SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Lethal Injection Suit, But Won't Stay Executions
Men scheduled to die say Oklahoma's lethal injection method violates constitutional rights
Jan 26, 2015
The U.S. Supreme Court has announced it will hear a case on the constitutionality of Oklahoma's death penalty drug cocktail, which critics say causes intense pain during executions.
The court will hear the case of Glossip v. Gross, filed last summer by 21 inmates on Oklahoma's death row who say the lethal injection violates their Eighth Amendment rights. Up until last week, the case was known as Warner v. Gross, but was changed after plaintiff Charles Warner was executed on January 15.
The new lead petitioner, Richard Glossip, is set to die Thursday. He was convicted of a 1997 contract killing. Warner, Richard Glossip, and two other men on death row were all denied stays of execution this month. As the New York Times explains, "It takes the vote of five justices to stay an execution, but only four to agree to hear a case."
The case argues that the first of the drugs administered in the procedure--midazolam--is not strong enough to sedate the body for the two injections that follow, including one to induce paralysis and one to stop the heart.
Dale Baich, an attorney representing the three inmates, said Friday he was pleased that the court was taking on the case.
"The drug protocol used in Oklahoma is not capable of producing a humane execution, even if it is administered properly," Baich said. "The time is right for the court to take a careful look at this important issue, particularly given the bungled executions that have occurred since states started using these novel and experimental drug protocols."
Warner was scheduled to die in April 2014, but his execution was delayed over concerns about the drugs used in the cocktail after the botched lethal injection of Clayton Lockett earlier that same night. Lockett's execution, which lasted 43 minutes and saw him writhing and groaning on the gurney after being declared unconscious, prompted Oklahoma legislators to put a halt on lethal injections to conduct an investigation into those chemicals. The state then resumed the practice after increasing the dosage in the lethal cocktail. The drugs used were not changed.
Prior to Warner's death, medical experts testified at an evidenciary hearing that the effects of higher doses of midazolam are too unpredictable and may not be enough to induce a coma. Midazolam has been used in several other lethal injections in other states, including Florida, Ohio, and Arizona; without a proper sedative, medical experts said, the drugs used to stop the heart will cause excruciating pain.
A state witness defended the use of midazolam in a Supreme Court brief on Oklahoma's use of the protocol, but Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who wrote the dissenting opinion in Warner's case, said the witness's opinion was suspect. He "cited no studies, but instead appeared to rely primarily on the web site www.drugs.com," Sotomayor wrote.
The court denied Warner's stay in a 5-4 vote. During his execution, Warner did not appear to be in physical distress, but said in his dying moments, "My body is on fire."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Nadia Prupis
Nadia Prupis is a former Common Dreams staff writer. She wrote on media policy for Truthout.org and has been published in New America Media and AlterNet. She graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a BA in English in 2008.
The U.S. Supreme Court has announced it will hear a case on the constitutionality of Oklahoma's death penalty drug cocktail, which critics say causes intense pain during executions.
The court will hear the case of Glossip v. Gross, filed last summer by 21 inmates on Oklahoma's death row who say the lethal injection violates their Eighth Amendment rights. Up until last week, the case was known as Warner v. Gross, but was changed after plaintiff Charles Warner was executed on January 15.
The new lead petitioner, Richard Glossip, is set to die Thursday. He was convicted of a 1997 contract killing. Warner, Richard Glossip, and two other men on death row were all denied stays of execution this month. As the New York Times explains, "It takes the vote of five justices to stay an execution, but only four to agree to hear a case."
The case argues that the first of the drugs administered in the procedure--midazolam--is not strong enough to sedate the body for the two injections that follow, including one to induce paralysis and one to stop the heart.
Dale Baich, an attorney representing the three inmates, said Friday he was pleased that the court was taking on the case.
"The drug protocol used in Oklahoma is not capable of producing a humane execution, even if it is administered properly," Baich said. "The time is right for the court to take a careful look at this important issue, particularly given the bungled executions that have occurred since states started using these novel and experimental drug protocols."
