The United States is leading in the numbers of incarnated individuals in the world. The rates of convictions arising from crime in America have remained high than in most other countries in the world. Effectively, the rates of those convicted to death sentences are significantly high in the United States. While the implementation of the death sentence is quite low in the country, it does not mean that offenders who receive the death sentence do not face it. However, the implementation of the death sentence has remained controversial on ethical and moral ground. The current paper details Glossip v. Gross, which involved death row inmates who challenged the use of some form of lethal injection as a method of implementing the death sentence in the United States.
Connection to the Principles in Course Resources
Hobbes (2013) asserts that the natural laws recognizes that all people are born equal, which demands the uniform application of the law and administration of justice. As such, the Glossip vs. Gross case required that the justice explained in the natural law to be applied regardless of whether those who were involved were death row inmates. Locke, Hume and Rousseau (1960) notes that the state and the citizens have unique roles and responsibilities that must be implemented simultaneously to guarantee justice in the society. In the case, the state had the responsibility of protecting the death row inmates who were contesting the use of inhuman methods in their execution. But then justice has to be seen as being implemented, an aspect that requires the balancing of state and individual affairs in the definition of laws.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Nature of the Case
In Glossip v. Gross, some three death row inmates contested the use of a chemical that was injected to kill an individual serving a death sentence. The three inmates raised concern that the excruciating pain that the chemical caused was against the constitutional requirement of human dignity even in the face of serving a death sentence (Liptak, 2015). The chemical that was in contention in the case was midazolam, which the petitioners termed as an inhuman way to induce death even to a convicted individual, who has some form of protection in the American constitution. The petitioners argued that the continued use of the chemical was in contravention of the human rights of convicted death row inmates. They also noted that the continued use of the chemical was increasing the number of reported cases of botched executions. Clearly, the issues that the petitioners raised were of significance to the American justice systems and the American Supreme Court had to determine it to its conclusion.
The Glossip v. Gross case covered many issues related to the ethics of implementing the death sentence in the American justice system. Apparently, killing of people, regardless of their crimes, is a contravention of the human rights that the United States has been lauded to uphold for many years now. The case brought to the fore the pertinent issues that are yet to be explained in the link between human rights and the death sentence. Apparently, the case needed an extensive review of the principles that have been held in the implementation of the death sentence in the United States for many years. From the ruling that was delivered, it was clear that the legality of the death sentence was not in contravention of the legal principles in the United States. However, the use of some forms of execution needed to be adjusted to resonate with the ethics and principles of human dignity as explained in the American constitution. The case received a 5-4 vote in support of the continued use of the midazolam chemical in the execution of death row inmates.
Arguments for Upholding the Continued Use of Midazolam
In the ruling, five out of the nine Supreme Court justices voted for the continued use of the chemical in the execution of the death row inmates. The judges noted that the death sentence had a legal basis and it had to be undertaken within the legally allowed mechanisms. Apparently, the implementation of the death sentence is an obligation that must be initiated as per the established laws (Rosen, 2012). Regarding the use of midazolam in executions, the justices who voted in favor noted that the chemical had been in use for several years and it had not seen any reason for it to be reversed at that instance. The use of the chemical was seen as a way to deter continued occurrence violent crime in the American society. The justices noted that the persistent threat of violent crime had to be punished in a stern but legal way for it to be deterred among Americans.
The five justices who voted in support of the continued use of midazolam noted that the drug was an effective means of execution, as it had been used for many years. The justices noted that the death penalty usually follows the commission of a serious crime that attracts condemnation from extensive sections of the society. Certainly, the continued use of the execution drug needed to be upheld as it was viewed as a form of punishment that resonated with the various crimes that the death row inmates had committed. The question of whether the continued of midazolam was legal arose in the deliberation of the case. The justices who voted in its support noted that the continued use of the drug was in line with the American constitution, which had for many years legalized the death sentence for the most violent and graphic crimes in the American society. Additionally, the justices who voted in support of the continued of the drug noted that the petitioners had failed to note an alternative that could serve the same purpose as midazolam. They held that the failure to recommend an alternative to the drug meant that the midazolam chemical ought to be continued until the time when professionals prove that indeed it went against the American constitution.
Arguments against the Continued Use of Midazolam
Four of the nine justices who deliberated on the case voted against the continued use of midazolam. From their arguments, it was clear that they considered the ethical and moral issues that related to the use of the execution drug. Apparently, their arguments resonated with the claim of two wrongs not making a good. Clearly, from the points they raised, it was clear they were against the use of a chemical that led to excruciating pain before the death row inmate passed on as they faced their sentence. The justices noted that the rise in botched executions was a major concern to the government’s focus on respecting human rights even in the case that those involved were death row inmates. According to the justices, Glossip v. Gross gave an indication of the way human rights violations continued in the American prisons. From their arguments, the midazolam needed to be stopped so that other methods of execution to be considered.
The justices who voted against the continued use of midazolam noted with concern that its use was same as burning a person to death (Liptak, 2015). Clearly, with such a graphic description of the chemical, it was clear that midazolam needed to be halted until reviews were conducted and recommendations made on that topic. The essence of the death sentence was clear based on the arguments that the justices who voted against the continued use of the chemical gave. However, the executions of death row inmates needed to be in line with the human rights established in the United States constitution. It is important that all people are allowed to die in a dignified manner despite their crime and position in the society. Clearly, it was the ethical and moral issues in the case, which led to the justices voting against the continued use of midazolam in executions of death row inmates.
The controversies surrounding the execution of death row inmates are not yet fully addressed despite the ruling in Glossip v. Gross. More needs to be done to make the execution procedures more humane especially in the United States, a nation which is seen as the epitome of human rights in the free world. Therefore, it is important that, despite the ruling in the case, the American justice system begin using execution methods that are in line with positive ethics and morals, which are expected in the American justice system. Finally, more needs to be done to deter crimes that may call for the death sentence in the US but that does not mean resorting to execution methods that go contrary to established ethical and moral ground held in the American constitution.
References
Hobbes, T. (2013). Elements of law, natural and political. Routledge.
Liptak, A. (2015). Supreme Court Allows Use of Execution Drug. Nytimes.com. Retrieved 7 November 2016, from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/30/us/supreme-court-executiondrug.html
Locke, J., Hume, D., & Rousseau, J. J. (1960). Social contract: essays by Locke, Hume, and Rousseau (Vol. 511). Oxford University Press.
Rosen, J. (2012). The right to be forgotten. Stanford law review online, 64 , 88.
