US News

PREVIEW: US high court to debate the how, not why, of death penalty

Jan 5, 2008, 3:13 GMT

Washington - It's quite the moral dilemma for human rights activists - how do you argue in favour of a 'humane' method of capital punishment, when your stated goal is to abolish state executions altogether? The US Supreme Court will hear arguments in just such a case on Monday. Lawyers in Baze versus Rees will debate whether lethal injections used by states to execute condemned inmates are legal under the US Constitution, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Two inmates facing execution in Kentucky are challenging the standard form of lethal injection - a three-drug concoction - that they say can cause excruciating pain if not administered properly. The case has led to a de facto moratorium in the 36 of 37 death penalty states that use injections pending the court's decision. Nebraska uses the electric chair. Yet even if the Supreme Court rules in favour of the two inmates on death row, it will simply require states to use a different, painless method - one that activists say is readily available. But that puts human rights organizations in an uneasy position. Human Rights Watch, in a brief to the court, argued for a 'clear and practicable standard - whether the method of execution utilized inflicts the minimum possible pain and suffering.' The brief makes no mention of the group's actual position - that the death penalty is inhumane under any circumstances. The American Civil Liberties Union has the same goal of abolishing the punishment, but in its own brief chose to focus on the 'secrecy' surrounding execution methods. Jamie Fellner, an attorney at Human Rights Watch, acknowledged the dilemma but said the ultimate goal should not preclude groups from finding a less painful form of execution. 'The idea of a 'humane execution' is a contradiction in terms. But if states are going to put people to death, they must choose the drugs and methods that carry the least risk of pain and suffering for the condemned,' Fellner said in a statement. But capital punishment advocates have derided the case as a closet tactic to halt executions. Kentucky argues that the US Constitution does not require use of the best method of execution available, only that the method should not carry a 'substantial risk' of causing pain. 'Is a state constitutionally required to change its method of execution every time an alternative with a lower risk of pain is shown to be available, thereby creating a permanent new layer of litigation in capital cases?' the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, a California-based victim's rights group, wrote in its brief to the court. The current lethal injection method, used by Kentucky and most other states, involves administering three chemicals in order: sodium thiopental renders the condemned unconscious, pancuronium bromide paralyses them and potassium chloride stops the heart. The inmates' lawyers argue that 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. A person would suffer in silence because of the paralytic. Instead, they suggest that the first drug could be used on its own. An overdose of a barbiturate like thiopental is lethal on its own, eliminating mistakes and the risk of causing pain. But detractors argue that the method is untested, could take as long as 40 minutes and cause involuntary muscle contractions which, though not painful, would be difficult for witnesses to watch. Either way, discussion of an alternative method provides little solace to those who hope the United States - the only Western nation to allow state-sanctioned executions - will abolish the practice altogether. The court also agreed Friday to hear another death penalty case, which centres on whether prisoners can be executed for crimes that do not involve the death of the victim. In that case, Kennedy versus Louisiana, a man has been sentenced to death for the rape of his 8- year-old stepdaughter. Five states allow executions for child rape. © 2008 dpa - Deutsche Presse-Agentur

View blog reactions

Latest Headlines in US

Talkback

Add your comment (no registration required)

page: 1

SP4: The Colt MethodJan 5th, 2008 - 17:09:41

Bullet in the brain.

The Ruskies do this:

They put you in a room at the prison the morning of the execution, give the officer of the day a loaded pistol, he comes in the room and shoots you in the head.

Instant death. A nanosecond of pain and then nothing.

Report this comment

ShakerJan 5th, 2008 - 19:17:52

The gillotine would be a nice, speedy 'end'!

Report this comment

tonny from belgiumJan 6th, 2008 - 10:43:37

More interesting,but related to the subject:
www.nytimes.com/2008/01/04/us/04dna.html
So a few questions need to be addressed by those that advocate the death penalty.
Is there any reason to believe that the same rte of mistrials does NOT apply to people executed for crimes ?
Is there any reason why figures should be different in other counties or states ?

Report this comment

NoharnessJan 6th, 2008 - 18:24:11

I can't believe I'm doing this. Tonny has a good point. While I do NOT have a problem with the death penalty in principle, I do have serious concerns about the way it is imposed. You can make reparations to a person wrongly convicted and jailed, but you cannot bring anyone back from the dead. We really do need strict standards for imposing the death penalty and every such case should be subjected to exhaustive review.

Report this comment

SP4: I'd agree! I know what you mean!Jan 6th, 2008 - 22:00:41

..only it's a pity that all of this interest in a fair trial disappears when, say, some college kids have a party and are accused of rape.

Then, as we plainly saw at Duke, the liberal intelligista went straight into their own bigoted love-fest and were willing to hang innocent college kids using a crooked DA's utter disregard for the law, throwing out common sense, in order to assuage their wierd inherited guilt over race relations of the past.

The other fact we need to confront is that, if we have capital punishment, those legitimately tried and convicted are not pimped as having some kind of faulty justice. After all, Susan Saranden, and Jamie Fox, sure as hell never went to Texas to help free those two KKK members who dragged the black guy to death, did they, but ran headlong to beg mercy for Tookie Williams.

We should not wait to reform a failed system of justice only when someone is about to die, or it grates our own selfish sensibilities.

Report this comment

page: 1

Add your comment (no registration required)