Supreme Court Allows Lethal Injection for Execution

By | April 16, 2008

Supreme Court Allows Lethal Injection for Execution

The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld Kentucky’s method of putting criminals to death by lethal injection, not only clearing the way for Kentucky to resume executions but ending an unofficial moratorium in the 35 other states that have the death penalty.

However, Justice John Paul Stevens, while concurring reluctantly with the judgment of the court, wrote that he now believed capital punishment itself is unconstitutional, and that Wednesday’s ruling might serve to reignite the debate over whether it should exist in the United States.

By 7 to 2, the court rejected challenges to the Kentucky execution procedure brought by two death-row inmates, holding that they had failed to show that the risks of pain from mistakes in an otherwise “humane lethal execution protocol” amounted to cruel and unusual punishment, which is banned by the Constitution.

The prisoners had contended that the three-drug procedure used on death row — one drug each to sedate, paralyze and end life — was unconstitutional, and that in any event there were strong indications that Kentucky had bungled some executions, creating unnecessary pain for the condemned. Through their lawyers, they maintained that problems could be largely solved by administering a single overwhelming dose of a barbiturate, as opposed to the three-drug procedure.

The prisoners’ challenge had implications far beyond Kentucky. Of the 36 states with the death penalty, all but Nebraska, which uses the electric chair, rely on the same three-drug procedure that Kentucky uses. So does the federal government. Now, with the Kentucky challenge disposed of, other states that had set aside executions seem poised to begin them again. – nytimes

Disgusting. The current system is a drug induced paralyzed torture resulting in a very slow painful death. Some innocent people have been executed this way. Guilty or not, ANY revenge killing, where no life is at currently risk from the convicted person, is the filthy work of a barbaric uncivilized society. Two wrongs make two wrongs.

3 thoughts on “Supreme Court Allows Lethal Injection for Execution

  1. peyton

    I’m curious, what is the “right” to post against the first “wrong”? Is life in prison (i.e. hell) any less barbaric? In any case, what does a “wrong” and a “right” make, if “two wrongs make two wrongs”?

  2. Xeno

    Removing the threat is the right. And it is already done when the person is in prison. Nothing makes a wrong right. Nothing. You can’t undo the crime.

    We can only stop it from happening again. Once a person is in jail, you’ve removed the threat. Then, look for a way to stop the same thing from happening to others.

    In other words, what sickness in our society or our biology is causing the crimes in the first place? Study the person deeply and use the knowledge for prevention.

    The most effective remedy depends on the case. Behavior altering drugs, castration for repeat sex offenses, life in prison is appropriate at times is someone is messed up beyond repair, working for someone’s family for life, hard labor, reprogramming the brain if possible, house arrest, forced military service, etc. There are as many fixes as there are crimes.

  3. TheAdlerian

    I used to be a psychologist in the prison system, and I was around for an execution. I felt horrible about it, although the guy had a very nasty case, and so did all of my fellow employees and the inmates to. We all felt, correctly, that we were in a place where someone was being murdered. On top of that, I vowed years ago to help people and I did nothing to stop it.

    The inmate who was killed was beyond help, and I didn’t care about him. However, I was struck by the fact that the public who wants to make big bucks, be famous, etc wants low paid civil servants to murder people for them, or be a party to it.

    That’s why it’s wrong, what should I have to have that weight on my shoulders? I’m a nice guy.

Leave a Reply