if the Supreme Court rules lethal injection unconstitutional, can a state still execute by other means?

Question

does that mean an automatic commutation of a death row inmate's sentence to life in prison?if lethal injection is ruled unconstitutional, does that effectively spell the end of the death penalty in the United States?

Answer 1

The ruling of the Supreme Court is binding on the state when death penalty is not authorized.

Answer 2

Wow. A really good question.

It really depends on a couple of things. The case presented to the Court and the scope of the fact pattern, the wording of the Court's ruling...lots of stuff can have an effect on what happens.

First of all, the death penalty, or the legality of the death penalty, is not the issue. The Court has ruled that the death penalty is not cruel and unusual punishment, and will not overturn it's own decisions. It has also ruled that the particular procedures used by some states...California I think...were somehow cruel and unusual. The states involved changed their procedures to comply with the Court's ruling and have resumed executions. This leads me to believe that the Court is not going to rule lethal injections per se are cruel and unusual unless there is a particularly cruel method of delivery.

Now, if the Court DOES rule that lethal injections are all cruel and unusual, there are some options.

First, the Court can commute all those sentenced to die by lethal injections to life sentences according to the State's guidelines.

Secondly, if the State has an alternative method, the Court could allow that alternative method. If the condemned chose his method, that may have some effect on this.

The Court could overturn the penalty phase of trials for redetermination for sentencing according to any new guidelines presented in the decision or for alternate existing guidelines in that State.

I really dont see the Court outlawing lethal injections in all cases. But certainly, if it does, it will not be the end of the death penalty in this country. Because whether to have the death penalty is up to the states. How it is carried out and the Constitutional ramifications of that is what the Court can control.

Answer 3

The question before the court is whether or not lethal injection is unconstitutional, not whether the death penalty is unconstitutional. If the court rules lethal injection unconstitutional, they will have to give reasons. States will be able to continue carrying out executions as long as they come up with a method that satisfies the objections the court has to lethal injection. Once they did that, they could resume executions; they wouldn't need the court's permission.

Answer 4

The challenges winding to the U.S. Supreme Court through various courts do not ask for a ruling that lethal injection is per se unconstitutional. To understand the challenge, it is first necessary to discuss the way that lethal injection works in most states.

In most states, lethal injection is actually a three-step process. In the first step, an anesthetic is administered. In the second step, a chemical that causes paralysis is administered. In the final step, a chemical that stops the heart is administered.

The claim in most of the cases is that the third step can be painful if the person is not sufficiently anesthized by the first step. For the most part, what the challengers are seeking is to have the Court rule that additional steps have to be taken to guarantee that the defendant at the proper level of consciousness to avoid any suffering. Of course, the steps that they propose would require the involvement of medical personnel in the actual execution. Since such a level of participation would violate medical ethics, they hope that such a ruling would eliminate lethal injection.

The position taken by the states is that the cruel and unusual punishment clause does not require avoiding all pain, only that reasonable steps be taken to minimize pain. In their view, sufficient training of execution personnel in how to administer the lethal injection plus sufficient levels of anesthesia to assure that the defendant should be sufficient anesthized meets the constitutional requirement.

If the decision effectively bans lethal injection by giving non-government individuals a veto over that method, it will depend on the state laws. If, in a particular state, state law does not specifiy the means of execution as part of the punishment provision of state law, the switch to another means of execution would be merely procedural and, as such, would not violate any rights of those on death row. If, on the other hand, the statute defining the penalty for the offense specifically provided for death by lethal injection, there would be an argument that the sentence would have to be commuted.

Answer 5

It could still allow the death penalty. It could rule that while lethal injection can produce excrutiating pain it is still acceptable. It could rule that a protocol needs to be found where doctors don't need to participate to ensure a relatively painless execution (the Hippocratic oath that all doctors take, would appear to prevent their participation in executions).
It is extremely unlikely that the decision will spell the end of the death penalty in the United States.

Answer 6

If it only says that "Lethal Injection" is unconstitutional then they only mean "Lethal Injection". They can still use other methods. Long live the death penalty.

Answer 7

No.

It might mean anyone sentanced to die specifically by lethal injection would get commuted, or it might mean they would all have to be re-sentanced (possibly to electric chair or gas chamber). Not sure on that.

But if they simply decided lethal injection itself was unconstitiutional, and not all capital punishment, it would only affect lethal injections. Though I think it would be hard after that to justify the electric chair in another case that would invariably come up.

Answer 8

It would depend on the wording of their ruling. If they find that the method of lethal injection is unconstitutional, it doesn't necessarily mean capital punishment is unconstitutional.

Answer 9

It means that they will start using the guillotine. They have done "Studies" that say they prove that it is more "Humane" way to die..yes sounds stupid, but it is a study which was actually done. Two years ago they tried to pass using it federally...the bill didn't pass, but the idea is still stuck in some Politician's heads. It is all a way to get what certain politicians want in the end.

As a side note, if they use the guillotine then they still will be able to harvest organs from the convicts. A sick idea to say the least.

Answer 10

No...the question will be narrowly tailored so it won't necessarily result in commutation. The question before the question is whether lethal injection constitute C&U punishment under the 8th Amendment. Other forms of constitution, which have passed constitutional muster, could be used.