scholarly journals How Would You Like to Die? Glossip v. Gross Deals Blow to Abolitionists

2017 ◽  
Vol 98 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-103
Author(s):  
Brenda I. Rowe
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Capital Punishment ◽  
Severe Pain ◽  
Supply Side ◽  
Drug Supply ◽  
Lethal Injection ◽  
Substantial Risk ◽  
Injection Protocol ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Attack Strategy

After capital punishment opponents’ pressure on drug suppliers reduced the lethal injection drug supply, Oklahoma began using midazolam, resulting in botched executions. Condemned inmates sought to stop use of this lethal injection protocol. In Glossip v. Gross, the U.S. Supreme Court found inmates failed to establish that such protocols entail a substantial risk of severe pain compared with available alternatives, undermining the supply side attack strategy and leaving inmates facing the possibility of an unnecessarily painful execution. This article places the Glossip decision within the context of method of execution jurisprudence and discusses implications for the ongoing battle over capital punishment.

The Execution of Wallace Wilkerson

2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (4) ◽  
pp. 349-367 ◽  
Author(s):  
James R. Acker ◽  
Ryan Champagne
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Death Penalty ◽  
Capital Punishment ◽  
Death Sentence ◽  
Legal Documents ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
Firing Squad ◽  
Lethal Injection ◽  
The U.S

Wallace Wilkerson was executed by a Utah firing squad in 1879 after the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of his sentence. Shots from the marksmen’s rifles missed his heart. Not strapped into the chair where he had been seated, Wilkerson lurched onto the ground and exclaimed, “My God!…They missed it!” He groaned, continued breathing, and was pronounced dead some 27 min later. Relying on contemporaneous news accounts and legal documents, this article describes Wilkerson’s crime, the judicial decisions upholding his death sentence, and his execution. It next examines ensuing methods of capital punishment from the electric chair through lethal injection and notes persistent gaps between principle and practice in the continuing quest for increasingly humane modes of execution. The article concludes by suggesting that Wilkerson’s botched firing squad execution harbingered difficulties which continue to plague capital punishment. The implications for the future of the death penalty—a long-standing and resilient practice in American criminal justice—and the ultimate legacy of Wallace Wilkerson remain uncertain, although starkly evident is the daunting and perhaps impossible challenge of reconciling the paradox inherent in the concept of a “humane execution.”

Examination of Decision Making and Botched Lethal Injection Executions in Texas

2020 ◽  
Vol 64 (12) ◽  
pp. 1715-1732
Author(s):  
Talia Roitberg Harmon ◽  
Michael Cassidy ◽  
Richelle Kloch
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Death Penalty ◽  
Single Drug ◽  
Lethal Injection ◽  
Injection Protocol ◽  
The One ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Analyze Data

This research examines the influence of lethal injection drug shortages on Texas criminal justice officials’ decision to change the state’s three-drug lethal injection protocol to the use of pentobarbital as a single drug protocol, without judicial oversight. We analyze data collected under the three- and one-drug protocols from 1982 through 2020 and compare differences in the length of time the lethal injection took, and complications reported by media witnesses. Findings suggest a higher rate of botched executions under the one-drug protocol than the three-drug protocol. We discuss the role compounding pharmacies may play in our results, the impact of this work on the U.S. Supreme Court’s death penalty jurisprudence, and implications concerning the unilateral decision making by Texas state officials.

Heckler v. Chaney: Judicial and Administrative Regulation of Capital Punishment by Lethal Injection

1985 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 251-277
Author(s):  
Michele Stolls
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Capital Punishment ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Lethal Injection ◽  
Administrative Regulation

AbstractCapital punishment by lethal injection, which was expected to be the most safe and effective of available methods, can produce unusually cruel and inhuman death. In Heckler v. Chaney, inmates sentenced to death by lethal injection, as well as members of both the medical and legal communities, challenged the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) refusal to regulate certain drugs used for capital punishment by lethal injection. By declining to review the FDA’s nonenforcement decision, the Supreme Court also declined an opportunity to reevaluate its standard for determining cruel and unusual punishment, which upholds any method of execution that is no more unusually cruel than existing methods. This Comment examines the propriety of judicial and administrative regulation of capital punishment by lethal injection.

