In 2015, the Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of Oklahoma’s lethal injection procedure administered to those sentenced to death. In 2014, Oklahoma executed Clayton Lockett. Lockett awoke during the procedure and was not pronounced dead until forty minutes later. The Oklahoma lethal injection process called for the use of three drugs, the first being a sedative called midazolam. The failure of midazolam apparently was the reason for the inmate’s suffering. Oklahoma implemented a new system, while still using midazolam as the initial drug.
Charles Warner and 20 other death row inmates argued that the use of midazolam violated the Eighth Amendment and constituted cruel and unusual punishment. Warner and three other plaintiffs tried to postpone their executions but were denied. In Glossip v. Gross, Richard E. Glossip and the other two death row inmates requested another trial.
On June 29, 2015, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 against Glossip. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., joined by four other justices, concluded that midazolam works sufficiently and its use during executions is permissible. Therefore, the executions in Oklahoma may continue as is. Justice Alito stated that due to the lack of an alternative method, the challenge set forth was weak. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by three other justices, however, argued that Oklahoma’s method for execution couldn’t be trusted, as it might fail to keep an inmate unconscious. These four justices believed that Oklahoma’s lethal injection process should have been deemed unconstitutional.
Interestingly, Justice Stephen G. Breyer and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued against the death penalty altogether. They claimed that the death penalty should be unconstitutional because it is an irreversible punishment. Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas responded to Justice Breyer and Justice Ginsburg by advocating for the law of our Founding Fathers. Justice Scalia argued:
Time and again, the People have voted to exact the death penalty as punishment for the most serious of crimes. Time and again, this Court has upheld that decision. . . . Capital punishment presents moral questions that philosophers, theologians, and statesmen have grappled with for millennia. The Framers of our Constitution disagreed bitterly on the matter. For that reason, they handled it the same way they handled many other controversial issues: they left it to the People to decide. By arrogating to himself the power to overturn that decision, Justice Breyer does not just reject the death penalty, he rejects the Enlightenment.
Learn More About Callagy Law Here:
Glossip v. Gross—The Supreme Court and Capital Punishment
No comments:
Post a Comment