In 2008, The Supreme court in the United States made the 553 U.S. 35 Baze v. Rees decision. This was to uphold a specific method of lethal injection for capital punishment citing its constitutionality. The nine-member judge panel, under chief justice John G. Roberts, made a 7-2 popularity decision to uphold the injection scheme (Butler, 2008). This was in reference to the Eight Amendment, and the court did not find any violation provided the procedure is undertaken under certain parameters. The case by the inmates had been countered on matters associated with the inhumane nature of the procedure. They noted that when the procedure was carried out under the proper guidelines, it upheld the Eighth Amendment. The complainant also failed to prove that wrongful administration of the drugs may result in a form of cruel punishment, that was unusual in nature. The court further allowed the use of unusual punishments in circumstances that normal procedures do not bear fruits (Merrill, 2008). The judgment was announced by Chief Justice John Roberts with Justices Samuel Alito, and Anthony Kennedy issuing opinions. Justice John Paul concurred and even shared his reservations on the death penalty as a concept (Semel, 2009). Justice Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia concurred with the decision. Justices Ruth Ginsburg and David Scouter dissented to the ruling.
Literature Review
Butler (2008) looked at the Baze v. Reese on account of the lethal injection being legal, as a form of execution. He goes on to explain the facts involved in the case, and the reason for the inclination by the judges. The case did stir up some reactions as discussed by Denno (2013) with varying opinions to the same about the mode of punishment for capital crimes. Owing to the public outcry and negative reactions, the government faced some major challenges even years after the case. This ranged from lawsuits, demonstrations, campaigns, among other methods to fight for civil rights (Gee, 2011). Grace (2008) on the other hand looked at ways to infuse the Eight Amendment into modern execution as it were. Killingley (2008) decided to focus on the various ways lethal injection was unethical and why it was not supposed to be used as a method of punishment. Merrill (2008) focused on the scope of the case and the effects it had after, and what existed before the case. All this was aimed to study what the ruling meant for the death penalty and the future for such methods of execution. Finally, Semel (2009) looked back at the sentiments of Justice John Paul Stevenson, and the impact they had on capital punishments today.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Research Methods
The methods used for research were qualitative, where books and scholarly articles and journals were studied, and the data analyzed for information. The process was majorly historical, and the research took the individual back to the case and all the elements surrounding it.
Discussion
The case began when Ralph Baze and Thomas bowling were each found guilty of double murder, and sentenced to death in Kentucky by lethal injection. They countered that executing them by lethal injection would violate the provisions in the constitution under the Eight Amendment (Butler, 2008). The amendment prohibited the use of unusual punishment and cruel forms of punishment for crimes committed. The standard for execution by injection was simply no unnecessary pain be inflicted on the guilty parties. The argument by the guilty parties was that the chemicals used by the state could possibly cause unnecessary harm and pain to the individuals being executed. The combination of the chemicals used by the state at the time included potassium chloride, sodium thiopental, and pancuronium bromide. The Supreme Court rejected the claim on the grounds of insufficient evidence, but they were granted certiorari to have some of the decisions reviewed. The case had gained traction as the Supreme court had to cease executions in a majority of states, as the formula used was the same. This cease of executions took place for about eight months, from September in 2007, to April in 2008 (Denno, 2013). This marked the longest period in American history without executions.
The argument by the state confirmed that the combination of these chemicals causes the least amount of pain and suffering to inmates during execution. The risk of mistakes alone, based on an isolated incident did not violate the amendment, and the argument was weak. The drug cocktail was proved to initially render the individual unconscious to avoid any pain during suffocation. They dismissed the claims by the petitioners, whose only angle was the possibility of negligence or recklessness occurring in the execution process (Gee, 2011). The threshold for pain allowed by the amendment as still within range, and none of it was unnecessary and happened to the victim while they were unconscious. The risk of pain was unavoidable even on the most humane execution procedures, and the constitution does provide for a window of some pain (Killingley, 2008). The only angle was the possibility of error, and the court approved of the substantial risk involved in execution as capital punishment, which was still upheld as constitutional.
All the forbidden forms of punishment that included torture were ruled out for unnecessary cruelty, and deliberate infliction of pain. These methods had higher pain thresholds and were not allowed, as they did more than just bring life to an end. The petitioners aimed to challenge the lethal injection on grounds of possible error, and propose alternative methods (Grace, 2008). These methods with advantages documented for comparison purposes should be tested to prove their validity in inflicting less pain. The methods were not tried and tested and therefore, the argument was invalid. The procedure had been tolerable to a number of inmates, and could not be rendered hard to tolerate for the particular case in question. The risk for wrongful administration of the drug cocktail was not substantial enough to warrant the use of alternatives. The state of Kentucky could also not be held as cruel for not considering the petitioned alternatives, as the drugs had to be tried and tested first, the approved or adopted for other states to use.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the pain threshold allowed by the Eight Amendment is only to the extent of terminating life, and nothing more that is not necessary. The amount of pain allowed also dictated no forms of torture or cruelty to the inmates were allowed. The pain had to be necessary, and the inmates were upon request, required to be unconscious to enable an almost painless exit. The pain experienced was only in one’s state of unconsciousness, and it was mainly through choking, paralysis, and cardiac arrest. The inmate does not, however, experience any pain as the state of being unconscious allows for an almost painless death. The state of Kentucky practiced what other states did within the confines of the constitution, and had a track record of success. There was only one isolated incident that provided a loophole for the petition, but it was not substantial enough to warrant a breach of the constitution. The threshold of pain allowed by the law was adhered to, and the administration would be conducted by trained professionals, with a minimum of a year of experience, to minimize the risk of errors.
References
Butler, C. (2008). Baze v. Rees: Lethal Injection as a Constitutional Method of Execution. Denv. UL Rev. , 86 , 509.
Denno, D. W. (2013). Lethal injection chaos post-Baze. Geo. LJ , 102 , 1331.
Gee, H. (2011). Eighth Amendment Challenges after Baze v Rees: Lethal Injection, Civil Rights Lawsuits, and the Death Penalty. BC Third World LJ , 31 , 217.
Grace, M. E. (2008). Baze v. Rees: Merging Eighth Amendment precedents into a new standard for method of execution challenges. Md. L. Rev. , 68 , 430.
Killingley, J. (2008). Killing me softly: Baze v Rees. Human Rights Law Review , 8 (3), 560-569.
Merrill, J. (2008). The past, present, & (and) future of lethal injection: Baze v. Rees' effect on the death penalty. UMKC L. Rev. , 77 , 161.
Semel, E. (2009). Reflections on Justice John Paul Stevens's Concurring Opinion in Baze v. Rees: A Fifth Gregg Justice Renounces Capital Punishment. UC Davis L. Rev. , 43 , 783.
