Top US court mulls whether to keep death penalty on hold (Roundup)

Washington - The US Supreme Court on Monday suggested it may have to send a case over lethal injections used in applying the death penalty back down to lower courts for further review, potentially keeping state executions in the United States on ice for years. Lawyers before the nine-member court debated whether the kind of lethal injections used by states to execute condemned inmates are legal under the US Constitution, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Attorneys for inmates argue there are pain-free alternatives that states are refusing to use. The Baze versus Rees case, brought against the state of Kentucky by two inmates on death row, has led to a de facto moratorium nationwide on state executions pending the outcome - something the court's justices were clearly mindful of in their comments at the more than one-hour hearing. Justice David Souter suggested the case may be thrown back to lower courts, because a 'comparative analysis' of the alternatives to the three-drug concoction currently being used had not yet been discussed properly. 'If we don't do something like that in this case, another case is going to come along and we're going to be right back here,' Souter said. 'We want some kind of a definitive decision here, and it seems to me the most expeditious way of getting it - if comparative analysis is appropriate and I will be candid to say I think it is - is to send this case back and say, 'do a comparative analysis, make the findings.'' But other justices were mindful of what death penalty advocates have argued is a ploy by opponents to keep capital punishment on the shelf through constant litigation. 'Those who oppose capital punishment entirely across the board are quite willing to take a careful look at all the alternatives,' said Justice Antonin Scalia. 'That's the problem, if we come up with a decision that requires a careful look in every case whenever there's a newly developed method of execution, the problem will always be before us.' Human rights groups deny that ending the death penalty in the US - the only Western nation that still allows it - is their goal in this case. Humane executions, they say, are an intermediate goal until the practice can be stopped altogether. Jamie Fellner, an attorney for Human Rights Watch, vowed that 'advocates will continue to fight the death penalty - (but) that doesn't mean that we should permit a method that is known to be flawed.' The case centres on how the current lethal injection method, used by Kentucky and most other states, is administered. It involves three chemicals given in order: sodium thiopental renders the condemned unconscious, pancuronium bromide paralyses them and potassium chloride stops the heart. David Verrilli, attorney for the inmates, argued the three-drug method is complicated and open to mistakes: if the initial chemical is administered incorrectly, the victim could be conscious and would experience tremendous pain when the last drug is injected. Instead, he said the first drug is itself lethal and could be administered on its own - a painless method even if mistakes are made. But the state of Kentucky's attorney Roy Englert argued the one- drug method - usually used to put animals to sleep - was untested on humans and would harm the 'dignity' of the condemned. Their death could take as long as 40 minutes and cause involuntary muscle contractions which, though not painful, would be difficult for witnesses to watch. He also argued there was not a 'sufficient' or wanton risk of pain to prevent the current method from being used, as enough safeguards were in place to prevent accidents. The court appeared divided. Justice John Paul Stevens questioned why states were applying a method that could potentially cause pain when others appeared to be available. 'I am terribly troubled by the fact that the second drug is what seems to cause all the risk of excruciating pain and seems to be almost totally unnecessary in terms of any rational basis for requirement,' he said. But other justices seemed to back Kentucky's argument that while pain might be caused accidentally, it was not the intention of the state and therefore not unconstitutional. 'Of course there's a risk of human error, there's a risk of human error generally,' said Justice Stephen Breyer. 'But the question here is can we say that there is a more serious problem here than other execution methods.' 'We have approved electrocution. We have approved death by firing squad,' Scalia added. 'I expect those have more possibility of painful death than the protocol here.' Either way, many justices seemed frustrated with the idea that their decision could potentially keep the death penalty on hold for the foreseeable future - if it either kept a window open for new cases or sent the matter back down for a new trial. The court was 'very reluctant to send it back to the trial court so we can have a nationwide cessation of all executions while the trial court finishes its work,' Chief Justice John Roberts said. 'Ultimately we're looking at years. We wouldn't want that to happen.' A decision in the case could come anytime before the court goes into summer recess in June. © 2008 dpa - Deutsche Presse-Agentur

And Also

Look Back at the Worst Celebrity Breakups

Look Back at the Worst Celebrity Breakups - PopEater
GASP: Goldstriker creates world's most expensive iPhone - The Tech Herald
The Jay Leno Show Finds Its Ratings Level - Cinema Blend
Guide to Avoiding Red Carpet Faux Pas - PopEater
A&E series 'Hoarders' and 'Intervention' premiere Monday, Nov. 30th, preview

Your Talkback on this Story

Latest Headlines in US

Older Talkback

page: 1

???Jan 7th, 2008 - 20:15:17

So what if these beasts suffer. Look what they've done to innocent victims and their families! They SHOULD suffer for what they've taken, and the pain that remains after their victims die.

Report this comment

tonny from belgiumJan 8th, 2008 - 00:27:15

to ????
Who is to say that all these men are guilty ?Condemned and guilty are quite separate things ,just google Dallas mistrial,Wade ,and be ready to learn a few facts about justice.

Report this comment

???Jan 8th, 2008 - 00:30:51

I guess you've never been a witness to a murder, then seen the murderer get life instead of execution.

Report this comment

Tonny go back to Iran!Jan 8th, 2008 - 06:12:42

You ask who is to say who is guilty and condemned?

How about DNA, polygraphs, audio, and video recordings on security cameras?

You are such a flake.

If you worry so much about serial killers than why dont you adopt some over there and keep them in your house if you care so much.

I noticed you conveniently forgot the misery of victims who suffer anywhere from hours, days, and even weeks before being murdered.

Demons as yourself always moan and mours for the GUILTY, but say nothing for the victims....how predictable.

What the death penalty GUARANTEES is that a convicted murderer WILL NEVER KILL AGAIN and that is what we all want.

You love to speak on behalf of evil everywhere, sicko.

Hungarian Crusader

Report this comment

Tonny forgot something again.Jan 8th, 2008 - 06:21:59

Apparently, he never heard of REPEAT OFFENDERS which includes murderers, kidnappers, rapists, and all other flotsam of society.

How many hundreds of paroled criminals were set loose very early or a short time later and went out TO MURDER AND BUTCHER AGAIN!!!

If these wild dogs were put down the first time on their conviction with DNA evidence they would not had repeat chances to murder more innocent people in our society.

Tonny, this is how stupid you and your ilk are today.

Why do we execute DOGS for biting or snapping at people on a first offense than TURN LOOSE A MAN that has killed 1 or several people?

How much more dangerous is the human animal than a canine?

Men can handle and manipulate multiple weapons and we give them more chances to KILL AGAIN with those same weapons and that is truly irresponsible.

The death penalty is protection against killers for society and our most vulnerable members.

In time, Europe, and many other nations will bring back the death penalty to protect and deter future butchers. Things are actually slowly being amended now and people like Tonny dont even see it coming.

It is sheer idiocy to think a dog is more dangerous than a man.

Leftist beliefs, all garbage.

Hungarian Crusader

Report this comment

SP4: A legitimate Beef?Jan 8th, 2008 - 22:24:22

It's fair to question rulings where the evidence is scant, and a death sentence is meted out. Certainly, if there is DNA to refute other evidence, someone needs to explain how a judge can make two jumps to get them to a death sentence.

When, however, the evidence is unequivocal, I to object to letting these chuckleheads live on. Tookie Williams is the gold standard. Wesley Alan Dodd was another.

There is a reason for the death penalty and it is a good one. In Oregon, in the sixties, we had a lesbian couple throw the mom's two toddler children over Crooked River Gorge. The death penalty was not in force at the time, so they got life.

24 years later, I turn on the TV and they'd let her go. The corrections person stated that, in her opinion, it was NOT the most heinous crime she'd ever heard of. I wonder who she's babysitting for now?

Anyone can get out of Prison...anyone....unless they've been put to death.

Report this comment

BritJan 9th, 2008 - 22:45:35

You know, it's really funny how America has one of the highest murder rates on this planet, yet people from other countries don't think they should have the death penalty. I, for one, would like to see it abolished. But what else are you supposed to do with the plonkers? Let them go so they can kill my wife when we go visit Disneyland? It's a societal problem, yes. But until they can get the gangs and other bloody losers under control, I say keep those injections going!

Report this comment

page: 1

US

US News

Top US court mulls whether to keep death penalty on hold (Roundup)

And Also

Your Talkback on this Story

Similar articles

Latest Headlines in US

Older Talkback

From Sites we Like

In Monsters and Critics

Corporate

The Fine Print