Opinion ID: 1563959
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Lethal Injection as Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Text: Appellant argues that the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, § 13 of the Pennsylvania Constitution prohibit lethal injection because this penalty constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Appellant contends that there is mounting evidence that prisoners experience excruciating pain during execution by lethal injection, particularly since it is believed that potassium chloride, one of the three drugs used, causes a burning sensation as it courses through the body. Appellant's Brief at 83. Appellant argues that until Pennsylvania investigates whether its three-drug execution protocol is humane, the procedure should be declared a cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, § 13 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. However, the only issues before us are whether Appellant's conviction is valid and whether his death sentences were properly imposed. Our inquiry does not extend to the statutory manner by which the death sentence will be imposed, if it is imposed at all. Until a death warrant has been issued for Appellant, we need not determine the issue of whether the then-form of execution, whatever it might be, comports with the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, § 13 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. In Commonwealth v. Terry, 513 Pa. 381, 521 A.2d 398 (1987), this Court was confronted with a claim that the defendant's death sentence should be vacated because there was then no existing statutory authority for the death penalty. We dismissed the claim, holding: Only the sentence of death is before us. Since no death warrant has been issued, the question of the method of execution is not properly before us. We will consider this issue if and when it is properly before us. Id. at 412. Similarly, because the issue of the means of execution is not properly before us, we will dismiss Appellant's argument without prejudice to his right to raise it at a more appropriate time. [29]