"The Eighth Amendment does not guarantee a prisoner a painless death — something that, of course, isn’t guaranteed to many people, including most victims of capital crimes."


I thought conservatives were opposed to relying on foriegn law...and here he is relying on the code of Hammurabi.

... lex talionis.

Instead of "many" people, he should have wrote "any" people, and he should never have put the "most" in front of victims of capital crimes. Nobody gets a guarantee of a painless death.

Man, I'm already regretting this appointment.

I'm betting at some point, capital punishment is ruled unconstitutional.

I'm betting at some point, capital punishment is ruled unconstitutional.

I wouldn't hold my breath on that one. Most of the cases going back to 1980 that address the Constitutionality of capital punishment in general have gone 7-2 or 8-1.

Times change. Its closer than that now and they are apparently arguing about it and getting pissy with each other.

I don't think it will be anytime soon but maybe in a few more decades. It is the general direction of most of the world, i don't see why we won't also end up there.

Except it is enshrined in it.

Like segregation?

Like anti-sodomy laws?

Please explain.

The constitution is flawed and regardless, legal interpretations change along with society's views and the inevitable turnover of justices.

LOL! Yeah! Because the US is so quick to adopt trends from other parts of the world!

It is not interpretation it is literally "deprive of life" the only way to make unconstitutional would be by amendment.

Mot saying laws won't be adjusted penalties lessened, but it will always be constitutional

I'm betting at some point, capital punishment is ruled unconstitutional.

His statement is completely reasonable. What's your issue with it.

Except it is enshrined in it.

We can move away from it without requiring it to be unconstitutional.

Russell Bucklew, a convicted murderer sentenced to death 22 years ago, argued that a rare medical condition he has would make lethal injection extremely painful

"Bullshit (slams gavel), next case."

I'd make a great Justice.

The constitution does not say we must deprive anyone of life. It says the state can't execute without due process. That does not bar the government from doing away with the death penalty altogether.

LOL! Yeah! Because the US is so quick to adopt trends from other parts of the world!

Times change. Its closer than that now and they are apparently arguing about it and getting pissy with each other.

I don't think it will be anytime soon but maybe in a few more decades. It is the general direction of most of the world, i don't see why we won't also end up there.

Vegie-burger, you are missing the truly frightening significance of this case.

No doubt, you are thinking of Trop v Dulles, way back in 1957, which held that the eighth Amendment (prohibiting cruel & unusual punishment) "must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society", and that the scope of the words are not static.

That gave hope to death penalty opponents that killing itself would come to be recognised as cruel and unusual as US standards of decency matured towards those of the rest of the civilised world. As a punishment becomes less and less common (more "unusual" by definition) it becomes less well supported constitutionally. That is clearly happening in the US. In 2018 there were 25 executions in only 8 states, more than half (13) in just one state (Texas). That's down from more than 300 only 20 years ago as more and more states have stopped killing.

In Bucklew, Gorsuch has sought to halt the march of civility that so terrifies the regressives and establish that the standard to be applied to interpreting "cruel & unusual" is the standard of the time when it was framed. That's 1791. 3/4 of a century before the adoption of novel liberal ideas like not owning people as chattels. More than 2 centuries before the decriminalisation of homosexuality.

Gorsuch sees the 8th as playing fun police against such medieval "practices as dragging the prisoner to the place of execution, disemboweling, quartering, public dissection, and burning alive", which were already on the nose by 1791. How enlightened. However, if it was OK then, he seems to be saying that it is fine now. Or certainly that an agonising death is not prohibited, and that the onus will be on the defence to come up with a preferable method.

This is an extraordinary insight into the workings of the regressive mind.

You are making the classic mistake of those who try to argue a legal position citing to dicta of a case. Trop v. Dulles (1958, not 1957) involved a private in the US Army who deserted and was stripped of his citizenship as a punishment. The issue was whether revocation one's citizenship ran afoul of the 8th Amendment. Capital punishment was discussed in dicta, which has no precedential value. But, you (and others, such the individuals who penned the website from which you plagiarized your post) are trying to argue from dicta. Capital punishment was not before the Court. Thus, drawing inferences from this cases is an amateur move.

Details: Russell Bucklew, a convicted murderer sentenced to death 22 years ago, argued that a rare medical condition he has would make lethal injection extremely painful, per the Washington Post. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that Bucklew failed to propose an alternative method of capital punishment that would be less painful, arguing that it shouldn't be a difficult task unless the inmate is simply seeking to delay his execution.

But, you (and others, such the individuals who penned the website from which you plagiarized your post) are trying to argue from dicta.

I thought Bucklew proposed nitrogen suffocation.

But, you (and others, such the individuals who penned the website from which you plagiarized your post) are trying to argue from dicta. Capital punishment was not before the Court. Thus, drawing inferences from this cases is an amateur move.

