- The Washington Times - Monday, May 22, 2006


The Supreme Court’s refusal yesterday to consider a second lethal injection case suggests the justices are not ready to decide whether the drugs amount to cruel and unusual punishment, legal analysts said.

The denial was issued without comment, leaving court watchers to speculate over justices’ reasons for rejecting an appeal by a Tennessee death-row inmate who claims lethal injection is unconstitutional.

“The Supreme Court is plainly not ready to step into the lethal injection controversy yet,” said Eric M. Freedman, a Hofstra University law professor.

Used by the federal government and all states but Nebraska, lethal injection has become a major issue in death penalty cases because of a 2005 study in the Lancet medical journal. The study indicated that a painkiller administered at the start of an execution can wear off before other drugs take hold and the prisoner dies.

In California earlier this year, an execution was postponed when no doctor or nurse would agree to administer a fatal dose of a barbiturate. A judge there is reviewing the issue.

And in Ohio earlier this month, medical technicians struggled for a half-hour before finding a viable vein in Joseph Clark’s arm for an IV to deliver the lethal injection drugs.

The Supreme Court already is considering one lethal injection case brought by Clarence Hill, a Florida inmate on death row for killing a police officer in Pensacola 24 years ago.

In Hill’s case, justices are considering only whether prisoners can file last-minute civil rights challenges asserting their deaths by lethal injections would be cruel, not the broader constitutional issues raised by Abu-Ali Abdur’Rahman. He is on Tennessee’s death row for the 1986 killing of a Nashville drug dealer.

A group of Tennessee doctors had told justices that the three-drug combination used in that state and most others “makes it inevitable that, over time, some inmates will suffer excruciating and unnecessary torturous pain.” They also said the state lacks properly trained medical officials to monitor prisoners during executions.

Death penalty supporters argue the Constitution does not guarantee convicted killers a pain-free execution.

Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, said justices may have denied Abdur’Rahman’s appeal because they want to wait until judges in several states have conducted lengthy hearings on the drug combinations that are used.

Mr. Freedman said the justices’ rejection of the case “suggests the Supreme Court is proceeding in its normal and appropriately cautious manner.”

Others weren’t surprised. “I really didn’t think this particular case was going to bring down the entire death penalty jurisprudence of the last 25 years,” said Bryan Liang, a professor of health law studies at California Western School of Law in San Diego.



Click to Read More

Click to Hide