Supremes Tackle Civility of Execution

Supreme Court takes up question of whether a death row inmate may use federal civil rights law to challenge a state's manner of execution

The U.S. Supreme Court on April 26 took up the question of whether a death row inmate may use federal civil rights law to challenge a state's manner of execution. Clarence Hill was convicted of the 1982 murder of a Florida police officer as Hill fled from a bank robbery. Hill had exhausted his federal criminal appeals and was four days away from execution when he appealed his case once again, this time as a challenge to Florida's lethal injection method, filed as a civil rights claim. Hill claims the method of execution violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishments. Lethal injection was developed in 1977 as a more human alternative to the electric chair and was subsequently adopted as the sole method of execution in 37 of 38 death penalty states (Nebraska uses electrocution); however, the three-drug cocktail used in lethal injections has come under increasing scrutiny, not only by human rights groups, but also by medical professionals. A study last year published in the British medical journal Lancet concluded that improper administration of the drug cocktail by prison employees and not medical professionals probably caused "unnecessary suffering." (In 43 of 49 executions studied, researchers found that the anesthesia administered was less than typically administered prior to surgery.) Moreover, in a brief filed with the Supremes in the Hill case, three veterinarians note that the combination of drugs Florida uses for executions would indeed be considered inhumane and thus legally prohibited in the euthanasia of cats and dogs.

Because the Supremes accepted Hill's appeal on the question of whether inmates may use Reconstruction-era civil rights law to challenge the method of execution, the justices reportedly focused much of their questioning on whether Hill could suggest another, more humane execution method. (A separate appeal, filed in February by a death row inmate in Tennessee – styled Abdur'Rahman v. Bredesen – directly challenging lethal injection as unconstitutionally cruel is currently pending before the court.) The civil rights statute requires an alternative be shown – without that, Chief Justice John G. Roberts noted, Hill's appeal would appear to be a challenge to his death sentence, a route that Hill has already exhausted. A decision in the case is expected this summer.

READ MORE
More Supreme Court
One Court, Three Decisions
One Court, Three Decisions
SCOTUS rules on three Texas cases impacting abortion, affirmative action, and immigration

Mary Tuma, July 1, 2016

Readings
Supreme Courtship
Christopher Buckley delivers some pretty spot-on satire of Beltway politics but misses the mark for humor

Jordan Smith, Sept. 12, 2008

More death row
Reasonable Doubt
Reasonable Doubt
Louis Perez has spent nearly two decades on death row. Does he deserve to be there?

Chase Hoffberger, April 29, 2016

Death Watch: Longtime Death Row Inmate Dies
Death Watch: Longtime Death Row Inmate Dies
Max Soffar has died of liver cancer

Chase Hoffberger, April 29, 2016

More by Jordan Smith
'Chrome Underground' Goes Classic Car Hunting
'Chrome Underground' Goes Classic Car Hunting
Motoreum's Yusuf & Antonio talk about the biz and their reality TV debut

May 22, 2014

APD Brass Shifts Up, Down, Across
APD Brass Shifts Up, Down, Across
Musical chairs at Downtown HQ

May 9, 2014

KEYWORDS FOR THIS STORY

Supreme Court, death row, federal, civil rights, Death penalty, lethal injection, U.S. Supreme Court, Clarence Hill, John G. Roberts, civil rights law, habeas corpus, Eighth Amendment, cruel and unusual punishment, Abdur'Rahman, Lancet

MORE IN THE ARCHIVES
NEWSLETTERS
AC Daily, Events and Promotions, Luvdoc Answers

Breaking news, recommended events, and more

Official Chronicle events, promotions, and giveaways

All questions answered (satisfaction not guaranteed)