Opinion ID: 1805723
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Undue Pain

Text: In the olden days, a common component of punishments meted out by the crown was the intentional infliction of pain, violence, mutilation, and disgrace, for the crown viewed wanton cruelty as both a deterrent and a mode of vengeance and retribution. Upon our nation's birth, however, the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause was erected by the founding fathers as a resolute barrier to this repugnant practice, particularly where methods of execution were concerned. [16] While some degree of suffering is unavoidable in any means of taking life, the Clause focuses on any excessive cruelty which inheres in the method of executionnot that inevitable suffering which exists in the mind of the condemned. [17] To meet the requirement that a punishment not be impermissibly cruel, a method of execution first of all must inflict no undue pain. As the United States Supreme Court stated: The traditional humanity of modern Anglo-American law forbids the infliction of unnecessary pain in the execution of the death sentence. Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber, 329 U.S. at 463, 67 S.Ct. 374. The all-important consideration is that the execution shall be so instantaneous and substantially painless that the punishment shall be reduced, as nearly as possible, to no more than that of death it self. Id. at 474, 67 S.Ct. 374 (Burton, J., dissenting). California's gas chamber has been found to be impermissibly cruel under this test, for while lethal gas as applied in California involves minimal violence and mutilation, it inflicts substantial pain (i.e., intense visceral pain from oxygen deprivation) and results in a slow, lingering death akin to artificial drowning (i.e., the inmate may remain conscious for several minutes) and thus is cruel in its effect. [18] Execution by gas is to be distinguished from lethal injection, which is generally considered more humane. [19]