Various state officials were sued from Charles Warner and three others because of the use of a drug, the sedative midazolam. This drug played a part in three long and apparently painful executions last year (2014) stated Liptak. Why was a long process, well this drug would help prisoners become unconscious before they would had been injected with other drugs that it’s supposed to cause an instant death. This case comes from Oklahoma. In April 19, 2014 Clayton Lockett was executed using the drug method which it was supposed to not last longer than 10 minutes, however it lasted 40 minutes, this process was a poorly procedure, it ends up making him to wake up and feel a severe pain. Oklahoma cancelled all the executions until the incident could had been investigated and hopefully change the protocol of the procedure.” Because capital punishment is constitutional, there must be a constitutional means of carrying it out” Supreme Court (2015). The federal district court denied the injunction and stated that the plaintiffs did not provided enough evidence that they would prevail on the merits of their claims. This claim did hold a change in the protocol of use of the drugs instead of being three, the protocol allowed for four alternative drugs combinations, one of them being midazolam.
This case had a part of the 8th amendment “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted” Human Right. As the initial drug in the execution violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Even though they did not have enough proved but just the cause of a prisoner, justice Sotomayor stated, “Petitioners contend that Oklahoma’s current protocol is a barbarous method of punishment — the chemical equivalent of being burned alive,” Liptak (2015). Justice Breyer wrote in 46 pages that the death penalty likely violates the Eighth Amendment. Besides Charles Warren and the other three tried to change the form of executions, they did not have no other option than move forward with the regular way of executions. However, is stated that the Eighth Amendment goes successfully in the process of execution because there is nowhere to say that the constitution method does not required free of pain. Based on Glossip v. Gross(2018), there is studies that shows factors other than “egregiousness of the crime”, for instance, races and gender of the defendant and the victim and location of the crime. Due to all this reason, they did not count accountable the 8th amendment.
The argument presented on this case, shows reasons to think twice about what the people who proceed the executions use, one thing is give a penalty and the other is to be unhuman. The process of death execution is with one injection containing the three drugs, Midazolam- to sedate, vecuronium bromide- to paralyze muscles, and Potassium Chloride- to stop the heart. As given the example of Lockett, I believe the authorities can find better solutions to make it less painful or quicker in case of long lasting death effect, as it was also stated that it happens to two more people during the same year. “The Supreme Court ruled on Monday against three death row inmates who had sought to bar the use of an execution drug they said risked causing excruciating pain.” Liptak (2015). If I was one of the Justices, I would try to change gradually the execution method, since there could be many reasons why a person is under death penalty. The United States have 30 states that deal with death penalty and just like there is 20 states that does not use this method of penalty, and when sentiency, it should be the same way when it comes to death penalty. I would disagree with Justice Stephen G. Breyer, who wrote an argued that “the constitutionality of a punishment must be evaluated based on currently prevailing social and legal standards” Glossip v. Gross (2018). Social stability, should not be part of any punishment because it should not make sense to give privilege to other who did the same or worst harms than other prisoners. Legal standard, should neither be a difference from my thought
in social stability. All laws should be equal to every human. The only thing I understand it could change is the different of countries laws.
The decision of the case ended being a 5 to 4 majority. As stating that the use of midazolam in lethal injections does not violate the Eighth Amendment. As stated before, they did not have sufficient evidence to prove their point. “the death penalty is not reliably applied to cases in which the defendant has been properly convicted of crimes that society harshly condemns.” Glossip v. Gross (2015). Since the death penalty has been reduce from it start, they tried to consider the death penalty “unusual” for the purpose to be consider against the eighth amendment. Oklahoma is unable to procure or obtain with another kind of drugs, neither the petitioners were able to show another type of drug that could had been use for the procedure. There was driven a dissenting opinion, Justice Sotomayor argued that “there is no requirement that petitioners for relief under the Eighth Amendment provide a reasonable alternative, because a cruel method of execution does not become constitutional simply due to a lack of alternatives.” After that is when Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, and Kagan joined the dissent.
I agree with the Dissent. As their life is already ending, there should be a way to get other options. Either they could act quick after 15 minutes passed of the execution and the person still alive or find stronger drugs that could work much better. I usually don’t feel sympathy for people that have been cruel to others, but I do believe that is they are paying for what they did, a little change in the protocol should not hurt anyone. As I also believe that no one has the right to end no body’s life, execution could also be asked to the prisoner and so they can choose. Why making choices? I think everyone in this world in sometimes in their life have said “I don’t want to die like this” or “I would like to die like this”. Even though it might never happen the way we wish for to die, they have a little power to do so, since they are cutting someone else life short. Besides Charles Warrant brought up a good point he was still denied by the court for not having enough information and prove, nor solution to his case.
