A man on death row with a severe medical condition causing tumors filled with blood to form on his head and mouth argued that Missouri’s execution procedures (lethal injection) will likely cause him to choke to death on his own blood. Surely, he asserted, this sentence fell under “cruel and unusual punishment” and should be replaced with an alternate, less painful death (nitrogen gas poisoning). The 5-4 decision of the court was that Mr. Bucklew failed to satisfy the Baze-Glossip test (precedents involving capital punishment/cruelty and exceptions). According to the Supreme Court, his arguments--both the problems and possible solution--were too vague and theoretical to substantiate his needs.
The questions directly addressed by the Court were: “Should the Court assume that medical personnel involved with the inmate’s execution are competent to manage his extreme condition and that the procedure will go as planned?” and “Does the Eighth Amendment require an inmate to prove an adequate alternative method of execution when raising an as-applied challenge to the state's proposed method of execution based on his rare and severe medical condition?”
There are many questions to consider here, not the least of these being the constitutionality of the death penalty itself. So, what do you think? How would you answer these queries? Should the Court go so much off of precedents and “stare decisis” that it does not consider greatly differing circumstances that might require a different decision?
I do think that the death penalty is constitutional. The court should go off of precedents but, if the arguments are too vague and he can't prove a case then the court has done the right thing.
ReplyDeleteI believe the death penalty is constitutional. I believe that a simple firing squad would be the most humane way to execute someone. If we are going to execute someone, it should be done quickly and effectively. The man should've been given an option of having a firing squad instead.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that the death penalty is constitutional. To me, the method doesn't matter much because the end result is the same regardless. In the case of Mr. Bucklew, I agree with his claim of cruel and unusual punishment. It seems reasonable for him to request death by gas considering his condition. It appears unjust that this man would suffer a more painful death than those put to the death for the same crime. I don't think the courts should value precedents as much as they do; political culture is constantly evolving. Consistency is important, but change is sometimes necessary to keep with the ever-changing ideals of Americans.
ReplyDeleteI personally think that the death penalty is constitutional. However, in this specific case, Mr. Bucklew was treated incredibly unfair. With lethal injection, he would be suffering more than those who received the same fate for the same crime. No matter how it is done, the death row inmates all meet the same fate eventually, so I am not sure why Mr. Bucklew failed the Baze-Glossip test and was not allowed to use the nitrogen gas. While I think precedents are somewhat important, America and its politics are changing everyday. Meaning no two cases are exactly the same and both need new thoughts and ideas to determine a ruling.
ReplyDeleteI feel that the death penalty is constitutional. The man in this case should be given better options as to how he dies if he feels that getting the lethal injection would be a cruel and unusual way for him to die.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the death penalty is constitutional. I believe if this condition caused him to choke to death on his own blood he should be given the most humane death of the two. Though I believe we need to have a cheaper and effective way for death penalty.
ReplyDelete