He originally proposed "death by lethal gas." The district court instructed him to clarify. He proposed nitrogen. Nitrogen had never been used for an execution by any state in the US. He was afforded "extensive discovery" to find an expert to support the assertion nitrogen could be used in an execution. He found none. Thus, without any expert, without any medical documentation in support, and without any evidence, the court found his proposal "lacking."

He originally proposed "death by lethal gas." The district court instructed him to clarify. He proposed nitrogen. Nitrogen had never been used for an execution by any state in the US. He was afforded "extensive discovery" to find an expert to support the assertion nitrogen could be used in an execution. He found none. Thus, without any expert, without any medical documentation in support, and without any evidence, the court found his proposal "lacking."

There are methods that are probably painless. Putting them under general anesthesia is probably a good way to start.

I don't think we should be doing it at all though, for a few reasons. A big one is there are innocent people on death row. We know this because it is proven on a fairly regular basis. Sometimes people end up on there because of prosecutorial misconduct, coerced confessions, planted evidence, pseudoscience from crime labs etc. The list goes on. The way the system is set up means we have killed and will continue to kill innocent people. That is simply not something our country should be doing.

You are making the classic mistake of those who try to argue a legal position citing to dicta of a case. Trop v. Dulles (1958, not 1957) involved a private in the US Army who deserted and was stripped of his citizenship as a punishment. The issue was whether revocation one's citizenship ran afoul of the 8th Amendment. Capital punishment was discussed in dicta, which has no precedential value. But, you (and others, such the individuals who penned the website from which you plagiarized your post) are trying to argue from dicta. Capital punishment was not before the Court. Thus, drawing inferences from this cases is an amateur move.

Capital punishment was discussed in dicta, which has no precedential value.

the website from which you plagiarized your post

Except it is enshrined in it.

Where?

Enough with the condescension, try-hard. I was a successful lawyer while you were still shitting in your short pants, and have graduated from better schools and better firms than your 4th tier efforts.


Even you know better than this. Dicta from the Supreme Court is highly persuasive. I didn't say it was binding on death penalty cases - I specifically said it "gave hope to death penalty opponents" that the courts view of "cruel and unusual" would evolve over time. Drawing inferences about the judicial treatment of one fact set for how courts may eventually treat another fact set is actually part of what grown-up lawyers do, particularly when the court gives such a clear indication of the role of changing social context.


Which website is that, cocksucker? Put up or withdraw.

Without debating the merits of the capital punishment, I agree that there should be a completely painless method and I struggle to figure out why it is so difficult to do. I know nothing about medicine, so, pardon my ignorance, but, like you, I never really figured out why they are not put under general anesthesia first. I have (unfortunately) had to put down a few beloved pets and the process at the vet certainly seems very peaceful. The beloved pet is completely asleep before the fatal injection is given. It is rare to see so much as a muscle twitch. Yes, I know, canine vs. human, but, it shouldn't be that different.

Its really no different other than attitudes about it. It can be painless. The issue is because the drugs used for injection are the same drugs used in therapeutic settings and the manufacturers don't want the drugs used in hospitals to treat patients because a lot of people get squeamish about it then will ignorantly refuse them. Look no further than vaccine deniers stupidity to see how nutty people get about medicine. Drug companies want no part of that drama.

Enough with the condescension, try-hard. I was a successful lawyer while you were still shitting in your short pants, and have graduated from better schools and better firms than your 4th tier efforts.



Even you know better than this. Dicta from the Supreme Court is highly persuasive. I didn't say it was binding on death penalty cases - I specifically said it "gave hope to death penalty opponents" that the courts view of "cruel and unusual" would evolve over time. Drawing inferences about the judicial treatment of one fact set for how courts may eventually treat another fact set is actually part of what grown-up lawyers do, particularly when the court gives such a clear indication of the role of changing social context.



Which website is that, cocksucker? Put up or withdraw.

Interesting how your juvenile retort rebuts everything you claim about yourself. Carry on plagiarizer.

Trying to emulate your hero, Trump.

Caught out lying, not man enough to admit it, so double down on the lie.

Just put a bunch of fentanyl patches on them

What plagiarism?

That's a false accusation for which a person with any ethics would apologise.
You and JSA are merely grubs of a kind, so I don't expect that, but you really should just give it away.

Trying to emulate your hero, Trump.

Caught out lying, not man enough to admit it, so double down on the lie.

Without debating the merits of the capital punishment, I agree that there should be a completely painless method and I struggle to figure out why it is so difficult to do. I know nothing about medicine, so, pardon my ignorance, but, like you, I never really figured out why they are not put under general anesthesia first. I have (unfortunately) had to put down a few beloved pets and the process at the vet certainly seems very peaceful. The beloved pet is completely asleep before the fatal injection is given. It is rare to see so much as a muscle twitch. Yes, I know, canine vs. human, but, it shouldn't be that different.

You should admit your plagiarizing because claiming that to be your own original "legal analysis" is infinitely more embarrassing.