Last week, The Supreme Court agreed to reevaluate the execution procedures in Oklahoma after the drug used to sedate and render patients unconscious failed, leaving the inmate, Clayton Lockett choking for air and suffering before his death. The plaintiffs (consisting of mostly inmates - some of which have been executed since the case was filed) are arguing that using this drug as a means of execution violates their Constitutional right not to be cruelly or unusually punished. The opposing party is arguing that that this drug has already been approved in multiple states as a viable means of humane execution; therefore, it should continue to be used in Oklahoma. The Supreme Court will be checking material provided on both sides and will be determining if the drug will continue to be used.
It is important to acknowledge the fact that it is very difficult to accept any means of execution as not cruel. However, it seems that when this drug is administered correctly, inmates slowly become unconscious, leading to a peaceful transition to death. The Constitution does indicate that no American should be cruelly or unusually punished; therefore, the plaintiffs do have a credible case - no American deserves to slowly gasp for air before dying. I am glad that the Supreme Court is reevaluating this means of execution and hopefully a new drug will be produced that ensures the most painless possible death.
Source:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/23/politics/supreme-court-oklahoma-execution-review/index.html
Hopefully the case will be taken, and that they do find a replacement. No one should have to die a painful death like that.
ReplyDelete