U. S. Supreme Court Clears The Use of Lethal Injection in Death Penalty Cases
By: Tommy Elder, Jr.
Voting seven to two- the United States Supreme Court affirmed the use of lethal injection in Death Penalty Cases. Linda Greenhouse of the New York Times writes that the High Tribunal turned back the notion that lethal injections caused an inmate to ``suffer acute yet undetectable pain.``
In their decree the justices through Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., said that opponents of capital punishment must not only demonstrate that the state`s procedure `creates a demonstrated risk of severe pain,` but also that there were alternatives that were `feasible` and readily implemented` that would `significantly` reduce that risk.``
To review the capital punishment controversy in this instance- the crucial dispute entails whether execution by lethal injection meets the constitutional standard of prohibiting Cruel and Unusual Punishment which would violate the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Two Kentucky Death Row inmates i.e. Ralph Baze and Thomas C. Bowling petitioned the High Court requesting a determination that lethal injections presented an `unnecessary risk` of mistakes especially with possible alternatives that could substitute for them.
Addressing this issue- Chief Justice Robert`s opinion stated that risks noted by the petitioners did not present such an overwhelming problem or `so substantial or imminent as to amount to an Eighth Amendment violation.`
To define Cruel and Unusual Punishment in the United States Supreme Court`s opinion- the most appropriate expression came from the pen of Associate Justice Clarence Thomas who wrote- `a method of execution violates the Eighth Amendment only if it is deliberately designed to inflict pain.`
Expressing a dissenting view- Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg indicated that the Supreme Court should- `vacate and remand` to ``the Kentucky Supreme Court`s`` decree that affirmed this capital punishment procedure with the mandate that it debate the state`s absence of safeguards applied by other states.
More abstracts about the New York Times