By Lawrence Hurley
(Reuters) - Tensions on the Supreme Court over the use of the death penalty in the United States spilled over on Wednesday as the justices appeared badly split in a case brought by three death row inmates calling Oklahoma's lethal injection method a violation of the U.S. Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
The nine-member court's conservatives seemed likely to side with the state while its liberals expressed doubt about the propriety of using the drug at the center of the case. Justice Anthony Kennedy, who often casts the deciding vote in close cases, said little to indicate how he would rule.
Mum's £5 Wrinkle Trick?
The testy nature of exchanges between the justices during the hour-long oral argument illustrated that while the case concerned just one drug, it was playing out against the much bigger question of whether the death penalty should be used at all. But that question was not before the court.
The drug at the heart of the case is a sedative called midazolam, which the three convicted murderers - Richard Glossip, John Grant and Benjamin Cole - contend is unsuitable for use in executions because it cannot achieve the level of unconsciousness required for surgery.
Some of the conservatives expressed concern that the challenge to the drug is part of what Justice Samuel Alito called a "guerrilla war against the death penalty."
Similarly, Chief Justice John Roberts told the lawyer for the inmates that people sentenced to death could be let off the hook simply because acceptable drugs are not available.
Despite the bigger question of the death penalty lurking in the background, only Justice Stephen Breyer, one of the liberals, specifically referenced it.
He and the other three liberal justices focused most of their questions on technical details about whether the drug can induce a level of unconsciousness required for surgery. Justice Elena Kagan said that if midazolam does not work, then condemned inmates would essentially be burned alive by one of the other drugs used in the process, potassium chloride.
The main question before the justices was whether the use of midazolam violates the Constitution's Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
The drug has been used in executions in Oklahoma, Florida, Ohio and Arizona.
A decision by the Supreme Court is due by the end of June.
The three-drug process used by Oklahoma prison officials has been under scrutiny since a botched execution exactly a year ago of convicted murderer Clayton Lockett. He could be seen twisting on the gurney after death chamber staff failed to place the intravenous line properly.
The case does not address the constitutionality of the death penalty in general, but brings fresh attention to the ongoing debate over whether the death penalty should continue in the United States at a time when most developed countries have abandoned it.
Opponents say midazolam is not approved for use in painful surgeries and should not be used in the death chamber because it cannot maintain a coma-like unconsciousness, potentially leaving inmates in intense pain from lethal injection drugs that halt breathing and stop the heart.
Oklahoma maintains the drug is effective. Oklahoma's lawyers said in court papers the case was a "full-throated attack" on the state's ability to implement death sentences.
Glossip arranged for his employer to be beaten to death. Grant stabbed a correctional worker to death. Cole killed his 9-month-old daughter.
Oklahoma's governor, Mary Fallin, this month signed a law allowing the state to use nitrogen gas as an alternative execution method if the Supreme Court finds the state's lethal injection process uncons
titutional or drugs are unavailable.
Source: US supreme court set hear oklahoma death penalty
(Reuters) - Tensions on the Supreme Court over the use of the death penalty in the United States spilled over on Wednesday as the justices appeared badly split in a case brought by three death row inmates calling Oklahoma's lethal injection method a violation of the U.S. Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
The nine-member court's conservatives seemed likely to side with the state while its liberals expressed doubt about the propriety of using the drug at the center of the case. Justice Anthony Kennedy, who often casts the deciding vote in close cases, said little to indicate how he would rule.
Mum's £5 Wrinkle Trick?
The testy nature of exchanges between the justices during the hour-long oral argument illustrated that while the case concerned just one drug, it was playing out against the much bigger question of whether the death penalty should be used at all. But that question was not before the court.
The drug at the heart of the case is a sedative called midazolam, which the three convicted murderers - Richard Glossip, John Grant and Benjamin Cole - contend is unsuitable for use in executions because it cannot achieve the level of unconsciousness required for surgery.
Some of the conservatives expressed concern that the challenge to the drug is part of what Justice Samuel Alito called a "guerrilla war against the death penalty."
Similarly, Chief Justice John Roberts told the lawyer for the inmates that people sentenced to death could be let off the hook simply because acceptable drugs are not available.
Despite the bigger question of the death penalty lurking in the background, only Justice Stephen Breyer, one of the liberals, specifically referenced it.
He and the other three liberal justices focused most of their questions on technical details about whether the drug can induce a level of unconsciousness required for surgery. Justice Elena Kagan said that if midazolam does not work, then condemned inmates would essentially be burned alive by one of the other drugs used in the process, potassium chloride.
The main question before the justices was whether the use of midazolam violates the Constitution's Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
The drug has been used in executions in Oklahoma, Florida, Ohio and Arizona.
A decision by the Supreme Court is due by the end of June.
The three-drug process used by Oklahoma prison officials has been under scrutiny since a botched execution exactly a year ago of convicted murderer Clayton Lockett. He could be seen twisting on the gurney after death chamber staff failed to place the intravenous line properly.
The case does not address the constitutionality of the death penalty in general, but brings fresh attention to the ongoing debate over whether the death penalty should continue in the United States at a time when most developed countries have abandoned it.
Opponents say midazolam is not approved for use in painful surgeries and should not be used in the death chamber because it cannot maintain a coma-like unconsciousness, potentially leaving inmates in intense pain from lethal injection drugs that halt breathing and stop the heart.
Oklahoma maintains the drug is effective. Oklahoma's lawyers said in court papers the case was a "full-throated attack" on the state's ability to implement death sentences.
Glossip arranged for his employer to be beaten to death. Grant stabbed a correctional worker to death. Cole killed his 9-month-old daughter.
Oklahoma's governor, Mary Fallin, this month signed a law allowing the state to use nitrogen gas as an alternative execution method if the Supreme Court finds the state's lethal injection process uncons
titutional or drugs are unavailable.
Source: US supreme court set hear oklahoma death penalty
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment