Lethal Introspection

With everything else that is going on, it is likely that many of us have been following the Kentucky court case that the US Supreme Court is reviewing that may lead to changes to how the lethal injection method is applied in death penalty cases. However, based on this report, it is likely that this method will continue.

According to the Los Angeles Times

The Supreme Court gave a skeptical hearing today to lawyers who are challenging the use of lethal injections to carry out executions in the United States.

Death penalty foes had hoped the high court was about to rein in the most commonly used method of execution, but there were few signs of that during today's oral argument.

Instead, in comments and questions, most of the justices said they were not convinced that the commonly used, three-chemical compound causes inmates to die a painful death. They also said they were not convinced a better method was available.

If these three drugs are "properly administered," the inmate should die peacefully, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. told a lawyer for a Kentucky death-row inmate.

"The risk here is real," that the drugs will not be administered correctly, said Donald Verrilli Jr.

If the inmate is not given enough anesthetic and is then given a paralyzing drug, he may be fully awake on the execution table, yet unable to react when he is given a heart-stopping drug that causes searing pain, he said.

"That's why it is illegal in Kentucky to euthanize animals this way," Verrilli said.

More than 30 years ago, death-penalty states moved away from using electrocutions or the gas chamber to execute inmates and instead adopted lethal injections. At that time, and with little public debate, they decided to use a three-drug concoction. It includes an anesthetic, a paralyzing agent and a heart-stopping drug.

In recent years, this formula has been cast into doubt. In the Kentucky case, defense lawyers argued that veterinarians do better with the use of a single, powerful barbiturate to put horses to death.

Lawyers for the Kentucky inmates asked the high court to rule that the three-chemical compound causes "an unnecessary risk of pain" and should therefore be struck down as unconstitutional.

But that argument appeared to gain little traction. Even Justice Stephen G. Breyer said he was not convinced that the use of a single anesthetic had been shown to be an effective and reliable way to end human life. He cited a study from the Netherlands that questioned its use in euthanasia.

"Is there more problem here than with other execution methods?" he asked Verrilli.

Justice Antonin Scalia said the defense lawyers are simply trying to stop executions. If the court agrees there are problems with Kentucky's method, "this never ends," Scalia said.

"It will lead to endless litigation," agreed Deputy Solicitor General Gregory Garre, who was supporting Kentucky.

Several justices, including David H. Souter, suggested the court send the case back to Kentucky for further hearings to compare the use of a single powerful barbiturate against the use of the three-chemical compound. "We need some kind of definitive answer," he said.

But most of the justices sounded as though they were inclined to reject the challenge and to uphold Kentucky's approach.

The battle in the high court over lethal injections has temporarily halted executions around the nation. It will be weeks, and perhaps six months, before the court hands down a ruling on the issue.

Bloomberg has more.