News Intro Text
"[Lethal injection] violates basic human dignity, and by imposing that kind of torture, it diminishes all of us. It dehumanizes us."
Date
News Item Content
<p>Soli Salgado | <a href="http://ncronline.org/">National Catholic Reporter</a></p>
<p>As the Supreme Court upheld that the current procedure for lethal injection is constitutional in a 5-4 decision, Catholics, attorneys, and both proponents and opponents of the death penalty weighed in on the outcome of Glossip v. Gross.</p>
<p>The case, which tackled an unusually technical discussion on pharmaceutical options, ruled that Oklahoma's use of midazolam was not a form of cruel and unusual punishment when administered as the first of three drugs in the lethal cocktail, despite being a sedative rather than anesthetic.</p>
<p>But those on both sides of the debate -- including the Supreme Court justices in both the majority opinion and dissent -- agreed that this case transcended that specific issue indirectly.</p>
<p>Capital punishment is constitutional; therefore, there must be a constitutional way of carrying it out, Justice Samuel Alito wrote. Alito and proponents of the death penalty said challenging the use of midazolam was a tactic in unraveling the legality of the death penalty. While Justice Stephen Breyer's dissent -- joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg -- leaned toward its abolition, the majority maintained its lawfulness.</p>
<p>The Catholic church denounces capital punishment when other methods that respect human dignity are available to protect society. And Pope Francis has gone so far as to call for an end to life sentences.</p>
<p>"It's hard to imagine what could be crueler than a prolonged, torturous death, or more unusual, given that 80% of the executions in the United States last year took place in just 3 states," the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty wrote in a statement following the ruling.</p>
<p>Opponents of the death penalty told NCR that how cruel and unusual this form of punishment is highlights the moral question: Can we find valid, ethical comfort in administering painless executions?</p>
<p><span class="maroon">"We need to be clear that there is no humane way to put a person to death,"</span> said Alex Mikulich, a Catholic theologian at the Jesuit Social Research Institute at Loyola University New Orleans. <span class="maroon">"[Lethal injection] violates basic human dignity, and by imposing that kind of torture, it diminishes all of us. It dehumanizes us."</span></p>
<p><span class="maroon">"I think people of faith who are against the death penalty -- we're at a point where we need to redouble our efforts to end this practice in our country," he continued. "We clearly cannot rely on the courts to end it."</span></p>
<p>The Glossip v. Gross decision fell on the anniversary of Furman v. Georgia, the 1972 case that first ruled capital punishment as unconstitutional; however, the court then suggested legislation that would make death sentences constitutional again, such as standardized guidelines for juries. This makes the United States one of nine nations that Amnesty International lists as "persistent executioners," joined by China, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Sudan, Bangladesh and North Korea.</p>
<p>Under public pressure, European pharmaceutical companies that had provided states with the lethal drugs have stopped selling them for executions, forcing states to turn to alternates with unproven efficacy.</p>
<p>"The one thing that [this case] does show on the political side is that the campaign to make these drugs inaccessible has worked," said David Burge, an attorney and leading member of Georgia's Republican Party. "I'll be curious to see if these drugs will become harder to get."</p>
<p>Robert Blecker, a professor of criminal law, constitutional history, and the Eighth Amendment at New York Law School, told NCR that the question of midazolam was merely a make-way controversy that happens to be the "issue of the moment."</p>
<p>"Now that's passed, so we move back to the more vital question, which is the legitimacy of the death penalty," he said. "If you're going to say it's unconstitutional, then say it's unconstitutional. But to pretend that it's an open question, and then at the same time say, 'Well, any previous method would of course be inhumane' -- it's absurd."</p>
<p>Despite being a public supporter of the death penalty, Blecker, who wrote The Death of Punishment: Searching for Justice among the Worst of the Worst, has long been against lethal injection, "not because it might cause pain, but because it certainly causes confusion; it conflates punishment with medicine. This is killing we're talking about. This is not medicine."</p>
<p>For that reason, he advocates for firing squads, saying they are "more overtly and honestly presenting what they really are, which is punishment. ... Let's acknowledge what we're doing, and if we can't stomach it, then abolish it."</p>
<p>Over the past 30 years, Blecker -- a self-described retributivist -- has visited more than two dozen prisons in 10 states and said the comfortable living arrangements for those sentenced to life without parole is largely why he supports the death penalty. For example, some prisons allow inmates to participate in softball leagues or have vacation days. "This is the living hell that awaits them if you abolish the death penalty."</p>
<p>"The problem is we declare 'let the punishment fit the crime,' then in the actual administration of criminal justice, we do everything we can to undermine it. The death penalty is the only self-avowed punishment we have left," he said, noting that not a single mission statement in any U.S. correctional facility includes the word "punishment."</p>
<p>Agreeing with Alito's opinion on Glossip v. Gross, Blecker added that the Constitution should not have to guarantee a painless death for the condemned, as nobody gets that assurance when experiencing natural death.</p>
