understand is why 30 states go through the relatively complex method of using three separate drugs, instead of the massive dose of barbiturates. What advantage does the combination injection provide?
 
Region Rat said:
Why the heck does an execution have to be painless? Experiencing a certain amount of pain before death is neither cruel nor unusual.
Click to expand...

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David H. Souter dissented.

Care to explain that to these two moonbats?

DR
 
Funny thing is, there is a known totally painless cause of death -- hypoxia. Not suffocation, which is far from painless, but breathing pure nitrogen. You feel nothing and just pass out. Then you die.

But just try to suggest "gas chamber" as an execution method!
 
I don't know why they don't use the same thing they use for animals. Inject, a few seconds later the heart stops, done.
 
The issue here isn't whether murderers deserve a painless execution, but truth in advertising. If you don't care, just have a team of men beat the guy to death with sticks.

But if your legislature asks for a painless execution method, isn't it relevant if it's not working?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom