Source: http://www.mattmangino.com/2015/02/thiel-college-death-penalty_11.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 16:46:53+00:00

Document:
What will the U.S. Supreme Court do with lethal injection as the court reviews the procedure for the second time in seven years? How does the upcoming Oklahoma case of Glossip v. Gross differ from Baze v. Rees?
The Supreme Court will review to see if lethal injection is cruel and unusual punishment which is considered in the 8th amendment. There is also an alternate decision to be discussed that is in the future of executions. This is called Nitrogen Asphyxiation which is an airtight chamber that is pumped full of nitrogen gas, causing death by lack of oxygen.
In Baze v. Rees the Supreme Court stated that the 3 drug protocol was not cruel and unusual punishment under the eight amendment. Since Kentucky only had one execution by lethal injection they didn't really realize the risks of pain from the process. In Glossip v.Gross they stated that the Supreme Court will be looking at if the lethal injection of midazolam is just cruel and unusual punishment.
Lethal injection is a process where a three drug protocol is issued to condemned people on death row. Another way is using one large dose of a barbiturate. The Supreme Court will review this method to see if it violates the 8th amendment, cruel and unusual punishment. This is being reviewed because of complications with the method. Ohio has stopped all executions to further see if these drugs can still be used. Glossip v. Gross, No. 14-7955, involves three inmates who said Oklahoma’s three-chemical procedure violated the Eighth Amendment because it posed a significant risk of terrible suffering. The normal drugs are not always available; therefore they are forced to use other drugs. However in Baze v. Rees, Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the protocol does not violate the Eighth Amendment because it does not create a substantial unnecessary infliction of pain, torture, or lingering death. Glossip V Gross is going to be reviewed by the Supreme Court to see if these drugs do in fact violate the 8th amendment.
The Supreme Court will look over the given cases that deal with the lethal injection. This will ultimately determine if they keep, revise, or eliminate the lethal injection method. If the Supreme Court determines that the lethal Injection method is cruel and unusual punishment, then I would imagine the method becomes less used and a new method will take its place.
In the Glossip v. Gross case the supreme court is looking whether or not Oklahoma's use of the same three drug injection that failed on Lockett violates the eighth amendment. In the Baze v. Rees case the Supreme Court decided that Kentucky's method of lethal injection is constitutional under the eighth amendment.
The Supreme Court has announced they will review the process of lethal injection again for the second time in so many years. Many people have began to argue that lethal injection is now a cruel and unusual way to carry out an execution. There are other ways of execution being discussed that might be seen as less cruel. Many states have even stopped the use of lethal injection until the outcome of the case is announced.
In the case of Baze vs Rees, the Supreme Court said that Kentucky's way of execution was not a violation of the 8th Amendment. In the case of Glossip vs Gross, the Supreme court is reviewing to see of it was unusual punishment. All this is being reviewed because of the blotched execution that took place in a Oklahoma jail.
The Supreme Court is reviewing to see if the lethal injection process is cruel and unusual punishment. The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishments. I think the lethal injection will stay in tact and won't be changed.
The Glossip v Gross dealt with whether it is constitutionally permissible for a state to carry out an execution using a three-drug protocol. The difference with Baze v Rees is when states are not using a protocol substantially similar to the one that the Court considered in Baze, and whether a prisoner must establish the availability of an alternative drug formula even if the state’s lethal-injection protocol, as properly administered, will violate the Eighth Amendment.
The supreme court is reviewing lethal injection for the second time in seven years and I believe it is because of the difficulties they have been having lately. There have been multiple cases of the drugs not working the way they should and it taking over an hour until someone finally steps in and stops the procedure.
The United States Supreme Court will review the method of lethal injection and conclude if it violates the 8th amendment which is cruel and unusual punishment. Furthermore, an additional method which is called oxygen asphyxiation might be introduced which some say is the most humane way of execution. In the Baze v. Rees case, the Supreme Court ruled that lethal injection did not violate the 8th amendment. However, in the Glossip v. Gross case, the Supreme Court is hearing whether it is admissible to use a three drug protocol.
The United States Supreme Court will review the 3 drug method of execution. A new method is called oxygen asphyxiation which is like a air tight chamber and the subject will then die from loss of air. Personally I would rather face the firing squad and make sure it was fast and easy, if I was on death row.
In Glossip v.Gross they stated that the Supreme Court will be looking at if the lethal injection and think that it is cruel and unusual punishment.The Supreme Court will review to see if lethal injection is cruel and unusual punishment. In Baze v. Rees the Supreme Court stated that the 3 drug protocol was not cruel and unusual punishment under the eight amendment.
The supreme court is reviewing lethal injection protocols as there have been several high profile botched executions in recent years. The errors and the question the Supreme court is taking up will be the switch from the three drug protocol to the one drug. They have to determine if one large dose of pentobarbital, or midazolam are a sufficient and constitutional replacement for the already ruled upon three drug cocktail.
This case differs from the earlier case Bayes vs. Rees. That case questioned whether aspects of the three drug protocol were constitutional. The issue that was raised was that the paralytic agent masked pain and suffering in the executed person, and therefore was cruel and unusual. The Supreme Court concluded that it was constitutional and that a condemned person was not granted a pain free execution by the eighth amendment.
The U.S. Supreme Court is reviewing the procedures of lethal injections to decided if it is cruel and unusual punishment. They will also be looking at an alternate method for future executions, which is Nitrogen Asphyxiation. This method would cause a person to die due to losing oxygen from a chamber being filled with nitrogen gas.
To compare the two cases, Glossip v. Gross involves looking at lethal injection without the first drug having no pain relieving properties and cannot reliably produce unconsciousness. It can also have a risk of pain and suffering from the second and third drug.
In Baze v Rees, the U.S. Supreme Court had decided that the triple drug protocol was not considered cruel and unusual punishment under the eight amendment.
The difference between the Glossip case and the Baze case is the number of drugs used in lethal injection. In Baze v. Reese, The Supreme Court reviewed the use of lethal injection using a three drug protocol. In Glossip v. Gross, The Supreme Court is reviewing lethal injection without a two drug protocol. With several examples of botched execution over the past few years, it is possible that the court will prohibit the use of the two drug protocol, however, ruling lethal injection as unconstitutional is unlikely in this case.
For the first time in seven years, the U.S. Supreme court is reviewing the procedure of lethal injection. They have a few options. The first is to find that lethal injection is still an acceptable form of death for the death row inmates. Another option would be to find that lethal injection is considered cruel and unusual punishment under the 8th amendment. If they find it cruel and unusual, they would have to find a replacement method. A new method that they are considering is nitrogen asphyxiation, where the person dies from a sudden burst of nitrogen gas into an airtight room.
The two cases of Glossip v. Gross and Baze v. Rees differ completely. In Baze v. Rees, Kentucky’s method of legal injection was called into question. However, their method was found to still be constitutional. In the Glossip v. Gross case, they are reconsidering if it is constitutionally acceptable to continue the use of the three drug protocol.
For the first time in seven years the U.S Supreme Court is going to review the procedure of lethal injection. With the reviewing they have a few options since lethal injection is still and acceptable and constitutional form of death. They could also find that the lethal injection is becoming cruel and unusual punishment, which would go against the Eighth Amendment. If it is found to go against the Eighth Amendment then they will have to revise and find a new method. For example they have been considering nitrogen asphyxiation instead of the lethal injection.
The two cases of Glossip v. Gross and Baze v. Rees are completely different. In Baze v. Rees, Kentucky's method was being accused of being cruel and unusual punishment, but ruled constitutional. In Glossip v. Gross they are reconsidering if it is constitutionally acceptable to use a three drug protocol.
As the Supreme Court reviews the procedure of lethal injection again, they will decide whether using the three-drug protocol is the best method to use. Recently this procedure has come under some suspicion because of the prolonged execution times as well as the risk of cruel and unusual punishment. A new type of execution is being considered involving an airtight chamber; the person convicted would enter the chamber, it would be sealed, and then the chamber would be pumped full of nitrogen gas, causing death by nitrogen asphyxiation. As we said in class, no execution method has ever been ruled cruel and unusual punishment, so the probability that the three-drug protocol would be ruled as such in unlikely.
Glossip v. Gross involves the question of whether the lethal injection by a three-drug protocol violates the Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment). The case of Baze v. Rees ruled that lethal injection by a two-drug protocol was not in violation of the Eighth Amendment, but the Glossip V. Gross case is being considered because the three-drug protocol has come under fire recently, particularly because of the botched execution in Oklahoma. Although it is not written anywhere in the constitution that an execution is required to be painless, administering drugs intended to kill someone in less than ten minutes for over an hour might be toeing the line of cruel and unusual.
The three-drug protocol of lethal injection has been questioned for years, especially after incidents in many states lead to prolonged suffering of inmates on death row. Despite the protests from those opposed to the death penalty, it is unlikely that lethal injection will be ruled unconstitutional. However, because this issue has been brought up for the second time this decade, the U.S. Supreme Court will be watching the public and state reaction more closely. If more states choose to abolish lethal injection as an option, the Supreme Court may rule that it is cruel and unusual punishment.
Glossip v. Gross is a case considering the constitutionality of a three-drug protocol as a whole. In Base v. Rees, the plaintiff argued that the method of lethal injection was cruel and unusual. In Base v. Rees, the method was found constitutional, but in Glossip v. Gross, we may find the court ruling in a different way. The court has also been considering the option of nitrogen asphyxiation if lethal injection is found unconstitutional, but this is unlikely.