<p><a href="http://ncronline.org/news/politics/supreme-court-decision-adds-ongoing-debate-about-lethal-injection">FULL ARTICLE>></a></p>
<p>As the Supreme Court upheld that the current procedure for lethal injection is constitutional in a 5-4 decision, Catholics, attorneys, and both proponents and opponents of the death penalty weighed in on the outcome of Glossip v. Gross.</p>
<p>The case, which tackled an unusually technical discussion on pharmaceutical options, ruled that Oklahoma's use of midazolam was not a form of cruel and unusual punishment when administered as the first of three drugs in the lethal cocktail, despite being a sedative rather than anesthetic.</p>
<p>But those on both sides of the debate -- including the Supreme Court justices in both the majority opinion and dissent -- agreed that this case transcended that specific issue indirectly.</p>
<p>Capital punishment is constitutional; therefore, there must be a constitutional way of carrying it out, Justice Samuel Alito wrote. Alito and proponents of the death penalty said challenging the use of midazolam was a tactic in unraveling the legality of the death penalty. While Justice Stephen Breyer's dissent -- joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg -- leaned toward its abolition, the majority maintained its lawfulness.</p>
<p>The Catholic church denounces capital punishment when other methods that respect human dignity are available to protect society. And Pope Francis has gone so far as to call for an end to life sentences.</p>
<p>"It's hard to imagine what could be crueler than a prolonged, torturous death, or more unusual, given that 80% of the executions in the United States last year took place in just 3 states," the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty wrote in a statement following the ruling.</p>
<p>Opponents of the death penalty told NCR that how cruel and unusual this form of punishment is highlights the moral question: Can we find valid, ethical comfort in administering painless executions?</p>
<p><span class="maroon">"We need to be clear that there is no humane way to put a person to death,"</span> said Alex Mikulich, a Catholic theologian at the Jesuit Social Research Institute at Loyola University New Orleans. <span class="maroon">"[Lethal injection] violates basic human dignity, and by imposing that kind of torture, it diminishes all of us. It dehumanizes us."</span></p>
<p><span class="maroon">"I think people of faith who are against the death penalty -- we're at a point where we need to redouble our efforts to end this practice in our country," he continued. "We clearly cannot rely on the courts to end it."</span></p>
<p>The Glossip v. Gross decision fell on the anniversary of Furman v. Georgia, the 1972 case that first ruled capital punishment as unconstitutional; however, the court then suggested legislation that would make death sentences constitutional again, such as standardized guidelines for juries. This makes the United States one of nine nations that Amnesty International lists as "persistent executioners," joined by China, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Sudan, Bangladesh and North Korea.</p>
<p>Under public pressure, European pharmaceutical companies that had provided states with the lethal drugs have stopped selling them for executions, forcing states to turn to alternates with unproven efficacy.</p>
<p>"The one thing that [this case] does show on the political side is that the campaign to make these drugs inaccessible has worked," said David Burge, an attorney and leading member of Georgia's Republican Party. "I'll be curious to see if these drugs will become harder to get."</p>
<p>Robert Blecker, a professor of criminal law, constitutional history, and the Eighth Amendment at New York Law School, told NCR that the question of midazolam was merely a make-way controversy that happens to be the "issue of the moment."</p>
<p>"Now that's passed, so we move back to the more vital question, which is the legitimacy of the death penalty," he said. "If you're going to say it's unconstitutional, then say it's unconstitutional. But to pretend that it's an open question, and then at the same time say, 'Well, any previous method would of course be inhumane' -- it's absurd."</p>
<p>Despite being a public supporter of the death penalty, Blecker, who wrote The Death of Punishment: Searching for Justice among the Worst of the Worst, has long been against lethal injection, "not because it might cause pain, but because it certainly causes confusion; it conflates punishment with medicine. This is killing we're talking about. This is not medicine."</p>
<p>For that reason, he advocates for firing squads, saying they are "more overtly and honestly presenting what they really are, which is punishment. ... Let's acknowledge what we're doing, and if we can't stomach it, then abolish it."</p>
<p>Over the past 30 years, Blecker -- a self-described retributivist -- has visited more than two dozen prisons in 10 states and said the comfortable living arrangements for those sentenced to life without parole is largely why he supports the death penalty. For example, some prisons allow inmates to participate in softball leagues or have vacation days. "This is the living hell that awaits them if you abolish the death penalty."</p>
<p>"The problem is we declare 'let the punishment fit the crime,' then in the actual administration of criminal justice, we do everything we can to undermine it. The death penalty is the only self-avowed punishment we have left," he said, noting that not a single mission statement in any U.S. correctional facility includes the word "punishment."</p>
<p>Agreeing with Alito's opinion on Glossip v. Gross, Blecker added that the Constitution should not have to guarantee a painless death for the condemned, as nobody gets that assurance when experiencing natural death.</p>
<p><a href="http://ncronline.org/news/politics/supreme-court-decision-adds-ongoing-debate-about-lethal-injection">FULL ARTICLE>></a></p>