Baze v. Rees…Punishing Capital Punishment

- Plaintiff Arguments are Cruel and Unusal -

by

Jim Hagedorn

(January 7, 2008)

Today the Supreme Court entertained oral arguments in Baze v. Rees.  The plaintiffs allege that the lethal injection process utilized by the State of Kentucky to execute convicted capital murderers is unconstitutional under the Constitution’s 8th Amendment provisions banning cruel and unusual punishment.

Since all 35 death penalty states utilize much the same lethal injection protocol, a determination that the death procedure violates the 8th Amendment would effectively place a nationwide moratorium on executions.  Such action would force states to develop and authorize new execution methods, a lengthy process that would undoubtedly be attacked by new litigation.

The clear intent of the plaintiffs is to create additional, undue delays in the execution process; outright eradication of capital punishment is their ultimate goal.

The current lethal injection process is administered in three parts. The first drug injected is an anesthetic (thiopental) that essentially puts the murderer to sleep and safeguards from pain; the second drug, pancuronium, prevents the body from making spastic motions; the third drug, potassium chloride, stops the heart and ends life.

The anti-death penalty plaintiffs argued that if the anesthetic is not properly administered the executed criminal will feel intense pain from the second and third drugs.  Plaintiffs contend that since it is impossible to guarantee the proper injection of the first drug, then the lethal injection protocol has the potential to inflict more pain than necessary and that, they say, constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.

Obviously not lost on the liberal lawyers is the fact that human behavior is imperfect and by their ridiculous standards previous methods of execution such as the firing squad, electric chair, gas chamber and hanging (the preferable method) would be prohibited.  Based upon their disingenuous ideal, the death penalty itself would constitute cruel and unusual punishment because government cannot guarantee that all on death row are actually guilty of their accused crimes.

Questioning by the Court indicated that at least five of the nine members remain sane and will strictly follow the Constitution.  Probes from Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito revealed a weak, if not completely absurd case.

The Constitution, after all, imposes no pain-standard for the execution of heinous criminals, and if the three-drug protocol is applied as directed life ends with no feeling whatsoever, an undeserved accommodation to say the least.

The purported pain and suffering of executed murderers is but one in a series of side-show criticisms lodged by liberals against capital punishment.  Contrary to the incessant demagoguery spewed by anti-death penalty activists, capital punishment is indeed a deterrent.  Throughout all of history no executed criminal has arisen from the dead and murdered a prison guard, killed a witness via contract hit, raped a child or harmed innocent life in any way.

On yet another front, death penalty opponents peddle extraneous budgetary arguments to discourage support for capital punishment, asserting that incarceration, even over decades, costs less than carrying out an execution.  If true, this is largely due to the endless, frivolous litigation initiated by left-wing legal activists – exactly like that represented in Baze v. Rees.

It’s amusing how liberals become fiscal tightwads and take up the burden of America’s beleaguered taxpayers whenever society readies to do unto murders as they have done unto victims.  Fiscal concerns are irrelevant to this cause.  The security and peace of mind that ultimate justice brings to the innocent is without measure.

## USA ##

Posted on January 7th, 2008 by Mr. Conservative
Filed under: The Masterpiece Analysis Collection