The Backward Jurisprudence of Baze
نویسنده
چکیده
The Supreme Court’s plurality opinion in Baze v. Rees begins with a seemingly simple assertion of constitutional law. “We begin with the principle, settled by Gregg, that capital punishment is constitutional.” It continues, “[i]t necessarily follows that there must be a means of carrying it out.” This second pronouncement provides the foundation for the Supreme Court’s holding in Baze that Kentucky’s refusal to modify its lethal injection procedure does not violate the Eighth Amendment. However, in taking the position that the constitutionality of an existing method of capital punishment is dependent on the availability of alternative execution procedures, the Supreme Court has turned Eighth Amendment jurisprudence on its head, establishing a dangerous loophole that could imperil our most important constitutional protections. This essay highlights the error in the Court’s reasoning in Baze and considers the potentially troubling consequences of applying this reasoning to other areas of constitutional law.
منابع مشابه
Eighth Amendment Challenges After Baze v. Rees: Lethal Injection, Civil Rights Lawsuits, and the Death Penalty
In Baze v. Rees, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Kentucky’s lethal injection protocol, which utilizes a threedrug 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 intole...
متن کاملIn Search of a Theory of Deference: The Eighth Amendment, Democratic Pedigree, and Constitutional Decision Making
The Supreme Court's recent Eighth Amendment death penalty case law is in disarray, and the confusion is symptomatic of a larger problem in constitutional doctrine. In Baze v. Rees and Kennedy v. Louisiana, the Court approached the challenged state policies with vastly different levels of deference. Though the Court purported to apply longstanding Eighth Amendment tests in both cases, Baze was h...
متن کاملPlace of Inidividual Citizenship Rights in Iranian Jurisprudence and Legal System
Individual citizenship rights or the regulations and rules that determine the boundaries between individual rights and the jurisdictions of government are among the key discussions in the contemporary world. In Islamic government of Iran the relationship between individual rights and government is of specific place and individual rights have been explained in full details in the Constitution of...
متن کاملCapacities of Political Jurisprudence for System-making
Shiite political jurisprudence with regard to internal capacities and current needs especially the experience of Islamic republic of Iran after the Islamic revolution, started to design and implement a comprehensive political social system. System making in political jurisprudence which is based on scripture and is completed with regard to the tangible developments in the world and the needs of...
متن کامل