Supreme Court affirms death-penalty drug

Sponsorship

Mark Matassa Feb 6, 2018

Feb 6, 2018

Republish Article

You can republish articles in print or online. Simply copy the HTML below, which includes our tracking pixel, all paragraph styles and hyperlinks, the author byline, and credit to Cascade PBS. Republishing of the photos or videos embedded in an article can occur only if the photo or video is a copyright of Cascade Public Media ("CPM") and not of a third party. Photos and videos that are a copyright of CPM are not required to appear in the republished article, but if they are used, they must be embedded where they appear in the original article and must include the attribution to the CPM photographer.

You may reprint in any medium
You may edit only for tense and timeliness
If republishing in print you can edit for length if you follow our print republishing guidelines.
You may write your own headline
Include a byline and shirttail with credit and link to Cascade PBS
Include our tracking pixel
Remove if we ask

          <article>
            <header>
              <hgroup>
                <h1>Supreme Court affirms death-penalty drug</h1>
                <h2><p>The Court ruled against death-row plaintiffs in three cases who argued that an execution drug, the sedative midazolam, causes undue pain and suffering. In the process of reaching Monday's 5-4 decision, reports The New York Times, the justices broke into a larger argument about the death penalty itself.</p></h2>
              </hgroup>
               <p>By <a href="/author/mmatassa-mac-com/">Mark Matassa</a></p> 
              <p><time datetime="2025-02-04T05:00:00-08:00">Feb 6, 2018</time></p>
            </header>
            <p>The Court <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/30/us/supreme-court-execution-drug.html?hp=&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&ref=dev.cascadepbs.org">ruled against death-row plaintiffs</a> in three cases who argued that an execution drug, the sedative midazolam, causes undue pain and suffering. In the process of reaching Monday's 5-4 decision, reports <em>The New York Times</em>, the justices broke into a larger argument about the death penalty itself. “Rather than try to patch up the death penalty’s legal wounds one at a time,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in dissent, “I would ask for full briefing on a more basic question: whether the death penalty violates the Constitution.”</p>
          </article>

The Court ruled against death-row plaintiffs in three cases who argued that an execution drug, the sedative midazolam, causes undue pain and suffering. In the process of reaching Monday's 5-4 decision, reports The New York Times, the justices broke into a larger argument about the death penalty itself. “Rather than try to patch up the death penalty’s legal wounds one at a time,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in dissent, “I would ask for full briefing on a more basic question: whether the death penalty violates the Constitution.”

Supreme Court affirms death-penalty drug

Republish Article

By Mark Matassa