Warner was scheduled to die in April 2014, but his execution was delayed over concerns about the drugs used in the cocktail after the botched lethal injection of Clayton Lockett earlier that same night. Lockett's execution, which lasted 43 minutes and saw him writhing and groaning on the gurney after being declared unconscious, prompted Oklahoma legislators to put a halt on lethal injections to conduct an investigation into those chemicals. The state then resumed the practice after increasing the dosage in the lethal cocktail. The drugs used were not changed.
Prior to Warner's death, medical experts testified at an evidenciary hearing that the effects of higher doses of midazolam are too unpredictable and may not be enough to induce a coma. Midazolam has been used in several other lethal injections in other states, including Florida, Ohio, and Arizona; without a proper sedative, medical experts said, the drugs used to stop the heart will cause excruciating pain.
A state witness defended the use of midazolam in a Supreme Court brief on Oklahoma's use of the protocol, but Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who wrote the dissenting opinion in Warner's case, said the witness's opinion was suspect. He "cited no studies, but instead appeared to rely primarily on the web site www.drugs.com," Sotomayor wrote.
The court denied Warner's stay in a 5-4 vote. During his execution, Warner did not appear to be in physical distress, but said in his dying moments, "My body is on fire."
Nadia Prupis
Nadia Prupis is a former Common Dreams staff writer. She wrote on media policy for Truthout.org and has been published in New America Media and AlterNet. She graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a BA in English in 2008.
The U.S. Supreme Court has announced it will hear a case on the constitutionality of Oklahoma's death penalty drug cocktail, which critics say causes intense pain during executions.
The court will hear the case of Glossip v. Gross, filed last summer by 21 inmates on Oklahoma's death row who say the lethal injection violates their Eighth Amendment rights. Up until last week, the case was known as Warner v. Gross, but was changed after plaintiff Charles Warner was executed on January 15.
The new lead petitioner, Richard Glossip, is set to die Thursday. He was convicted of a 1997 contract killing. Warner, Richard Glossip, and two other men on death row were all denied stays of execution this month. As the New York Times explains, "It takes the vote of five justices to stay an execution, but only four to agree to hear a case."
The case argues that the first of the drugs administered in the procedure--midazolam--is not strong enough to sedate the body for the two injections that follow, including one to induce paralysis and one to stop the heart.
Dale Baich, an attorney representing the three inmates, said Friday he was pleased that the court was taking on the case.
"The drug protocol used in Oklahoma is not capable of producing a humane execution, even if it is administered properly," Baich said. "The time is right for the court to take a careful look at this important issue, particularly given the bungled executions that have occurred since states started using these novel and experimental drug protocols."
Warner was scheduled to die in April 2014, but his execution was delayed over concerns about the drugs used in the cocktail after the botched lethal injection of Clayton Lockett earlier that same night. Lockett's execution, which lasted 43 minutes and saw him writhing and groaning on the gurney after being declared unconscious, prompted Oklahoma legislators to put a halt on lethal injections to conduct an investigation into those chemicals. The state then resumed the practice after increasing the dosage in the lethal cocktail. The drugs used were not changed.
Prior to Warner's death, medical experts testified at an evidenciary hearing that the effects of higher doses of midazolam are too unpredictable and may not be enough to induce a coma. Midazolam has been used in several other lethal injections in other states, including Florida, Ohio, and Arizona; without a proper sedative, medical experts said, the drugs used to stop the heart will cause excruciating pain.
A state witness defended the use of midazolam in a Supreme Court brief on Oklahoma's use of the protocol, but Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who wrote the dissenting opinion in Warner's case, said the witness's opinion was suspect. He "cited no studies, but instead appeared to rely primarily on the web site www.drugs.com," Sotomayor wrote.
The court denied Warner's stay in a 5-4 vote. During his execution, Warner did not appear to be in physical distress, but said in his dying moments, "My body is on fire."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.