Associated Press – January 7, 2008
WASHINGTON – Supreme Court justices indicated Monday they are deeply divided over a challenge to the way most states execute prisoners by lethal injection, which critics say creates an avoidable risk of excruciating pain.
With executions in the United States halted since late September, the court heard arguments in a case from Kentucky that calls into question the mix of three drugs used in most executions.
Justice Antonin Scalia was among several conservatives on the court who suggested he would uphold Kentucky’s method of execution and allow capital punishment to resume.
States have been careful to adopt procedures that do not seek to inflict pain and should not be barred from carrying out executions even if prison officials sometimes make mistakes in administering drugs, Scalia said. “There is no painless requirement” in the Constitution, Scalia said.
But other justices said they are troubled by the procedure in which three drugs are administered in succession to knock out, paralyze and kill prisoners. The argument against the three-drug protocol is that if the initial anesthetic does not take hold, a third drug that stops the heart can cause excruciating pain. The second drug, meanwhile, paralyzes the prisoner, rendering him unable to express his discomfort.
“I’m terribly troubled by the fact that the second drug seems to cause all risk of excruciating pain,” Justice John Paul Stevens said.
Both sides in the case said they are bothered by the seemingly endless series of death penalty cases that come to the court.
Justice David Souter urged his colleagues to take the time necessary to issue a definitive decision about the three-drug method in this case, even if it means sending the case back to Kentucky for more study by courts there.
Scalia, however, said such a move would mean “a national cessation of executions. We’re looking at years. We wouldn’t want that to happen.”
Kentucky, backed by the Bush administration, says it works hard to execute inmates humanely, countering claims that its procedure violates the 8th Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
But Donald Verrilli, a Washington lawyer who is a veteran of capital cases, told the justices that problems with executions in California, North Carolina and other states show that the three-drug procedure should be scrapped or thoroughly revamped.
“The risk here is real. That is why it is unlawful to euthanize animals the way Kentucky executes inmates,” Verrilli said. Kentucky bars the use of the paralytic on animals. An overdose of barbiturates is commonly used on animals.
Verrilli suggested a similar method be adopted in Kentucky.
But Roy Englert, arguing for the state, said a single drug has never been used in executions.
By contrast, he said, Kentucky regularly trains its execution team and employs an experienced worker to insert the intravenous lines through which the drugs are administered.
Recent executions in Florida and Ohio took much longer than usual, with strong indications that the prisoners suffered severe pain in the process. Workers had trouble inserting the IV lines that are used to deliver the drugs.
Lined up in front of the court waiting to attend the arguments, college students Jeremy Sperling and Gira Joshi said they oppose the death penalty, but regard making executions less painful and more humane as a worthy goal.
“You have the right to die with dignity,” said Joshi, a political science and religion major at New Jersey’s Rutgers University. Sperling, a psychology and religion major at New York University, said serving a life prison term is the appropriate alternative to the death penalty.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Beliefnet
Advertisement
posted January 7, 2008 at 4:45 pm
I believe they strap the prisoners to a table or chair before administering the injections – why not just use a little more knock-out drug for good measure then move right into the heart-stopper? Perhaps I am missing the benefit of the paralyzer to the condemned.
posted January 7, 2008 at 4:48 pm
‘Scalia, however, said such a move would mean “a national cessation of executions. We’re looking at years. We wouldn’t want that to happen.”‘
Is he afraid we’ll forget how to kill people? Get out of the habit?
If you look at the relatively few countries still executing people I think you’ll find as I do that we are in with sort of a bad crowd. I don’t know whether that’s pertinent in the court case but clearly it is at times cruel (you’d think even Scalia would make the connection between “excruciating pain” and “cruel”) and worldwide as well as in the US it’s becoming borderline unusual.
So, since it’s also irreversible and mistakes do get made, I hope it will be ended.
posted January 7, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Use the same method that seems to work on animals, in which the animals apparently doesn’t feel pain….if that is a problem in executions. As to the 8th amendment being violated? If a person has committed a crime worthy of the death penality, then it probably was a horrible crime, done with malice, cruelty etc. Why should someone worry if the prisoner feels pain during his/her execution? The victim wasn’t given that consideration!
