Supreme Court says the Constitution does not ensure a painless execution
55 replies, posted
https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-supreme-court-execution-lethal-injection-20190401-story.html
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that the Constitution does not guarantee a “painless death” for condemned murderers, deciding that a Missouri inmate may be executed by a lethal
injection despite a rare condition that could cause him to suffocate. By a 5-4 vote, the court rejected an appeal from Russell Bucklew, who maintained the state must seek out another
method of execution, such as lethal gas, to carry out his execution.
Bucklew had been facing execution for nearly two decades, but raised his claim about the lethal injections “less than two weeks before his scheduled execution,” said Justice Neil M.
Gorsuch. Then, after five more years of litigation, he and his lawyers were unable to point to a better and more effective way of carrying out the execution.
“The 8th Amendment has never been understood to guarantee a condemned inmate a painless death,” Gorsuch said in the courtroom. The court’s four liberals said the decision creates
a “serious risk that his execution will be excruciating and grotesque.” Justice Stephen G. Breyer said Bucklew has tumors in his throat and elsewhere that could hemorrhage and cause
him to suffocate.
Bucklew went on a violent rampage in 1996 in which he shot and killed a neighbor and raped a woman. He was arrested after a shootout with police. Later he escaped from jail and
attacked another woman with a hammer.
Kavanaugh wrote he could have been executed by firing squad instead.
“What the 8th Amendment does guarantee is a method of execution that’s not ‘cruel and unusual.’ And ever since the founding, people have understood that the only way to tell if a method is cruel is to compare it with other known and available alternatives, to see if the state is inflicting substantially more pain than necessary to carry out its lawful sentence.”
What a fucked up way to interpret this.
A lot of 5-4 rulings lately. I hope the US can get its act together and clean up the mess being made right now.
Let's bring back death by brazen bull just like the good old days.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lochner_era
This was the last time the court was extreme right. It ended with the great depression.
If you're not aware, this is because of the two recent appointments, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. The first replaced one of the arch conservatives with another, because Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to allow hearings on Obama's moderate nominee, Merrick Garland. The latter is what tipped the court into the solid 5-4 conservative majority, replacing Anthony Kennedy, a moderate, with now the most conservative member on the bench, second only to Clarence Thomas.
I know, it's pretty obvious that this was their plan from the get-go. Really scummy behavior.
Death by stoning it is then
Life imitates art:
https://youtu.be/Hyph_DZa_GQ
They're right though, it doesn't explicitly say that, and it's not in their power to add things to it. It was written at a time when hanging was the standard method, and if you're hanged there's a good chance you'll feel it and it's not gonna feel good.
Wowee what a disaster that would have been if we had ended up preventing painful executions.
If Trump wins 2020 it's gonna be 6-3. Say what you will about RBG's current health, but it's a very real risk.
What how is interpreting "cruel and unusual punishment" in a more modern way not appropriate here
There are already supreme court cases that ban certain methods entirely. The law would literally mean nothing if they couldn't interpret it?
The argument is that the definition of "cruel and unusual" should alos apply today's standards of what a :cruel and unusual" punishment is. The death penalty was thrown out in 1972, with Fruman v. Georgia. Then in 1976 with Gregg v. Georgia it was ruled constitutional again but upheld the idea the the 8th ammendment forbids punishment that causes unecessary pain.
The court holds that the punishment of death for the crime of murder does not, under all circumstances, violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Eighth Amendment, according to “evolving standards of decency” forbids the use of punishment that is "excessive" either because it inflicts unnecessary pain or because it is grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime. This does not mean, however, that a legislature is required to select the least severe penalty possible and that capital punishment for the crime of murder is invalid per se. Retribution and possibility of deterrence are permissible considerations in determining whether the death penalty should be imposed.
Gregg v. Georgia | Capital Punishment in Context
Yeah these rulings are required for the law to work properly because afaik there basically is no definition in the first place.
“The 8th Amendment has never been understood to guarantee a condemned inmate a painless death,” Gorsuch said in the courtroom.
Like at one point it was not necessarily understood to exclude "drawing and quartering, public dissection, burning alive, or disembowelment" because there was a case where they went out of their way to specify that they were cruel and unusual.
Anyway fuck off Gorsuck.
you know hanging is supposed to snap the victims neck, killing them instantly right?
Neil Gorsuch is opposed to assisted suicide but pro death penalty.
what the fuck man
He's an extremist religious fundamentalist who believes in natural law. Natural law is the theory that universal rights are bestowed on humans by God and do not need to be enumerated in actual law.
well there goes 60 years of precedent. Bring back the gallows!
Right wingers wanted Earl Warren impeached but his court's legacy will be nuked by the Roberts court. Court packing is the only way forward.
I do not believe there is a way to do that without allowing the GOP to do the same in the future.
Have the expanded court allow the NVPIC, end gerrymandering, end vote suppression, repeal Citizens United and the GOP can't win.
Pack it with Democratic majorities and President, fill the court, seal the deal by preventing court packing in the future by law.
Republicans would need the same numbers to overturn it.
But the whole thing operates on the assumption the Democrats will be doing the right thing while they essentially hijack the government for course correction and the greater good. Which, color me skeptical, I don't trust the majority of current Democrats to do, despite how much worse the right is.
That's a lot of very high expectations for everything to go right.
I find it scary how many people I've heard on Facepunch in support of court packing. It just seems like such a dangerous slippery slope keep packing justices to the point where the SCOTUS becomes a second, unelectable Congress and subsequently gets nothing done. If Republicans have taught you anything the past decade, if you give an inch, they'll take a mile. They'll just pack the court with more justices to offset the Democrat justices. It just seems like a really bad idea and a great way to sink one of the branches of government.
If you don't give them an inch they'll go ahead, take the mile, then change the rules so you never get an inch again.
So you agree that court packing is useless
His next goal is to make attempted suicide a crime that would incur the death-penalty!
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
