Glossip Vs Midazolam

356 Words2 Pages
The Supreme Court has observed that a method of execution violates the Eighth Amendment if it inherently involves “torture or a lingering death” or is “inhuman and barbarous.” This was brought into question in the case of Glossip V. Gross when Oklahoma introduced the drug midazolam as a new execution drug. The case also brings into question whether the court is required to supply a form of execution when the government cannot find one itself. In Baze v. Rees the three-drug protocol was observed for lethal injection by at least 30 states, where barbiturate, an anesthesia that causes the person to go unconscious and two other drugs which paralyzed the prisoner eventually causes them to go into cardiac arrest. The Justices claimed that barbiturate…show more content…
Many patients have also claimed to feel pain during their operations. Justice Sonia Sotomayor and three other justices acknowledged that the district court relied on a fake expert witness who quoted from unknown sources and made claims that did not align with actual test data, but ultimately voted against using midazolam. Overall, it was decided by the majority that the prisoners failed to establish true evidence to prove the three part execution drug violates the Eighth Amendment. Justice Sotomayor explained, “In contend­ing that midazolam will work as the State intends, Dr. Evans cited no studies, but instead appeared to rely primarily on the Web site” In my opinion, I think the Court’s decision was justified because there were only a few cases where the anesthesia only served to paralyze the victim while still allowing them to feel everything. The justices ruled on this case the same way as they did with the Baze v Rees case, there is no definite proof that the drug will cause a painful and torturous death, which means the drug cannot be

More about Glossip Vs Midazolam

Open Document