A new test for evaluating Eighth Amendment challenges to lethal injections.
نویسنده
چکیده
An explosion of Eighth Amendment challenges to lethal injection protocols has struck the federal courts. The Supreme Court's recent decision in Hill v. McDonough,1 which empowered prisoners to bring challenges to lethal injection procedures under 42 U.S.C. para. 1983, has facilitated a flood of new lethal injection cases. In response, several courts have ordered states to alter their protocols, spurring other capital inmates to litigate such challenges. Distressingly, the courts evaluating these claims have almost no law to guide them. The last Supreme Court decision applying the Eighth Amendment to a method of execution was written in 1947; that case, Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber,2 occurred before the Eighth Amendment was applied to the states and resulted in a 4-1-4 split. Although lower courts have heard numerous challenges to execution methods, few have analyzed the constitutional validity of a method of execution in detail. Making matters worse, courts that find Eighth Amendment violations must craft equitable remedies that often amount to entirely new execution protocols. No clear precedent exists to guide courts in formulating such remedies. This Note proposes a legal standard for the administration of Eighth Amendment method-of-execution claims, focusing on lethal injection cases. Part I describes lethal injection procedures and summarizes recent litigation. Part II discusses the difficulty of evaluating lethal injection claims, analyzing both general difficulties in interpreting the Eighth Amendment and specific difficulties associated with lethal injection cases. Part III proposes a standard for addressing method-of-execution claims that attempts to balance a prisoner's interest in a painless execution with a state's interest in conducting executions efficiently. Part IV discusses remedies for unconstitutional procedures. Part V concludes.
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 کاملThe Political Morality of the Eighth Amendment
Since the early twentieth century, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment as a progressive mandate that draws its meaning from “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” In applying this standard, the Court looks to such objective considerations as legislative enactments, patterns of jury dec...
متن کاملRaising the "civilized minimum" of pain amelioration for prisoners to avoid cruel and unusual punishment.
This Article addresses the problems with our nation's cultural and legal prohibitions against certain pain management treatments. The practice of pain management has not kept pace with the many medical advances that have made it possible for physicians to ameliorate most pain. The Author notes that some patients are denied access to certain forms of treatments due to the mistaken belief that ad...
متن کاملDesert and the Eighth Amendment Symposium: Cruel and Unusual Punishment: Litigating under the Eighth Amendment
متن کامل
Cruelty to the mentally ill: an Eighth Amendment challenge to the abolition of the insanity defense.
This Comment addresses the present gap in insanity-defense laws created by the defense’s abolition and offers an Eighth Amendment based remedy. Part I reviews the history and evolution of the insanity defense in Anglo-American law. It then describes how four states have statutorily abolished the defense. It concludes with a discussion of Clark v. Arizona, the Court’s most recent decision on the...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید
ثبت ناماگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید
ورودعنوان ژورنال:
- Harvard law review
دوره 120 5 شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2007