The case involved concerns in the effectiveness and pain involved in using a 3 drug cocktail. The case was not necessarily brought on to stop the death penalty, but to gain further insight into the relative 'pain-free' nature of the method of execution.
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 decision itself is very interesting. Here are some of my favorite
elements from the NYT article.
Perhaps most interestingly, Justice Stevens filed an opinion concurring in the judgment of the court, but by no means embracing capital punishment. Indeed, he asserted that recent decisions by state legislatures, Congress and the Supreme Court itself to preserve the death penalty “are the product of habit and inattention rather than an acceptable deliberative process that weighs the costs and risks” of the ultimate punishment.This is such a poignant comment and is consistent with much of or criminal justice, institutional management. As suggested by Feeley and Simon, we have moved toward risk only models and 'waste management'. I am not arguing, per se, that the death penalty doesn't have a role in corrections. It is widely supported. At the same time, simply sweeping the death penalty and concerns over a humane treatment under the rug has large implications for how we treat inmates overall.
Contrary to the comment of the court that "Judged under that standard (the 8th Amendment), this is an easy case.” There are no easy cases in terms of the death penalty, and I truly believe that how we classify and speak of our most violent offenders has strong implications for lower-level criminals and the citizenry in general. Silly me - I had become optimistic after Roper v. Simmons.
2 comments:
Lets just accept it, for the love of God, we are killing people. Either we kill 'em or we don't, but to try to find some septic way of killing another human is like a search for the holy grail...it sounds nice and is appealing, but largely a waste of time. I am personally opposed to the death penalty, but microanalyzing how we KILL someone seems a bit over done to me. Like Foucault indicates, does this just make us feel better by otherwise killing someone? I think those who argue for airing of executions on TV might actually be onto something. There will be those wackos who get sexually excited over it, but for the majority, maybe we all should own up to this punishment. I am no bleeding heart liberal (I know that shocks people), but I think that argument has teeth.
Thanks for posting this. So much for putting the death penalty (via lethal injection) to death, huh?
P.S. Apologies for being so absent from the blog for the last few days -- we're remodeling several rooms in our house, so I have been completely preoccupied with renovation stuff!
Post a Comment