The Standard of Proof of Intellectual Disability in Georgia

2016 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 158-167
Author(s):  
Lauren A. Ricciardelli ◽  
Kevin M. Ayres
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Disability ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Capital Punishment ◽  
Adaptive Functioning ◽  
The United States ◽  
Convincing Evidence ◽  
The State ◽  
Reasonable Doubt ◽  
Standard Of Proof ◽  
The U.S

Despite being the first state to abolish the capital punishment of defendants with intellectual disability (ID), Georgia is currently the only state to uphold what is considered to be the most stringent standard of proof of ID in the United States: beyond a reasonable doubt. Other states have implemented less stringent standards of proof (i.e., a preponderance of the evidence and clear and convincing evidence). Although the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the execution of persons with ID unconstitutional in the 2002 Atkins decision, states are at this juncture considered to have a great deal of discretion in defining what constitutes ID. In addition to raising concerns about the Eighth Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment, variation between state-determined definitions of ID raises important questions of equal protection of the law. On January 27, 2015, Mr. Warren Lee Hill was executed by method of lethal injection in the state of Georgia after the U.S. Supreme Court denied Mr. Hill’s claim to have met the state’s legal definition of ID beyond a reasonable doubt. This article provides a historical and legislative background for the case of Warren Lee Hill, while examining the definitions of ID (including adaptive functioning) in the legal and clinical arenas. Last, this article will take a critical stance with regard to the current diagnostic criteria being used in the state of Georgia.

Antitrust: U.S. Supreme Court Affirms FTC Jurisdiction but Vacates Scope of Analysis on CDA Policy

1999 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 197-198
Author(s):  
Joseph R. Zakhary
Keyword(s):  
Public Relations ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Trade Commission ◽  
Ninth Circuit ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
For Profit ◽  
Rule Of Reason ◽  
Antitrust Analysis ◽  
Business Financing ◽  
The U.S

In California Dental Association v. FTC, 119 S. Ct. 1604 (1999), the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that a nonprofit affiliation of dentists violated section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA), 15 U.S.C.A. § 45 (1998), which prohibits unfair competition. The Court examined two issues: (1) the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) jurisdiction over the California Dental Association (CDA); and (2) the proper scope of antitrust analysis. The Court unanimously held that CDA was subject to FTC's jurisdiction, but split 5-4 in its finding that the district court's use of abbreviated rule-of-reason analysis was inappropriate.CDA is a voluntary, nonprofit association of local dental societies. It boasts approximately 19,000 members, who constitute roughly threequarters of the dentists practicing in California. Although a nonprofit, CDA includes for-profit subsidiaries that financially benefit CDA members. CDA gives its members access to insurance and business financing, and lobbies and litigates on their behalf. Members also benefit from CDA marketing and public relations campaigns.

America's Lone Star Constitution

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucas A. Powe Jr.
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Capital Punishment ◽  
School Finance ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Civil Liberty ◽  
Voting Rights ◽  
The Rich ◽  
The Relationship

Texas has created more constitutional law than any other state. In any classroom nationwide, any basic constitutional law course can be taught using nothing but Texas cases. That, however, understates the history and politics behind the cases. Beyond representing all doctrinal areas of constitutional law, Texas cases deal with the major issues of the nation. This book charts the rich and pervasive development of Texas-inspired constitutional law. From voting rights to railroad regulations, school finance to capital punishment, poverty to civil liberty, this book provides a window into the relationship between constitutional litigation and ordinary politics at the Texas Supreme Court, illuminating how all of the fiercest national divides over what the Constitution means took shape in Texas.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document