This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/21/us/politics/supreme-court-sotomayor-thomas-arthur-death-row-appeal.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Supreme Court Rejects Alabama Death Row Inmate’s Appeal Supreme Court Rejects Alabama Death Row Inmate’s Appeal
(35 minutes later)
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court turned down an appeal on Tuesday from an Alabama death row inmate who said the state intended to kill him using chemicals that could cause excruciating pain. As is the court’s custom, the justices in the majority gave no reasons for declining to hear the case.WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court turned down an appeal on Tuesday from an Alabama death row inmate who said the state intended to kill him using chemicals that could cause excruciating pain. As is the court’s custom, the justices in the majority gave no reasons for declining to hear the case.
But Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, issued an impassioned 18-page dissent. She said the inmate, Thomas D. Arthur, should have been allowed to make the case that one of the chemicals in Alabama’s lethal injection protocol, the sedative midazolam, could contribute to “prolonged torture.”But Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, issued an impassioned 18-page dissent. She said the inmate, Thomas D. Arthur, should have been allowed to make the case that one of the chemicals in Alabama’s lethal injection protocol, the sedative midazolam, could contribute to “prolonged torture.”
In 2015, a five-justice majority in a different lethal-injection case, Glossip v. Gross, issued what Justice Sotomayor called “a macabre challenge.” (Justices Sotomayor and Breyer were among the four dissenting justices in the case.) The majority said that inmates seeking to challenge a method of execution not only had to prove that it would cause severe pain but also had to propose a “known and available” way to be executed. In 2015, a five-justice majority in a different lethal injection case, Glossip v. Gross, issued what Justice Sotomayor called “a macabre challenge.” (Justices Sotomayor and Breyer were among the four dissenting justices in the case.) The majority said that inmates seeking to challenge a method of execution not only had to prove that it would cause severe pain but also had to propose a “known and available” way to be executed.
Mr. Arthur killed his girlfriend’s husband in 1982. “After 34 years of legal challenges,” Justice Sotomayor wrote, “Arthur has accepted that he will die for his crimes. He now challenges only how the state will be permitted to kill him.”Mr. Arthur killed his girlfriend’s husband in 1982. “After 34 years of legal challenges,” Justice Sotomayor wrote, “Arthur has accepted that he will die for his crimes. He now challenges only how the state will be permitted to kill him.”
Mr. Arthur asked that he be executed by a firing squad, which is, experts say, a quick, painless and seldom botched method of execution.Mr. Arthur asked that he be executed by a firing squad, which is, experts say, a quick, painless and seldom botched method of execution.
But the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, in Atlanta, ruled that the alternative was not “known and available,” because it was not authorized by Alabama law. That ruling, Justice Sotomayor wrote, was at odds with the Constitution.But the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, in Atlanta, ruled that the alternative was not “known and available,” because it was not authorized by Alabama law. That ruling, Justice Sotomayor wrote, was at odds with the Constitution.
“Under this view,” she wrote, “even if a prisoner can prove that the state plans to kill him in an intolerably cruel manner, and even if he can prove that there is a feasible alternative, all a state has to do to execute him through an unconstitutional method is to pass a statute declining to authorize any alternative method. This cannot be right.”“Under this view,” she wrote, “even if a prisoner can prove that the state plans to kill him in an intolerably cruel manner, and even if he can prove that there is a feasible alternative, all a state has to do to execute him through an unconstitutional method is to pass a statute declining to authorize any alternative method. This cannot be right.”
She said she questioned whether the Alabama law in fact barred the use of firing squads, because it authorized “any constitutional method of execution” if either of the two specified methods, lethal injection and electrocution, were declared unconstitutional.She said she questioned whether the Alabama law in fact barred the use of firing squads, because it authorized “any constitutional method of execution” if either of the two specified methods, lethal injection and electrocution, were declared unconstitutional.
The larger point, she said, was that the appeals court’s decision shut down an important discussion.The larger point, she said, was that the appeals court’s decision shut down an important discussion.
“The decision below is all the more troubling because it would put an end to an ongoing national conversation — between the legislatures and the courts — around the methods of execution the Constitution tolerates,” Justice Sotomayor wrote in her dissent in the case, Arthur v. Dunn, No. 16-602.“The decision below is all the more troubling because it would put an end to an ongoing national conversation — between the legislatures and the courts — around the methods of execution the Constitution tolerates,” Justice Sotomayor wrote in her dissent in the case, Arthur v. Dunn, No. 16-602.
She added that there is scientific and anecdotal evidence to question the use of midazolam in executions.She added that there is scientific and anecdotal evidence to question the use of midazolam in executions.
“Like a hangman’s poorly tied noose or a malfunctioning electric chair,” Justice Sotomayor wrote, “midazolam might render our latest method of execution too much for our conscience — and the Constitution — to bear.”“Like a hangman’s poorly tied noose or a malfunctioning electric chair,” Justice Sotomayor wrote, “midazolam might render our latest method of execution too much for our conscience — and the Constitution — to bear.”
“Condemned prisoners, like Arthur, might find more dignity in an instantaneous death rather than prolonged torture on a medical gurney,” she wrote.“Condemned prisoners, like Arthur, might find more dignity in an instantaneous death rather than prolonged torture on a medical gurney,” she wrote.