The Supreme Court is going to do what it does best, it is going to deliberate the constitutionality of three drug protocol. I think that they will uphold the Baze decision stating that because there is always some risk of pain present but that does not make it unconstitutional. There is going to be some pain in the most humane execution on this Earth. I think what people are missing here is that the Constitution does not require anywhere the absence of pain. So personally I believe that the Supreme Court is going to uphold that standard. Even though there is scientific evidence supporting this they’re still likely to uphold the protocol. If they were going to decide against it I think they would resort back to the firing squad. Because this method is gruesome, that does not mean that it is painful.
The difference in these cases comes in what they are looking for. In the Baze case it was discussed whether the use of lethal injection itself was constitutional and for this new case the decision is whether it is constitutional for this current protocol to be used. The problem with the Glossip case is that experts are claiming that the drugs used in the current protocol are unconstitutional and do not provide the affects that we think they do. That the conditions presented in the Glossip case are unconstitutional and violate the Eight Amendment. Baze questions the method of lethal injection and previous methods of injection; Glossip questions the particular drugs in use today. This brings into question the Baze plurality standard, if the states aren’t using similar drugs that were used in Baze then does the standard apply? In this particular case there are three questions that are coming into play regarding the constitutionality of the three drug protocol. Does the plurality standard apply, must a prisoner establish the availability of an alternative drug even if the current protocol violates the Eighth Amendment, and is it constitutional for a state to use this whenever there is scientific consensus that the drugs do not work the way they are supposed to? These questions are now into play in the current Glossip case.
The case of lethal injections has been around for years. The fact is that people will never come to an conclusion because of mixed views. For the first case they were saying if it is considered cruel and unusual punishment. Now with the other case they are talking about only using one of the three injections. I feel that is argument is not even worth arguing about. I personally don't see a difference in injections or taking a gun and shooting the prosecuted. They both end up with the same result... their DEAD. Therefore, I feel that the argument between the two isn't even worth discussion.
The supreme court will review to see if lethal injection is cruel and unusual punishment. If the three drug protocol is ruled as cruel and unusual punishment due to botched executions the method of execution could change in two ways. First, they could change it to a one drug protocol. Second, they could turn to oxygen asphyxiation.
The cases of Baze v. Rees and Glossip v. Gross differ in many ways. For example, Baze v. Rees dealt with if lethal injection violated the eighth amendment of cruel and unusual punishment. The Glossip v. Gross case deals with if the three drug protocol is cruel and unusual punishment.
The U.S. Supreme Court is going to decide if the three drug protocol is not cruel and unusual punisent in the Glossip v Gross case.
In Baze v Ress, this case deals with leather injection as a whole and if it was cruel and unusal punishment.
I think that the U.S. Supreme Court is just considering this because of the publics pressure on the subject.
The Supreme Court will look over this case very carefully to determine whether lethal injection is truly a necessary punishment or if it is one of cruel and unusual circumstance. In these two cases in particular, the first deals with if lethal injection actually violates Amendment #8 while the latter deals with whether the three drug injection is indeed a cruel and unusual punishment.
This is the second time in one decade that the three drug protocol has been a question of cruel and unusual punishment. Though it has been ruled constitutional many times before, there is a small chance that it will be ruled unconstitutional this time around.
In Glossip v. Gross, the three drug protocol's constitutionality was being questioned. In Base v. Rees, the complainant claimed that the injection was cruel and unusual, but it was found to be constitutional, but Glossip v. Gross is yet to be determined and the injection could actually be found unconstitutional.
The three drug policy has been debated much. Many other forms of execution have also been debated including firing squads, electrocution and a one drug policy. Seeing the negative reactions lethal injections have had in the past including it taking the inmates an excessive amount of time to die, and inmates seizing in pain shows the cons of the three drug protocol. The three drug protocol can be considered cruel and unusual when not administered correctly. This brings us to the question of if a different form of execution, one with less flaws is a better solution. Yet when the three drug protocol is administered correctly is it no longer considered cruel and unusual punishment?
The Supreme Court is going to review the lethal injection form of the death penalty to see if it is cruel and unusual punishment. This is because their has been so many hiccups with the lethal injections in the past. Although the lethal injections seems like they are painless, their has been many times when lethal injection has gone wrong. In Baze v. Rees the supreme court ruled that lethal injections is constitutional. However, in Glossip v. Gross, the supreme court is reviewing if lethal injection is constitutional due to three inmates stating that lethal injection causes extreme suffering. They said it causes extreme suffering because all of the drugs used are not always available. I believe that lethal injection will be ruled constitutional as long as the three main drugs are used for every injection.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.