P
Patriot Games
Guest
http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/Court_OKs_Lethal_Injectio/2008/04/16/88529.html
High Court OK's Lethal Injections
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
WASHINGTON -- U.S. executions are all but sure to resume soon after a
nationwide halt, cleared Wednesday by a splintered Supreme Court that
approved the most widely used method of lethal injection.
Virginia immediately lifted its moratorium; Oklahoma and Mississippi said
they would seek execution dates for convicted murderers, and other states
were ready to follow after nearly seven months without an execution in the
United States.
Voting 7-2, the conservative court led by Chief Justice John Roberts
rebuffed the latest assault on capital punishment, this time by foes
focusing on methods rather than on the legality of the death penalty itself.
Justice John Paul Stevens voted with the majority on the question of lethal
injections but said for the first time that he now believes the death
penalty is unconstitutional.
The court turned back a challenge to the procedures in place in Kentucky
that employ three drugs to sedate, paralyze and kill inmates. Similar
methods are used by roughly three dozen states.
Death penalty opponents said challenges to lethal injections would continue
in states where problems with administering the drugs are well documented.
The case decided Wednesday was not about the constitutionality of the death
penalty generally or even lethal injection. Instead, two Kentucky death row
inmates contended that their executions could be carried out more humanely,
with less risk of pain.
The inmates "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.
Roberts also suggested that the court will not halt scheduled executions in
the future unless "the condemned prisoner establishes that the state's
lethal injection protocol creates a demonstrated risk of severe pain."
States can avoid this risk by using the three-drug procedure approved in the
Kentucky case, Roberts said.
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter dissented.
Executions have been on hold since September, when the court agreed to hear
the Kentucky case. The justices stepped in to halt six executions, and many
others were put off because of the high court's review.
Forty-two people were executed last year out of more than 3,300 people on
death rows across the country.
Wednesday's decision was announced with Pope Benedict XVI, a prominent death
penalty critic, in Washington and the court's five Catholic justices -
Roberts, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas -
headed to the White House for a dinner in his honor. All five supported the
lethal injection procedures.
The court separately heard arguments Wednesday on the constitutionality of
the death penalty for people convicted of raping children. A decision in
that case is expected by late June.
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 Kentucky inmates 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.
Ginsburg, in her dissent, said her colleagues should have asked Kentucky
courts to consider whether the state includes adequate safeguards to ensure
a prisoner is unconscious and thus unlikely to suffer severe pain.
Stevens, while agreeing with Wednesday's outcome, said the decision would
not end the debate over lethal injection.
"I am now convinced that this case will generate debate not only about the
constitutionality of the three-drug protocol, and specifically about the
justification for the use of the paralytic agent, pancuronium bromide, but
also about the justification for the death penalty itself," Stevens said in
an opinion in which he said for the first time that he believes the death
penalty is unconstitutional.
Stevens suggested that states could spare themselves legal costs and delays
in executions by eliminating the use of the paralytic.
Kentucky has had only one execution by lethal injection, and it did not
present any obvious problems, both sides in the case agreed.
But executions elsewhere, 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 intravenous lines that are used
to deliver the drugs.
Roberts said "a condemned prisoner cannot successfully challenge a state's
method of execution merely by showing a slightly or marginally safer
alternative."
He acknowledged that Wednesday's outcome would not prevent states from
adopting a method of execution they consider more humane. Alito and Kennedy
joined his opinion.
Justice Stephen Breyer concurred in the outcome, although he said he would
evaluate the case under the same standard put forth by Ginsburg, that a
means of execution may not create an "untoward, readily avoidable risk of
inflicting severe and unnecessary pain."
Scalia and Thomas said Roberts' opinion did not go far enough in insulating
states from challenges to their lethal injection procedures, which were
instituted to make executions more humane. A "method of execution violates
the Eighth Amendment only if it is deliberately designed to inflict pain,"
Thomas said.
Donald Verrilli, a veteran death penalty lawyer who argued the inmates'
case, said he was disappointed in the decision, but hopeful about other
challenges. "I think important issues remain after this decision," Verrilli
said. "Records of administration of lethal injections in other states raise
grave doubts about the reliability of those procedures."
The Rev. Pat Delahanty, head of the Kentucky Coalition to Abolish the Death
Penalty, said the ruling wasn't a surprise.
"We never expected it to do more than maybe slow down executions in Kentucky
or elsewhere," Delahanty said. "We're going to be facing some executions
soon."
Wednesday's case involved two inmates, Ralph Baze and Thomas Clyde Bowling
Jr., who were convicted of murder and sentenced to death by juries in
Kentucky. Baze killed a sheriff and a deputy who were attempting to arrest
him. Bowling shot and killed a couple and wounded their 2-year-old son
outside their dry-cleaning business.
Fayette County Commonwealth Attorney Ray Larson, who prosecuted Bowling in
1992, said after the ruling: "Fact of the matter is, this lethal injection
process is about as far from cruel and unusual as anything you can imagine.
