The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Breaking News => Topic started by: Wretched Excess on April 16, 2008, 09:45:19 AM
-
Supreme Court Upholds Kentucky's Use of Lethal Injections
Supreme Court upholds use of lethal injections in Kentucky, which uses 3 drugs to kill inmates
The Supreme Court upheld Kentucky's use of lethal injection executions Wednesday.
The justices, by a 7-2 vote, turned back a constitutional challenge to the procedures in place in Kentucky, which uses three drugs to sedate, paralyze and kill inmates.
"We ... agree that petitioners have not carried their burden of showing 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," Chief Justice John Roberts said in an opinion that garnered only three votes. Four other justices, however, agreed with the outcome.
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter dissented.
Executions have been on hold since September, when the court agreed to hear the Kentucky case. There was no immediate indication when they would resume.
The argument against the three-drug protocol is that if the initial anesthetic does not take hold, the other two drugs can cause excruciating pain. One of those drugs, a paralytic, would render the prisoner unable to express his discomfort.
The case before the court came from Kentucky, where two death row inmates did not ask to be spared execution or death by injection. Instead, they wanted the court to order a switch to a single drug, a barbiturate, that causes no pain and can be given in a large enough dose to cause death.
At the very least, they said, the state should be required to impose tighter controls on the three-drug process to ensure that the anesthetic is given properly.
more (http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/SCOTUS/wireStory?id=4664276)
-
Good. Now can we proceed with carrying out sentences? I seem to recall a case in another state no less, that used this KY Supreme Court case as a reason to say, "now let's hold on a minute..." and DU was in a tizzy over it.
-
hard to believe that souter was a republican appointee.
-
I know! Oy. And he's not even 70 years old.
Ginsberg on the other hand, I think she's ill (wild speculation on my part) or frail or something. Lots of scuttlebutt.
-
Good. Now can we proceed with carrying out sentences? I seem to recall a case in another state no less, that used this KY Supreme Court case as a reason to say, "now let's hold on a minute..." and DU was in a tizzy over it.
Yep, they did this same stuff over Missouri's usage of lethal injections a year or so ago.
-
I know! Oy. And he's not even 70 years old.
Ginsberg on the other hand, I think she's ill (wild speculation on my part) or frail or something. Lots of scuttlebutt.
we have john sununu to thank for souter. :whatever:
-
I would prefer to read a statement from the court which recognized that the state does not owe the condemned a painless death, that striving to deliver a painless execution is a courtesy to the condemned, and that consideration of the pain and sufferring of the victims and their families should always come first.
-
I would prefer to read a statement from the court which recognized that the state does not owe the condemned a painless death, that striving to deliver a painless execution is a courtesy to the condemned, and that consideration of the pain and sufferring of the victims and their families should always come first.
Within the requirements of the 8th Amendment, I assume you mean....
-
I would prefer to read a statement from the court which recognized that the state does not owe the condemned a painless death, that striving to deliver a painless execution is a courtesy to the condemned, and that consideration of the pain and sufferring of the victims and their families should always come first.
Within the requirements of the 8th Amendment, I assume you mean....
Of course, but that has already been settled. The lethal injection route is an alternative to other legal means of execution which certainly are not painless.
Attacking lethal injection for being inhumane is ridiculous on all levels. Such attacks have nothing to do with compassion for the condemned and everything to do with abolishing the death penalty. I just want a spade called a spade.
The recipients of lethal injections are no more subject to pain than you or I would be if we were on an operating table about to have our gall bladder removed. In fact, the ones put under for a lethal injection have it better. They don't have to wake up to post-op recovery.
-
part of the update from the original link:
But in court, the justices seemed skeptical of the argument. Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia said, "Where does this come from that you must find the method of execution that causes the least pain? We have approved electrocution. We have approved death by firing squad. I expect both of those have more possibilities of painful death than the protocol here."
"cruel and unusual" almost certainly was never intended to mean "painless". execution methods at the time of the
promulgation of the bill of rights were probably downright agonizing.
-
part of the update from the original link:
But in court, the justices seemed skeptical of the argument. Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia said, "Where does this come from that you must find the method of execution that causes the least pain? We have approved electrocution. We have approved death by firing squad. I expect both of those have more possibilities of painful death than the protocol here."
"cruel and unusual" almost certainly was never intended to mean "painless". execution methods at the time of the
promulgation of the bill of rights were probably downright agonizing.
Eggs Zacolli (a wonderful dish!).
-
No doubt the pain of their victims was first and foremost in the minds of the murderers.
(Do I even need a /sarc tag?)
-
I would prefer to read a statement from the court which recognized that the state does not owe the condemned a painless death, that striving to deliver a painless execution is a courtesy to the condemned, and that consideration of the pain and sufferring of the victims and their families should always come first.
H5. :cheersmate:
They should consider eliminating the first drug. Just go with the other two.
-
part of the update from the original link:
But in court, the justices seemed skeptical of the argument. Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia said, "Where does this come from that you must find the method of execution that causes the least pain? We have approved electrocution. We have approved death by firing squad. I expect both of those have more possibilities of painful death than the protocol here."
"cruel and unusual" almost certainly was never intended to mean "painless". execution methods at the time of the
promulgation of the bill of rights were probably downright agonizing.
speaking strictly from a laymen's perspective here, I thought it meant that the punishment couldn't be cruel and unusual but cruel or unusual was acceptable.
-
part of the update from the original link:
But in court, the justices seemed skeptical of the argument. Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia said, "Where does this come from that you must find the method of execution that causes the least pain? We have approved electrocution. We have approved death by firing squad. I expect both of those have more possibilities of painful death than the protocol here."
