Post by sclcookie on May 31, 2006 2:15:56 GMT -5
Lethal-injection flaw lingers
The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear a Tennessee case about its lethal injection protocol in executions, but that does not settle the issue, and it certainly doesn't bring an end to similar cases.
The nation's high court refused, without comment, to accept the case of death-row inmate Abu-Ali Abdur'Rahman. But other cases across the nation will keep the issue alive because of compelling arguments as to whether the method involves an unconstitutional use of cruel and unusual punishment. In fact, another Tennessee death-row inmate, Sedley Alley, is raising the same issue in court appeals.
As more is learned about the protocol, the harder it is to defend. When Bradley MacLean, one of Abdur'Rahman's lawyers, said the protocol "is not fit for a dog," he wasn't being flippant; the drug Pavulon used in the protocol is forbidden from use on animals.
Increasingly, the lethal-injection protocol is being questioned because of concerns that it only masks pain and suffering. Pavulon, which is used after a drug that is supposed to render the inmate unconscious, is a paralyzing chemical; the third drug actually stops the heart. The legal challenges to the protocol claim that rendering a person unable to move, then injecting him with a painful substance is cruel punishment and therefore unconstitutional.
After the court's decision to not consider the case of Abdur'Rahman was announced, state Attorney General Paul Summers said the decision confirmed that the lethal injection protocol isn't cruel and unusual punishment. That isn't true. As MacLean points out, the court said nothing about the merits of the case. Summers' remarks are misleading. The validity of the argument has not diminished.
At some point, the Supreme Court will have to deal substantively with lethal injections. When that time comes, the constitutional question cannot be ignored.
(source: Opinion, The Tennessean)
The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear a Tennessee case about its lethal injection protocol in executions, but that does not settle the issue, and it certainly doesn't bring an end to similar cases.
The nation's high court refused, without comment, to accept the case of death-row inmate Abu-Ali Abdur'Rahman. But other cases across the nation will keep the issue alive because of compelling arguments as to whether the method involves an unconstitutional use of cruel and unusual punishment. In fact, another Tennessee death-row inmate, Sedley Alley, is raising the same issue in court appeals.
As more is learned about the protocol, the harder it is to defend. When Bradley MacLean, one of Abdur'Rahman's lawyers, said the protocol "is not fit for a dog," he wasn't being flippant; the drug Pavulon used in the protocol is forbidden from use on animals.
Increasingly, the lethal-injection protocol is being questioned because of concerns that it only masks pain and suffering. Pavulon, which is used after a drug that is supposed to render the inmate unconscious, is a paralyzing chemical; the third drug actually stops the heart. The legal challenges to the protocol claim that rendering a person unable to move, then injecting him with a painful substance is cruel punishment and therefore unconstitutional.
After the court's decision to not consider the case of Abdur'Rahman was announced, state Attorney General Paul Summers said the decision confirmed that the lethal injection protocol isn't cruel and unusual punishment. That isn't true. As MacLean points out, the court said nothing about the merits of the case. Summers' remarks are misleading. The validity of the argument has not diminished.
At some point, the Supreme Court will have to deal substantively with lethal injections. When that time comes, the constitutional question cannot be ignored.
(source: Opinion, The Tennessean)