Oklahoma State Prison Case Analysis

After the brutal 40 minute long lethal injection execution of Clayton Lockett that took place on April 29, 2014 occurred, fellow death row inmates being held at the Oklahoma State Penitentiary sued because they felt that a particular drug that was used to perform the poorly lethal injection was in violation of the eighth amendment. The lethal injection method used on Lockett was a three drug lethal injection procedure and resulted in him waking up after the injection and suffered for more than forty minutes before he actually died. After this poor done execution, Oklahoma suspended all executions until the horrific incident could be fully and properly investigated. When the investigation was completed, the Oklahoma State Penitentiary adopted
See Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U. S. 7, 20. To succeed on an Eighth Amendment method-of execution claim, a prisoner must establish that the method creates a demonstrated risk of severe pain and that the risk is substantial when compared to the known and available alternatives. Baze, supra, at 61 (plurality opinion). Pp. 11–13. (b) Petitioners failed to establish that any risk of harm was substantial when compared to a known and available alternative method of execution. Petitioners have suggested that Oklahoma could execute them using sodium thiopental or pentobarbital, but the District Court did not commit a clear error when it found that those drugs are unavailable to the State. Petitioners argue that the Eighth Amendment does not require them to identify such an alternative, but their argument is inconsistent with the controlling opinion in Baze, which imposed a requirement that the Court now follows. Petitioners also argue that the requirement to identify an alternative is inconsistent with the Court’s pre-Baze decision in Hill v. McDonough, 547 U. S. 573, but they misread that decision. Hill concerned a question of civil procedure, not a substantive Eighth Amendment question. That case held that §1983 alone does not require an inmate asserting a method-of-execution claim to plead an acceptable
In Alito’s opinion he says that there is two reasons why they affirm and accept the midazolam efficacy. The first reason is the inmates “failed to identify a known and available alternative method of execution that entails a lesser risk of pain, a requirement of all Eighth Amendment method-of execution claims” (Glossip v. Gross 576 US __ (2015)). The second reason mentioned by Alito was “the District Court did not commit clear error when it found that the prisoners failed to establish that Oklahoma’s use of a massive dose of midazolam in its execution protocol entails a substantial risk of severe pain” (Glossip v. Gross 576 US __ (2015)). In this Glossip v. Gross, a dissent written by Justice Breyer and later joined by Justice Ginsburg, made this case more notable. Elizabeth Franklin-Best, a journalist, stated that “the dissent calls for nothing less than full reconsideration of the constitutionality of the death penalty as a punishment, and it offers a veritable road map for challenges going forward” (Franklin-Best). Justice Breyer concluded in his dissent that the death penalty violates the Constitution considering the “given changes in the United States over the last 40 years and drawing on his own 20 years’ experience on the bench.” (Franklin-Best). Because the death penalty can be looked at as “unreliable”, Justice Breyer drew the conclusion that this qualifies it as a “cruel” punishment. Justice Breyer believes that