☰ In this section

The Champion

January-February 2017 , Page 46 

Search the Champion Looking for something specific?

Preview of Member Only Content

For full access: login or Become a Member Join Now

Legally Indefensible: Requiring Death Row Prisoners to Prove Available Execution Alternatives

By Megan McCracken

The Supreme Court has twice considered and rejected Eighth Amendment challenges to state lethal injection procedures, concluding in both cases that the condemned prisoners failed to show that the execution process in their states posed sufficient risks of pain and suffering to be adjudged cruel and unusual punishment.1 More broadly, the Court’s decisions in an array of lethal injection challenges have declined to seriously entertain claims that execution procedures are constitutionally infirm, while insisting that method-of-execution challenges not delay executions.2 Most recently, the Court reasserted the very high legal bar condemned prisoners must meet to satisfy the Eighth Amendment, and added to this burden a requirement that the plaintiff “identify a known and available alternative method of execution that entails a lesser risk of pain” than the challenged procedure.3 

In its 2008 Baze v. Rees plurality opinion, the Court established the legal standard for an Eigh

Want to read more?

The Champion archive is reserved for NACDL members.

NACDL members, please login to read the rest of this article.

Not a member? Join now.
Join Now
Or click here to see an overview of NACDL Member benefits.

See what NACDL members say about us.

To read the current issue of The Champion in its entirety, click here.

  • Media inquiries: Contact NACDL's Director of Public Affairs & Communications Ivan J. Dominguez at 202-465-7662 or idominguez@nacdl.org
  • Academic Requests: Full articles of The Champion Magazine are available for academic and research purposes in the WestLaw and LexisNexis databases.
Advertisement Advertise with Us

In This Section

Advertisement Advertise with Us