Pain averse: Skepticism greets court challenge

The Oklahoman Editorial

Published: January 14, 2008

CURIOUS. That's probably the best word to describe arguments by death row inmates against lethal injection used by 37 states, heard last week by the U.S. Supreme Court. Even more curious is trying to figure out what the court will do in the case.

Two inmates challenged the lethal cocktail used by Kentucky for capital punishment, first developed in Oklahoma in 1977. They argued the three-drug process — one to render the condemned person unconscious, the second to paralyze the muscles and the third to cause cardiac arrest — is unconstitutional because if the first drug doesn't work, the latter two cause "terrifying conscious paralysis” and then "excruciating, burning pain.”

Justices who have supported the death penalty indicated they believe the current method is constitutional, and even those who are less supportive of capital punishment weren't sure whether the case under consideration was sufficient for them to rule on banning lethal injection.

We're heartened that Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito sounded skeptical. Roberts and Alito questioned where the inmates' reasoning could lead, concerned that fiddling with the current drug protocol would produce more litigation and indefinite delay carrying out death sentences. Scalia said there's nothing in the Constitution requiring states to choose the least painful method to execute someone.

Their concerns seem to argue against sending the case to a lower court for analysis of comparable drug mixes or methods, which other justices appeared to favor. "This is an execution, not surgery,” Scalia said.

Certainly, Americans don't condone inhumane treatment of the condemned. But this case, with its strained line of argument, can't help but feed a belief held by many that those convicted of heinous crimes — like the principals in the Kentucky case — get way more consideration than their victims did.

Comments