Death Penalty Case Analysis

In 2015, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Glossip v. Gross that executions using the drug combination of midazolam, pancuronium bromide, and potassium chloride to euthanize prisoners was constitutional and not a violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution (“GLOSSIP V. GROSS”). It was contended that this combination method was unconstitutional and dangerous to those receiving it. Today, thirty two states use the death penalty, and use lethal injection as a method of execution (Bellware). The case was argued strongly on both sides, but ultimately was favored with the state, leading to an impactual result.

The issue first arose when two death row prisoners in Oklahoma challenged the state’s use of the three-drug

. . that midazolam cannot reliably ensure the ‘deep, comalike unconsciousness’ required where a State intends to cause death with painful drugs” (“GLOSSIP V. GROSS”). Midazolam was therefore not believed to be an appropriate pain-killer (Bellware). They argued that according to studies, the drug did not always fully numb the pain of the patient. In the past, lethal injection was administered using a barbiturate, which is any of a type of sedative and sleep-inducing drugs derived from barbituric acid. Midazolam, is not of this class, but rather is a benzodiazepine, which is of any type of heterocyclic organic compounds. Drugs such as these are meant to merely reduce anxiety, not pain. States that have used the drug midazolam have had instances where the prisoner, who was believed to be unconscious, would begin to move and struggle in pain when the next drugs were administered (“GLOSSIP V.

Midazolam is used due to shortages of lethal injection drugs available (Uffalussy). Evidence from experts proved that the dosage was high enough to mask any pain that would result from the process of lethal injection. Experts supporting the prisoners conceded that they had no scientific proof to disprove the claim (“Glossip V.