Opinion ID: 2533183
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 22

Heading: Baze v. Rees

Text: ¶ 181. Pitchford first argues that his execution by lethal injection would be in violation of the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, based on Baze v. Rees . [122] This argument repeatedly has been rejected by this Court. As we recently stated in Goff v. State: On April 16, 2008, the United States Supreme Court decided Baze v. Rees , upholding the State of Kentucky's lethal-injection protocol as not being violative of the Eighth Amendment. Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35, 128 S.Ct. 1520, 170 L.Ed.2d 420 (2008). In so doing, Chief Justice Roberts's plurality opinion announced the standard which we must use to determine whether our method of execution violates the Eighth Amendment. Id. The Supreme Court's plurality found that cruel and unusual punishment occurs where lethal injection as an execution method presents a substantial or objectively intolerable risk of serious harm in light of feasible, readily implemented alternative procedures. Id. at 1531, 1532. However, the analysis was focused on the manner of lethal injection, and did not question the validity of lethal injection or the constitutionality of the death penalty as such. Id. at 1537. The Baze Court held: Kentucky has adopted a method of execution believed to be the most humane available, one it shares with 35 other States . . . [which] if administered as intended . . . will result in a painless death. The risks of maladministration . . . such as improper mixing of chemicals and improper setting of IVs by trained and experienced personnel  cannot be remotely characterized as objectively intolerable. Kentucky's decision to adhere to its protocol despite these asserted risks, while adopting safeguards to protect against them, cannot be viewed as probative of the wanton infliction of pain under the Eighth Amendment. Baze, 128 S.Ct. at 1537. For the disposition of other cases uncertain, Justice Roberts clearly stated that [a] State with a lethal injection protocol substantially similar to the protocol we uphold today would not create a risk that meets [the `substantial risk'] standard. Id. at 1537 (emphasis added). If differences exist between Mississippi's execution protocols and those used in Kentucky, then, the inquiry is whether Mississippi's lethal-injection protocol meets Constitutional muster in light of this recent Supreme Court decision. The Fifth Circuit, when considering inmate Dale Leo Bishop's Eighth-Amendment challenge to Mississippi's lethal-injection procedures, recently announced that Mississippi's lethal injection protocol appears to be substantially similar to Kentucky's protocol that was examined in Baze.  Walker v. Epps, 287 Fed.Appx. 371, 376 (5th Cir.2008). We agree with the Fifth Circuit's analysis, and hold that Bennett's Eighth Amendment challenge to the lethal injection protocol in Mississippi is without merit. [123] ¶ 182. Based on our reasoning in Goff, we hold this argument has no merit.