Post by sclcookie on May 29, 2006 1:00:55 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)