Newswise — ATLANTA – The U.S. Supreme Court ruling June 29, 2015 in Glossip v. Gross, upholding Oklahoma’s use of midazolam in lethal executions presents an even higher hurdle for future challenges to the death penalty, a Georgia State University College of Law expert said.
Assistant Professor Lauren Sudeall Lucas, who has previously represented indigent clients facing the death penalty in Georgia and Alabama, said the ruling was not a surprise to those following previous death penalty cases at the Supreme Court, and the Court has shown little interest in micromanaging the technicalities of execution.
“The Court confirmed its holding in Baze v. Rees that death-row inmates facing execution must identify another readily available method of execution with a significantly lesser risk of pain,” Lucas explained. “This places future challengers in an nearly impossible position: if, in fact, there is no sure fire way to execute a prisoner without the risk of great pain, a petitioner will not be able to produce a significantly better alternative.”
She said the Court also suggested in the Glossip ruling that because capital punishment is constitutional, there must be a constitutional method of carrying it out.
“This argument is circular, and in a way that undermines the very protection of the Eighth Amendment,” Lucas said. “At its worst, it suggests that the Court will go to any lengths necessary to ensure death sentences can be carried out, even when there is some risk that a prisoner will suffer excruciating pain in the process.”
Lucas, who teaches about constitutional law and capital punishment, worked as a staff attorney at the Southern Center for Human Rights, representing indigent clients facing the death penalty in Georgia and Alabama. She continues to serve on the center’s board of directors and is also on the Indigent Defense Committee of the State Bar of Georgia.
For more about Lucas, visit http://law.gsu.edu/profile/lauren-sudeall-lucas/.
RSS