"cruel and unusual" almost certainly was never intended to mean "painless". execution methods at the time of the
promulgation of the bill of rights were probably downright agonizing.
speaking strictly from a laymen's perspective here, I thought it meant that the punishment couldn't be cruel and unusual but cruel or unusual was acceptable.
interesting angle. you sent me searching for the text of the 8th amendment just to be sure:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
I never considered it from that perspective. my first guess would be that this is a syntactic quirk, but you have
certainly just filled up my idle thoughts for the afternoon. :)
-
part of the update from the original link:
But in court, the justices seemed skeptical of the argument. Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia said, "Where does this come from that you must find the method of execution that causes the least pain? We have approved electrocution. We have approved death by firing squad. I expect both of those have more possibilities of painful death than the protocol here."
"cruel and unusual" almost certainly was never intended to mean "painless". execution methods at the time of the
promulgation of the bill of rights were probably downright agonizing.
speaking strictly from a laymen's perspective here, I thought it meant that the punishment couldn't be cruel and unusual but cruel or unusual was acceptable.
interesting angle. you sent me searching for the text of the 8th amendment just to be sure:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
I never considered it from that perspective. my first guess would be that this is a syntactic quirk, but you have
certainly just filled up my idle thoughts for the afternoon. :)
Think about this too. What if the cruel punishment was used often, thus rendering it not unusual?
-
part of the update from the original link:
But in court, the justices seemed skeptical of the argument. Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia said, "Where does this come from that you must find the method of execution that causes the least pain? We have approved electrocution. We have approved death by firing squad. I expect both of those have more possibilities of painful death than the protocol here."
"cruel and unusual" almost certainly was never intended to mean "painless". execution methods at the time of the
promulgation of the bill of rights were probably downright agonizing.
speaking strictly from a laymen's perspective here, I thought it meant that the punishment couldn't be cruel and unusual but cruel or unusual was acceptable.
interesting angle. you sent me searching for the text of the 8th amendment just to be sure:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
I never considered it from that perspective. my first guess would be that this is a syntactic quirk, but you have
certainly just filled up my idle thoughts for the afternoon. :)
Well I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks about these things! :-)
I've always thought that was the meaning. You could use an unusual method like drowning but you couldn't prolong it thereby making it "cruel". Or, you could use hanging which is kind of cruel in that it can take a while and be painful but it's not unusual if you look at history.
-
I expected to find the phrase "cruel and unusual punishment" (or something similar) in the federalist papers, but it isn't there.
it does appear to be a major requirement of the anti-federalists, who's argument against the ratification of the constitution
brought about the creation of the bill of rights in the first place.
the first mention of "cruel and unusual" appears to be in the 1689 english bill of rights, which observed that:
And whereas of late years partial corrupt and unqualified persons have been returned and served on juries in trials, and particularly divers jurors in trials for high treason which were not freeholders;
And excessive bail hath been required of persons committed in criminal cases to elude the benefit of the laws made for the liberty of the subjects;
And excessive fines have been imposed;
And illegal and cruel punishments inflicted;
and then went on the require:
And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties declare
.
.
.
That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted;
so now I am stumbling around in the overthrow of james II. I realize that this is hardly illuminating thus far. but it's certainly interesting. :-)
-
Good. Now can we proceed with carrying out sentences? I seem to recall a case in another state no less, that used this KY Supreme Court case as a reason to say, "now let's hold on a minute..." and DU was in a tizzy over it.
I hope so! Komrade Kaine here in Virginia has been handing out stays left and right since this Kentucky nonsense started.
-
Good. Now can we proceed with carrying out sentences? I seem to recall a case in another state no less, that used this KY Supreme Court case as a reason to say, "now let's hold on a minute..." and DU was in a tizzy over it.
I hope so! Komrade Kaine here in Virginia has been handing out stays left and right since this Kentucky nonsense started.
apparently much of the country has been staying executions since october until this case was resolved.
another tidbit from the 7-2 decision:
The Constitution does not demand the avoidance of all risk of pain in carrying out executions," said Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. And there is little evidence that states subject inmates to needless pain when they are put to death.
-
I heart Chief Justice Roberts. :-)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v674/kademan/politics/roberts.jpg)
-
I heart Chief Justice Roberts. :-)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v674/kademan/politics/roberts.jpg)
that's one justice that won't go souter on us. :wink:
-
Ba-Da Dum!!! :-)
Or throw us in the Breyer patch?
-
We have to take this act on the road WE.
-
Ba-Da Dum!!! :-)
Or throw us in the Breyer patch?
I was trying to do something with "Alito", but it was coming out shrill.
-
We have to take this act on the road WE.
we would die of starvation. unless we ate the rotten tomatoes that they threw at us. :-)
-
I heart Chief Justice Roberts. :-)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v674/kademan/politics/roberts.jpg)
John Roberts will be one of the greatest Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
-
You want to ensure you die of old age, ensured you will get healthy food, daily exercise, plenty of sleep, opportunities to get degrees, surf the Internet for hours at a time, have women throw themselves at you, and generally be assured a lifestyle far superior to the average American?
Get yourself on California's Death Row.
-
part of the update from the original link:
But in court, the justices seemed skeptical of the argument. Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia said, "Where does this come from that you must find the method of execution that causes the least pain? We have approved electrocution. We have approved death by firing squad. I expect both of those have more possibilities of painful death than the protocol here."
"cruel and unusual" almost certainly was never intended to mean "painless". execution methods at the time of the
promulgation of the bill of rights were probably downright agonizing.
A painless execution at that time was probably unusual. Maybe that means painless executions are unconstitutional. :fuelfire: