Search

In the years since 2008, when the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a commonly used lethal injection protocol in Baze v. Rees, states have shifted away from the approved protocol and turned towards new drugs, drug protocols, and drug sources to carry out statesponsored executions by lethal injection. Even as states have shifted to new, untested protocols and less-regulated sources than they used in pre-Baze years, state legislatures have enacted and amended secrecy statutes that hide information about the drug protocols and sources of lethal injection drugs from the press, the public, and condemned prisoners. Meanwhile, a number of recent executions have gone awry, with executions lasting far longer than expected or causing apparent pain in prisoners being executed. State secrecy about execution protocols and drug sources makes it difficult for condemned prisoners to argue about the constitutionality of execution by particular drugs, and prevents the press and the public from evaluating whether lethal injection executions are ethically or constitutionally permissible depending on the drugs being used (and the drugs' quality and quantity). This Comment argues that state secrecy statutes concerning lethal injection drugs are unconstitutional because they impose on the public's presumptive right of access to state-held information of this sort. The Comment explores how the public's right of access derives from the First Amendment, and argues that secrecy laws about lethal injection drug sources and protocols impermissibly burden the public's right of access to that information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusess challenges of lethal injection used for capital punishment in Arkansas. Topics dicussed include history of capital punishment in Arkansas; U.S. Supreme Court cases Glossip v. Gross and Baze v. Rees addressing constitutionality of a particular method of lethal injection used for capital punishment; and laws governing capital punishment in the U.S.

The article discusses the author's views about lethal-injection litigation, the constitutionality of the death penalty in America, and federal habeas corpus proceedings in the U.S. Prosecutorial misconduct and a criminal defendant's right to effective assistance of counsel under the U.S. Constitution's Sixth Amendment are assessed, as well as the right to a fair trial and the U.S. Supreme Court lethal-injection-related case Baze v. Reese and the author's experiences as a defense attorney.

The article focuses on capital punishment in the U.S., citing pertinence of the eight amendment to the same, as of April 2016. Topics include U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the case Baze v. Rees; the standard set forth in the case Glossip v. Gross, related to capital punishment; implications of the case Glossip v. Gross for petitioners seeking relief in the court.

The strategy of taking the death penalty battle to the market by ferreting out and campaigning against lethal injection drug suppliers has been wildly successful in shriveling the execution drug supply. The supply-side strategy has not halted executions, however. Rather, the unintended consequences of shrinking the execution drug supply are heightened risks of harm as states resort to alternative drugs and a surge of new state secrecy laws to protect remaining supply sources. The new secrecy laws are facing a barrage of legal challenges and a circuit split on how to resolve them. This Article is about the unintended consequences of the supply-side attack strategy and how harm reduction is better served by challenging the lack of notice and adversarial testing regarding new drug protocols rather than outing and attacking the last remaining licensed suppliers. While execution drug supplier confidentiality laws are often conflated with concealment of the method of execution, the Article argues it is important to distinguish the two. The success--and downsides--of the drug supplier outing strategy illustrates the legitimate harm prevention rationale behind execution drug supplier confidentiality laws. Confidentiality serves the important interest of safeguarding remaining licensed drug sources and reducing the need to resort to questionable backroom sources abroad or old methods of execution such as firing squads. In contrast, eleventh-hour drug substitutions heighten the risk of unintended suffering because the death cocktail protocol has not been subject to sufficient adversarial testing, much less scientific evaluation. For those concerned about reducing harm, it is counterproductive to attack compounding pharmacies licensed as competent to produce drugs for the public. Rather the focus should be on sufficient notice regarding the lethal injection protocol to evaluate and challenge changes in cocktail combinations, which pose a far greater risk of harm. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the chaos that is reportedly associated with lethal injections in America in the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the 2008 case Baze v. Rees which deals with state execution methods in America and the constitutionality of Kentucky's lethal injection protocol. American compounding pharmacies, the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause in the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and various concurring and dissenting court opinions are examined.

The article focuses on the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which contains the Equal Protection Clause ensuring equal treatment for all U.S. citizens. Information is provided on the U.S. court case Baze v. Rees, which dealt with the use of lethal injection on death row inmates in the U.S.

As the constitutional standards for the manner of execution of a death sentence are evolving, South Dakota faces potential scrutiny. Baze v. Rees, a 2008 decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, sets the standard for a lethal injection protocol that aligns with the Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause. This decision provides an opportunity for states to revise their protocol to satisfy constitutional standards through the proper administration of lethal injection. Although South Dakota's manner of execution is facially constitutional, it lacks safeguards to protect against the risk of administering cruel and unusual punishment. The lethal injection protocol reviewed by the Supreme Court of the United States and those of other states in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals can serve as models for revision. South Dakota, by statute and administrative rule, should establish lethal injection protocol that identifies the substances, specifies intravenous (IV) team experience and training, provides for inmate observation and examination, and describes backup IV procedures with the goal of reducing discretion and ensuring consistently humane executions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Baze v. Rees, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Kentucky's lethal injection protocol, which utilizes a three-drug combination to execute death row inmates. To challenge a lethal injection protocol in the future, the Court stated that an inmate would have to make a showing that the protocol in question presents a "substantial risk of serious harm" or an "objectively intolerable risk of harm." In addition, the inmate would have to show the existence of a feasible alternative that can be readily implemented and would "significantly reduce a substantial risk of severe pain." The standard set forth in Baze makes it difficult for inmates to challenge lethal injection protocols. This Article discusses the implications of Baze in the lower courts and examines the use of state administrative procedure acts as an alternative litigation strategy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the case Baze v. Rees, in which the U.S. Supreme Court considered whether the three-drug injection protocol of the state of Kentucky violated the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution. It notes that while the ruling of the Court to uphold the protocol will promote uniformity among lower courts, the plurality's standard will also aid the judiciary to ensure that the executive and legislative branches of state governments continue to create more humane protocols in the future.

The article examines the bifurcation of the Eighth Amendment inquiries after the U.S. court case Baze versus Rees. It says that the case held that the Kentucky execution protocol, and particularly its adoption of pancuronium bromide as a paralytic agent in lethal injection, did not violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. It notes that the U.S. Supreme Court, in validating the Kentucky three-drug execution method, substantially gave a new standard for telling whether an execution protocol is cruel and unusual.

Since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976 by the Supreme Court in Gregg v. Georgia, over 83% of those executed have been put to death by means of lethal injection, which is intended to be more humane than other methods of capital punishment. The prevailing lethal injection procedure has been challenged by the contention that the first drug does not adequately anesthetize the condemned prisoner in the three-drug sequence. Because the first drug, the sedative, may not function as intended, the second and third drugs may result in excruciating pain to the prisoner. The US Supreme Court, in Baze v. Rees (2008) has held that because this process is not intended to cause unnecessary pain and suffering, it is not 'objectively intolerable' and is not a violation of the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. However, the Eighth Amendment is only a minimum standard. The court observed that states have been changing and revising execution methods for well over a century and expected that they would continue to do so without a Supreme Court mandate. The states should exercise their Constitutional duty and address and resolve the issues raised by Baze. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This editorial recounts a roundtable discussion on the lawsuit issues raised by the case of Baze v. Rees which suggests the three drug protocol used to carry out the death penalty in the U.S. is cruel and unusual punishment. The panel consisted of physicians versed in medical ethics, anesthesiology and health policy. The experts discussed if the right combination of drugs is being administered and debated the issue of whether or not physicians should participate in executions.

An essay is presented on U.S. Supreme Court (USSC) Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, her dissenting opinions in the two USSC cases Baze v. Rees and Gonzales v. Carhart, and appearance-based defenses. According to the article, the Baze case deals with alternative lethal injection monitoring procedures and the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, while the Carhart case addresses a woman's autonomy and an abortion-related health exception. "Partial-birth" abortions and infanticide are examined.

This sketch looks at the development of the legal thinking of Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens with respect to his position on the death penalty. It offers reasons for Justice Stevens coming to the conclusion that the death penalty should be taken out of play in the justice system of the United States. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the court case Baze v. Rees wherein the U.S. Supreme Court considered whether the protocol of lethal injections used to carry out the death penalty in Kentucky was consistent with the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments set out in the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The administration of three drugs which are used in 30 states was governed by the protocol. It says that the protocol of Kentucky lacked precautions to confirm that an inmate was unconscious before the second and third drugs were administered.