TheJakartaPost

Please Update your browser

Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.

Jakarta Post

US court OKs use of drug implicated in botched executions

The US Supreme Court on Monday upheld the use of a controversial drug that has been implicated in several botched executions

Mark Sherman (The Jakarta Post)
Washington
Mon, June 29, 2015

Share This Article

Change Size

US court OKs use of drug implicated in botched executions

T

he US Supreme Court on Monday upheld the use of a controversial drug that has been implicated in several botched executions. Meanwhile, two of the justices said for first time that death penalty itself probably is unconstitutional.

The justices voted 5-4 in a case from the state of Oklahoma that the sedative midazolam can be used in executions without violating a constitutional prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

The drug used in executions in Arizona, Ohio and Oklahoma in 2014 took longer than usual and raised concerns that it did not perform its intended task of putting inmates into a coma-like sleep.

In Oklahoma, state officials tried to halt the lethal injection after the inmate writhed on the gurney and moaned. He died 43 minutes after the process began.

Executions have been on hold in Ohio since a troubling 26-minute execution in 2014 during which a prisoner getting a first-ever two-drug combo repeatedly gasped and snorted. In Arizona, officials were cleared of any wrongdoing in an execution that lasted nearly two hours, but they nevertheless changed the drugs they use to put inmates to death.

Justice Samuel Alito said for a conservative majority Monday that arguments the drug could not be used effectively as a sedative in executions are speculative.

In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said, "Under the court's new rule, it would not matter whether the state intended to use midazolam, or instead to have petitioners drawn and quartered, slowly tortured to death, or actually burned at the stake."

Alito responded, saying "the dissent's resort to this outlandish rhetoric reveals the weakness of its legal arguments."

In a separate dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer said the time has come for the court to debate whether the death penalty itself is constitutional. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined Breyer's opinion.

The Supreme Court's involvement in the case began in January with an unusually public disagreement among the justices over executions. As the case was being heard, Justice Samuel Alito said death penalty opponents are waging a "guerrilla war" against executions by working to limit the supply of more effective drugs. On the other side, liberal Justice Elena Kagan contended that the way states carry out most executions amounts to having prisoners "burned alive from the inside."

In 2008, the court upheld Kentucky's use of a three-drug execution method that employed a barbiturate as the first drug, intended to render the inmate unconscious. But because of problems obtaining drugs, no state uses the precise combination at issue in that earlier Supreme Court case.

Meanwhile, the current court challenge has prompted Oklahoma to approve nitrogen gas as an alternative death penalty method if lethal injections aren't possible, either because of a court ruling or a drug shortage. (iik)(++++)

Your Opinion Matters

Share your experiences, suggestions, and any issues you've encountered on The Jakarta Post. We're here to listen.

Enter at least 30 characters
0 / 30

Thank You

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. We appreciate your feedback.