Raven Birk

10/14/14

Journal Research #6

Summary: This is a review of two Supreme Court cases about the death penalty.  The first, Baze v. Rees happened in 2008 and ruled that Kentucky’s version of the lethal injection was not considered cruel and usual punishment under the 8^th amendment.  Other states had to switch out the concoctions used to kill because their records showed evidence of their current choice being considered cruel and unusual punishment.   A justice added to the case that this would not be a definitive decision for the lethal injection as a whole.   The second case, Hill v. McDonough, covers whether or not the lethal injection process itself is constitutional because an inmate in 2006 made an appeal.  The argument was that the injection causes great pain but the drug concoction paralyzes the criminal so that their pain is masked from the world and this caused some states to make sure the injection was changed or implemented correctly.

Synthesis: This source is very much so the legal aspect of the injection itself and not necessarily the doctor involvement.  It brings up the point twice though that the lethal injection is thought of as cruel and unusual punishment by many and there is little scientific evidence or research to show that it is or isn’t.   A point that the implementation of the drug had a lot to do with why its considered cruel and therefore the cases allude to the fact that doctor involvement isn’t there and if the injection continues as a method for carrying out capital punishment, then more research needs to be done and doctor involvement needs to be a thing, legally backing up and supporting some of the facts and opinions from the previous articles. 

Critical Thinking:  Obviously there are many issues surrounding the lethal injection: Is it constitutional? Does it violate the 8^th amendment as cruel and unusual punishment? Is it the most effect way to kill? Should doctors be involved? Is it ethical for doctors to be involved because of the oath? Is a different method of execution more effective?  Clearly if the lethal injection continues as a method of execution, there needs to be some research involved in exactly how much pain it puts the body through.  If those show up to be at an unnecessary level of pain then it needs to be switched out to a more effective and less pain inducing method.   From the research I’ve compiled so far, I’m starting to believe that the lethal injection isn’t the best way to implement death.  It is extremely questionable, difficult to administer, and very expensive.  If it must continue as the method of death then it is clear that there need to be some actual medical personnel involved in the administration of the injection to any convict whether or not the doctor’s oath is in agreement about the ethics of this involvement because it is so harmful the criminals when an execution is botched that it would be more unethical to stand by and watch than to not be involved in some way, even if that were just to supervise or observe.   But it is starting to seem as though switching methods would be the best option for anyone and everyone involved.  

Questions and Planning: If the actual lethal injection itself was ruled unconstitutional would it be because of the method of death or because capital punishment could be considered unethical?  I need to figure out how I can work this new thought of a method switch into my paper.   It would be nice still to have something about the legal system and doctor involvement in the injections but also if there are legal considerations of altering the method.

 

 

Death Penalty Information Center: Constitutional Issue- U.S. Supreme Court Review   www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/lethal-injection-constitutional-issue

Boalt Law School