Summary: Glossip v. Gross
On April 29, 2014, Oklahoma executed Clayton Lockett an inmate on the death penalty using three lethal drugs they injected in to him.One of the drugs was untested called Midazolam. The procedure went horribly, Lockett woke up after the injection of the drugs that were supposed to make him unconscious. He said “This shit is fucking with my head,” and did not die until about 40 minutes later. European companies wont sell drugs to be used in executions, and American companies don't want their brands linked to lethal injections.So Oklahoma and other states have been playing around with the 3 drug protocol in some cases. Using a drug called Midazolam, which botched Lockett’s execution and several others.The case was brought to the court by three prisoners in death row in Oklahoma, who knew that the process of using Midazolam is painful. But in a 5-4 decision, the court ruled that the three prisoners failed to prove that Midazolam offers a "substantial risk of serious harm".
Question: Is using the three drug process with Midazolam against the 8th amendment? Is it right to use an untested drug on a prisoner on the death bed?
According to the Supreme Court's decision on the matter, using the three drug process with midazolam is not against the Eighth Amendment. They ruled it constitutional because there was no physical proof that there was serious harm as a result, and that apparently, the dosage had been wrong for the man who suffered. They also noted that if they were to eliminate all corporal punishment that involved pain, they might as well get rid of the death penalty in general. I don't think it's right to use a drug that will cause pain to a person, but it is hard to test a deadly drug like that. I don't really think that it should be allowed, to use an untested medicine in general, but if they can prove that it really doesn't cause pain and that they gave him the wrong dosage, I think they really should be investigating the people who messed up the dosage.
ReplyDeleteGood post, I'm surprised you chose to quote Mr. Lockette word for word. Great response from Nina as well. A lot to be said, interesting that two judges said we should get rid of the whole thing if we're trying to not cause pain. Another thought, why doesn't Europe have capital punishment?
ReplyDeleteI wouldnt say its against the the amendment. I dont think it should be used if it hasnt been tested but if you did do something bad enough like kill someone why should you have to die peacefully? if something happens and your in pain good you put others through pain and you shouldnt be dieing in peace.
ReplyDeleteI do believe it violates the 8th amendment. They are already going to be sentenced to death, most likely for a serious crime. The way they should do it is by simply injecting them with the common drug. It isn't right to test them on drugs, even though they committed a very bad felony.
ReplyDeletethis is mine i forgot to sign in to my school account
DeleteIt doesn't necessarily violate the 8th amendment. Criminals who committed severe crimes and are on death row should't have any type of sympathy for what they did. In my perspective the government should have the right to experiment drugs on criminals who are on death row they shouldn't be hesitant to do just like the criminals were when they committed a crime.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't necessarily violate the 8th amendment. Criminals who committed severe crimes and are on death row should't have any type of sympathy for what they did. In my perspective the government should have the right to experiment drugs on criminals who are on death row they shouldn't be hesitant to do just like the criminals were when they committed a crime.
ReplyDeleteIn a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court decided that these executions were constitutional. However, this goes against the 8th amendment because this is cruel punishment. It is not morally right to let these criminals suffer from the unknown effects of the drugs. Regardless, they are going to die, so it is good opportunity to test these drugs.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that the three drug process with the Midazolam is against the 8th amendment, and the Supreme Court also agreed with the 5-4 ruling. It was constitutional because there was no real proof that it was causing harm. They made an error with the dosage and that is why it was not completely successful with Lockett. I don't believe in causing people harm, but in my opinion, I believe capital punishment should be allowed for those very few individuals who are extremely dangerous and murderous. It does seem very difficult to test those drugs so I can understand why they were untested when given to the inmate.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe using the three-drug process with Midazolam is against the 8th Amendment, since even when used properly, and in appropriate doses, it can cause serious pain and suffering. What Lockett experienced goes against the 8th Amendment ban of “cruel and unusual punishment.” The midazolam drug is untested to ensure safe use in this situation. As author Jeffrey Stern noted in his Atlantic article, “The Cruel and Unusual Execution of Clayton Lockett,” Lockett’s lawyer “characterizes what happened to Lockett as ‘human experimentation’.” I think the Supreme Court was wrong, and that using midazolam does offer “a substantial risk of serious harm.”
ReplyDeleteI believe that using the three drug process with Midazolam is not against the 8th amendment. These criminals are already under death punishment. Although the drugs are untested and therefore the outcome is unpredictable as to the suffering they may cause, prisoners “failed to identify a known and available alternative method of execution that entails a lesser risk of pain.” In other words, the article states that an alternative painless method is yet to be found.
ReplyDeleteI believe that using the three drug process with Midazolam is not against the 8th amendment. These criminals are already under death punishment. Although the drugs are untested and therefore the outcome is unpredictable as to the suffering they may cause, prisoners “failed to identify a known and available alternative method of execution that entails a lesser risk of pain.” In other words, the article states that an alternative painless method is yet to be found.
ReplyDeleteI think its wrong for prisoners to be tortured more then they already are. Being in prison is bad enough and they are serving consequences for their wrong doings but that doesnt mean just because they are criminals that they deserve to be tested like lab rats.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the three drug process is against the 8th amendment because the man was obviously suffering as well as the fact that his death was prolonged. This is a cruel punishment. I believe that even if a prisoner has the death penalty they should not have to endure horrible pain. They are already being killed which is punishment enough. It is not okay to use an untested drug on a prisoner on their death bed. It is unfair if that drug goes wrong and they have to go through excruciating pain.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the drug Midazolam is in a sense violating the prisoners 8th amendment and therefore is unconstitutional. This is putting the prisoners through more pain then is supposedly needed when executing them and is considered "cruel and unusual punishment." I believe that it is also inhumane to be using untested drugs on any human being and then just watching the side effects take their tole.
ReplyDeleteIt was unjust to use untested drugs in that situation because they did not know what effects and side effect would occur, they only were guessing at that point.
ReplyDeleteIt is against the 8th amendment to use this kind of untested drug in an execution. They do not fully know the effect of this drug and if it causes botched and painful deaths than it is both cruel and unusual. I also believe that execution in general both cruel and unusual and should be banned altogether.
ReplyDeleteI'm still unclear as to what the 3 drug protocol is, but it is cruel to use a drug that has not been tested before. If you know that executing someone with this drug will take time, and be painful we shouldn't be using it.
ReplyDeleteNow know how a drug works can be a little strange. Not know the full power of midazolam and using it on prisoner is like an experiment, having the prisoner as a lab rat. This can be against the 8th amendment.
ReplyDeleteI believe that using the three drug process on Lockett was against the eighth amendment. This drug was known to cause harm. The three prisoners who were brought to court knew it, and it is clear that this drug was pretty much an experiment. The use of this drug on Lockett was a clear violation of, "cruel and unusual punishment". It is not ok to use an un-tested drug on anybody, even prisoners, it can at least be tested by lab rats first. This was not fair to him and Lockett did not deserve to die like this. The prisoner is already on his death bead, so why not just kill him quickly another way? This clearly violates the 8th amendment.
ReplyDeleteUsing three drug processes is against the 8th amendment, because it is cruel. The government should not have the right to try untested lethal injections in criminals because it is simply immoral to give people these potentially painful deaths. The inmate is already going to receive an ultimate punishment, and there is no reason to add on to it with painful injections.
ReplyDelete