This is just another one of those things the anti-death penalty gang is
throwing against the wall to see what sticks."
High Court OK's Lethal Injections
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
WASHINGTON -- U.S. executions are all but sure to resume soon after a
nationwide halt, cleared Wednesday by a splintered Supreme Court that
approved the most widely used method of lethal injection.
Virginia immediately lifted its moratorium; Oklahoma and Mississippi said
they would seek execution dates for convicted murderers, and other states
were ready to follow after nearly seven months without an execution in the
United States.
Voting 7-2, the conservative court led by Chief Justice John Roberts
rebuffed the latest assault on capital punishment, this time by foes
focusing on methods rather than on the legality of the death penalty itself.
Justice John Paul Stevens voted with the majority on the question of lethal
injections but said for the first time that he now believes the death
penalty is unconstitutional.
The court turned back a challenge to the procedures in place in Kentucky
that employ three drugs to sedate, paralyze and kill inmates. Similar
methods are used by roughly three dozen states.
Death penalty opponents said challenges to lethal injections would continue
in states where problems with administering the drugs are well documented.
The case decided Wednesday was not about the constitutionality of the death
penalty generally or even lethal injection. Instead, two Kentucky death row
inmates contended that their executions could be carried out more humanely,
with less risk of pain.
The inmates "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.
Roberts also suggested that the court will not halt scheduled executions in
the future unless "the condemned prisoner establishes that the state's
lethal injection protocol creates a demonstrated risk of severe pain."
States can avoid this risk by using the three-drug procedure approved in the
Kentucky case, Roberts said.
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter dissented.
Executions have been on hold since September, when the court agreed to hear
the Kentucky case. The justices stepped in to halt six executions, and many
others were put off because of the high court's review.
Forty-two people were executed last year out of more than 3,300 people on
death rows across the country.
Wednesday's decision was announced with Pope Benedict XVI, a prominent death
penalty critic, in Washington and the court's five Catholic justices -
Roberts, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas -
headed to the White House for a dinner in his honor. All five supported the
lethal injection procedures.
The court separately heard arguments Wednesday on the constitutionality of
the death penalty for people convicted of raping children. A decision in
that case is expected by late June.
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 Kentucky inmates 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.
Ginsburg, in her dissent, said her colleagues should have asked Kentucky
courts to consider whether the state includes adequate safeguards to ensure
a prisoner is unconscious and thus unlikely to suffer severe pain.
Stevens, while agreeing with Wednesday's outcome, said the decision would
not end the debate over lethal injection.
"I am now convinced that this case will generate debate not only about the
constitutionality of the three-drug protocol, and specifically about the
justification for the use of the paralytic agent, pancuronium bromide, but
also about the justification for the death penalty itself," Stevens said in
an opinion in which he said for the first time that he believes the death
penalty is unconstitutional.
Stevens suggested that states could spare themselves legal costs and delays
in executions by eliminating the use of the paralytic.
Kentucky has had only one execution by lethal injection, and it did not
present any obvious problems, both sides in the case agreed.
But executions elsewhere, 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 intravenous lines that are used
to deliver the drugs.
Roberts said "a condemned prisoner cannot successfully challenge a state's
method of execution merely by showing a slightly or marginally safer
alternative."
He acknowledged that Wednesday's outcome would not prevent states from
adopting a method of execution they consider more humane. Alito and Kennedy
joined his opinion.
Justice Stephen Breyer concurred in the outcome, although he said he would
evaluate the case under the same standard put forth by Ginsburg, that a
means of execution may not create an "untoward, readily avoidable risk of
inflicting severe and unnecessary pain."
Scalia and Thomas said Roberts' opinion did not go far enough in insulating
states from challenges to their lethal injection procedures, which were
instituted to make executions more humane. A "method of execution violates
the Eighth Amendment only if it is deliberately designed to inflict pain,"
Thomas said.
Donald Verrilli, a veteran death penalty lawyer who argued the inmates'
case, said he was disappointed in the decision, but hopeful about other
challenges. "I think important issues remain after this decision," Verrilli
said. "Records of administration of lethal injections in other states raise
grave doubts about the reliability of those procedures."
The Rev. Pat Delahanty, head of the Kentucky Coalition to Abolish the Death
Penalty, said the ruling wasn't a surprise.
"We never expected it to do more than maybe slow down executions in Kentucky
or elsewhere," Delahanty said. "We're going to be facing some executions
soon."
Wednesday's case involved two inmates, Ralph Baze and Thomas Clyde Bowling
Jr., who were convicted of murder and sentenced to death by juries in
Kentucky. Baze killed a sheriff and a deputy who were attempting to arrest
him. Bowling shot and killed a couple and wounded their 2-year-old son
outside their dry-cleaning business.
Fayette County Commonwealth Attorney Ray Larson, who prosecuted Bowling in
1992, said after the ruling: "Fact of the matter is, this lethal injection
process is about as far from cruel and unusual as anything you can imagine.
This is just another one of those things the anti-death penalty gang is
throwing against the wall to see what sticks."
