Conceptual and Scientific Defects in the Supreme Court’s “Method of Execution” Jurisprudence

The Eighth Amendment to the US Constitution prohibits the infliction of cruel and unusual punishments. However, no method of executing prisoners has ever been deemed by the Supreme Court to constitute Cruel and Unusual Punishment. Constitutional challenges to the dominant mode of executing prisoners...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dow, David R., Newberry, Jeffrey R.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: YJBM 2019
Materias:
Analyses
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6913819/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31866796
_version_ 1783479704848695296
author Dow, David R.
Newberry, Jeffrey R.
author_facet Dow, David R.
Newberry, Jeffrey R.
author_sort Dow, David R.
collection PubMed
description The Eighth Amendment to the US Constitution prohibits the infliction of cruel and unusual punishments. However, no method of executing prisoners has ever been deemed by the Supreme Court to constitute Cruel and Unusual Punishment. Constitutional challenges to the dominant mode of executing prisoners today – lethal injection – are hobbled by a lack of clinical data that would reveal the likelihood this method might inflict gratuitous pain. Here, we assess the contemporary Eighth Amendment jurisprudence, including its legal and scientific limitations, and suggest modifications.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6913819
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher YJBM
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-69138192019-12-20 Conceptual and Scientific Defects in the Supreme Court’s “Method of Execution” Jurisprudence Dow, David R. Newberry, Jeffrey R. Yale J Biol Med Analyses The Eighth Amendment to the US Constitution prohibits the infliction of cruel and unusual punishments. However, no method of executing prisoners has ever been deemed by the Supreme Court to constitute Cruel and Unusual Punishment. Constitutional challenges to the dominant mode of executing prisoners today – lethal injection – are hobbled by a lack of clinical data that would reveal the likelihood this method might inflict gratuitous pain. Here, we assess the contemporary Eighth Amendment jurisprudence, including its legal and scientific limitations, and suggest modifications. YJBM 2019-12-20 /pmc/articles/PMC6913819/ /pubmed/31866796 Text en Copyright ©2019, Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons CC BY-NC license, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. You may not use the material for commercial purposes.
spellingShingle Analyses
Dow, David R.
Newberry, Jeffrey R.
Conceptual and Scientific Defects in the Supreme Court’s “Method of Execution” Jurisprudence
title Conceptual and Scientific Defects in the Supreme Court’s “Method of Execution” Jurisprudence
title_full Conceptual and Scientific Defects in the Supreme Court’s “Method of Execution” Jurisprudence
title_fullStr Conceptual and Scientific Defects in the Supreme Court’s “Method of Execution” Jurisprudence
title_full_unstemmed Conceptual and Scientific Defects in the Supreme Court’s “Method of Execution” Jurisprudence
title_short Conceptual and Scientific Defects in the Supreme Court’s “Method of Execution” Jurisprudence
title_sort conceptual and scientific defects in the supreme court’s “method of execution” jurisprudence
topic Analyses
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6913819/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31866796
work_keys_str_mv AT dowdavidr conceptualandscientificdefectsinthesupremecourtsmethodofexecutionjurisprudence
AT newberryjeffreyr conceptualandscientificdefectsinthesupremecourtsmethodofexecutionjurisprudence

Ejemplares similares