Before the death penality opponents cry the death penality is wrong etc., I would not want it carried out without total and undeniable proof of the person’s guilt. Testing today is more accurate than even in the recent past. Proven guilt…then lights out.
posted January 7, 2008 at 10:10 pm
There is a very dark side of me that thinks that the perpetrator ought to experience the crime they commited. But I try to keep that side well shuttered and allow some light in my life.
So, if it doesn’t work on animals why use it on humans? I am certain the medical community has developed some significant ways to do this in the last couple of decades.
I still think, in my lightest moments, that executions are barbaric and do not accomplish the stated goal of prevention. Most of these people who commit the crimes are as good as dead (a great Biblical phrase). So the death penalty becomes no deterent at all and is actually little more than a formality. We have to have matured as a culture and civilization enough to find better ways to deal with these problems. I think we need to take more time and consideration with the entire topic.
posted January 8, 2008 at 11:39 am
> “I think you’ll find as I do that we are
> in with sort of a bad crowd. I don’t know
> whether that’s pertinent in the court case
> but clearly it is at times cruel (you’d
> think even Scalia would make the connection
> between “excruciating pain” and “cruel”)
> and worldwide as well as in the US it’s
> becoming borderline unusual.”
1.) Instead of referring to Wikipedia and then stating the United States is within the “bad crowd” regarding executions perhaps study up further regarding executions and the reasons thereof. Capital punishment and the carrying out of justice system is not what should be of concern. It should be whether or not those who have been accused of criminal action have received a fair trial and are indeed guilty of their crimes. Many of the countries, save the United States, which was referred to as the “bad crowd” also have high human rights abuses within the extreme. This would include, but not limited to, countries under communist rule or the Islamist states.
2.) Capital punishment is defined by Webster’s as “the legally authorized killing of someone as punishment for a crime”. No where does it say the State must see too it the criminal must be free from any and all pain when justice is carried out. Considering how death sentences had been once carried out…death by lethal injection is rather tame — especially compared to how the individual’s victims are many times murdered. It’s ironic the criminals are the ones allowed to complain about the type of sentence they’ve been given as “cruel and unusual”. When in all consideration isn’t it more logical they would be more concerned of appealing the sentences?
3.) Ironic there’s this discussion at all. But then, we are a nation who allows for the wanton slaughter of innocent children in and outside of the womb as well as deny the simple basic needs for the elderly and disabled. Even so far as trying to state this is “death with dignity” when there are already documented cases concerning the individual being denied the basics of food and water is -not- the one who has actively denied the food and water, but the one who were appointed as their guardians. Thus, why are the lives of criminals on death row being favored over the innocent under the law?
posted January 8, 2008 at 2:10 pm
kami:
3)”Ironic there’s this discussion at all. But then, we are a nation who allows the wanton slaughter of innocent children in and outside of the womb as well as deny the simple basic needs for the elderly an disabled.”
What does the death penalty discussion have to do with the legal right of a woman to have a termination?
posted January 8, 2008 at 6:10 pm
kami, I wanted to respond earlier but had to do something else first.
1) Regarding the “bad crowd” my point is that many countries we (surely; certainly I) hold in high esteem don’t kill convicts and several of the countries who do kill convicts are not ones most people would hold in high esteem. Maybe what makes those better countries is part of why they don’t kill convicts, or vice versa. I’d rather we be grouped among the set of countries that don’t than among the other set.
And the countries that don’t kill have the same kinds of crimes we have so their ability to not kill the perpetrators suggests we could avoid it too.
2) We don’t usually resort to Webster’s for our morality, though it’s probably better than some sources. Anyway, I don’t think most people are worried about a little pain during an execution but I hope a lot of people are concerned about knowingly subjecting them to “excruciating” pain, even once in a while. And we do have a prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishment” in the Constitution. That’s kind of important even in the era of George W. Bush. Or especially in the era of GWB.
3) Abortion. I was surprised to see you bring that up because you seem quite willing to deny a right to life. Care of the elderly and disabled. I’m with you on that one. Keep in mind there’s a high correlation between those who want to keep capital punishment and those who want to cut taxes, thus cutting government services to the elderly and disabled.
posted January 9, 2008 at 8:42 am
I think we should no longer utilize the death penalty.
I believe we as a country loose nothing by ending the death penalty. (Except the cost of housing/caring for the prisoner).
Peace!