Baze v Rees: Supreme Court Hearing on Lethal Injection - Term Paper Example

First and foremost, the main argument on the part of the Baze’s lawyers was that sodium thiopental, the first drug to be given, is likely to be injected improperly making the petitioners feel an ominous pain before the final death provoked by the second and the third drugs, pancuronium bromide and potassium chloride (Supreme Court, 2008). It is a precedent to appeal to the 8th Amendment. The idea is that this prescription to the paramount law document of the US judicial system gives ground to consider causing pain as an undemocratic step within the law system and capital punishment at large. Insofar, the 8th Amendment states as follows: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted” (U.S. Constitution - Amendment 8, 2010, p. 1). Thus, the Constitution provides a particular background to justify the case of Baze v. Rees.

Thus, an unconstitutional administration of lethal injection had become the main thesis by the petitioners – both convicted in double homicide – stating that there is the “risk that the protocol’s terms might not be properly followed, resulting in significant pain” (Mandery, 2011, p. 483). By stating this, petitioners ran into the fact that some other alternatives of lethal injection were not tested appropriately so that to confirm their effectiveness and had nothing to do with the maladministration of specific drugs.

By contrast, the group of justices headed by Justice Roberts along with Justice Kennedy and Justice Alito argued that Kentucky’s lethal injection protocol violates the 8th Amendment (Supreme Court, 2008). There were different arguments to make such a conclusion. First of all, “cruel and unusual punishments” are those inflicted for the sake of the punishment and pain, in particular. Thereupon, the lethal injection does not presuppose disembowelment, torture, beheading, burning alive or some substantial risk going apart from humane procedures regarding capital punishment.

To say more, three justices had a concurrent claim that following the case Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, capital punishment complies with the constitutional norms: “Because some risk of pain is inherent in even the most humane execution method if only from the prospect of error in following the required procedure, the Constitution does not demand the avoidance of all risk of pain” (Supreme Court, 2008, p. 1). This is the standpoint supported by the majority of the Court. It makes a strong assumption that has nothing to do with the precedent of Wilkerson v. Utah, 99 U. S. 130 (Supreme Court, 2008). Nonetheless, petitioners' overall claim of the substantial risk in case of improper following the administration of the lethal injection encountered another counterclaim by the Court.

In this respect, the minimal risk is imposed while mixing the death “cocktail”, and it is a generally accepted fact which suggests “manufacturers’ thiopental package insert instructions” to be clear to follow even by a newbie (Supreme Court, 2008). The alternative proposed by the petitioners did not correspond to the humane character of the 8th Amendment. As a matter of fact, the barbiturate-only protocol used primarily by the veterinarians to put animals to sleep was not acceptable in this respect (Supreme Court, 2008). It would definitely go apart with the federal system of capital punishment inconsistent with the general practice.

To conclude, the case of Baze v. Rees presupposes that lethal injection is unconstitutional as it may cause substantial pain if the sequence of drugs to be injected is not properly followed. The side of petitioners stood on the position that lethal injection in Kentucky would violate the 8th Amendment of the Constitution. Nevertheless, the Court concluded that “an execution method violates the Eighth Amendment only if it is deliberately designed to inflict pain” (Supreme Court, 2008, p. 1). This is why all petitions by Baze and Bowling were disposed of by the Court as it has many points of mismatch with the logic and constitutional truth regarding capital punishment protocols and procedures.