قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home https://server7.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/smyrwpoii/p2/ US https://server7.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/smyrwpoii/p2/ The Conservatives of the Supreme Court justified torture.

The Conservatives of the Supreme Court justified torture.

  Neil Gorsuch.

Justice Neil Gorsuch at the US Capitol January 30, 2018.

Brendan Smialowski / AFP / Getty Images [19659005] Why did Brett Kavanaugh change his mind about the rights of religious minorities at the hearing?

  • How our mathematician's cards could help SCOTUS Fix Gerrymandering

  • There are a lot of Mueller's results. We haven't heard anything about it

  • This footnote to Barr's Mueller Report Letter felt very random. Maybe it wasn't.
  • On Monday, five tribunals from the Supreme Court approved Missouri to torture a man to death. In the process, they seem to have overridden decades of eighth change precedents in an attempt to let states impose barbaric punishments, including outrageous executions on prisoners. The Court's Conservative majority has turned a one-off view of the law into the country, involving dozens of decisions protecting the rights of the inmates and young offenders. Its decision signals the end of an eighth amendment case law governed by "civilized standards" – and the beginning of a new brutal era in the US death penalty.

    Russell Bucklew is a death prison in Missouri suffering from a rare disease condition called cavernous hemangioma. Because of this disorder, his body is covered by tumors filled with blood vessels. Tumors in the Bucklew neck and neck, his lips and uvula, making it difficult for him to breathe. They are very sensitive and often spray blood. A medical expert, Dr. Joel Zivot, testifying that if Missouri administers a lethal injection to Bucklew, he will die a slow, disturbing death. His tumors will burst and fill his mouth with blood, and he will stifle to death in unbearable pain, suffocation and cramps on the gurney while he dies.

    To prevent this fate, Bucklew tried to block his execution by lethal injection and argued that it would violate the eighth change pillar against "cruel and unusual punishments." Under the two Supreme Court precedents Baze v. Rees ] and Glossip v. Gross an inmate challenging his execution method must provide an "available alternative" which will cause less pain.
    Bucklew asked to be killed with nitrogen gas so he can die of "Hypoxia", a lack of oxygen, because his death from hypoxia would be faster than his death from mortal injection.

    On Monday Bucklew against Precythe rejected the court's claim with a 5-4 vote. Justice Neil Gorsuch's statement to the court, however, does much more than condemn Bucklew to a terrible death. It also surpasses, or at least erodes, more than 60 years of precedents, including several written by Justit Anthony Kennedy. Gorsuch embraced a vision of the eighth amendment supported by Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, who have consistently been rejected as dangerously extreme by a majority of the court.

    Criminal reformers now have to wait for the second shoe for drop.

    How Gorsuch does it. Baze and Glossip he writes, declaring that if a death prison effort seeks to avoid a particular execution method, he must identify someone else who can be appropriately administered. It is true. But why does the eighth amendment prescribe such a test? In Baze and Glossip explained to the court that "because it is established that the death penalty is constitutional," there "must be" a constitutional "means of carrying it out. [B] because a risk of pain is associated with any form of execution, "the court has ruled that the constitution does not require avoidance of any risk of pain." The duty of law is then simply to ensure that states do not introduce a risky method of execution when one less painful method is at their disposal.

    In 2008, Baze and 2015 Glossip Thomas and Scalia went on. In both cases, they argued that what originally understood, only the eighth amendments of deliberately made executions more painful than they might be. As Thomas wrote in Baze an execution only violates the constitution when "terror, pain or disgrace" is "superadded." As long as a state does not "superadd" pain to an execution, it has complied with the eighth amendment. Thomas & # 39; theory would effectively close challenges to any method of execution unless an inmate had (impossible to obtain) evidence that the state sadistically and undoubtedly increased the pain of his death.

    A majority of the court did not adopt Thomas's opinion in either case. And in Bucklew Gorsuch writes that "revising this debate is not necessary here." But he does so exactly – and adopts Thomas & # 39; interpretation of eighth amendment, which effectively overrides the 60-year precedent.

    Gorsuch first gives a minitreaty about the methods of implementation that are allowed when the eighth amendment was ratified, including an unclear description of hangings. ("The force of the drop can break the throat and separate the spinal cord, making death almost instantaneous.) More often, the prisoner seems to die of blood flow to the brain, which could usually cause unconsciousness within seconds or suffocation, which may take several minutes. ") He writes that hanging was allowed because it was not" meant to be painful ", which is Thomas's test, not [test] Baze / Glossip test.

    So Gorsuch intends to prepare the actual Baze / Glossip test – and in the process of smuggling Thomas & # 39; test into it. Justice writes that, according to this standard, a prisoner must "show a feasible and easily implemented alternative execution method" when "the disputed question is whether the state of choice of the state is extremely superadds pain to the death sentence."

    Pay attention to this language: According to Gorsuch, "the disputed question" is here whether mortal injection "horrible superadds pain" to Bucklew's death. But that language does not come from Baze or Glossip . It comes from Thomas & # 39; separate opinions that were connected only to Scalia. With a nice trick, Gorsuch has transformed the "superadds pain" test from a minority point of view to binding the Supreme Court's precedent.

    Why does this matter? Because since 1958, the Supreme Court has rejected an originalist interpretation of the eighth amendment – which, however, would allow the hanging of children, including terrible punishments. Instead, the court has asked whether a punishment violates the "civilized society" evolutionary standards. " Baze and Glossip did not mention this standard, but they did not reject it either. On the contrary, by forcing states to use the less painful of two enforcement methods, the court adopted a resolutely non-originalist view of that the eighth change may require a more civilized death. Bucklew Gorsuch sobbed the logic and replaced it with Thomas & # 39; hard originalism.

    To what end? First, Gorsuch rejected Bucklew's claim, claiming he could not prove death by nitrogen being "feasible" or less painful. Second, Gorsuch cast doubt on a large number of precedents built on "evolutionary standards of decency" rule by replacing it with the "superadds pain" principle. For example, the Supreme Court's rulings on the prohibition of the execution of minors, the mentally handicapped, and those who commit non-homosexual crimes are all based on the "evolving standard of decency". So also decisions that strictly limit the introduction of life without parole to young offenders. Kennedy favored this test, which may be why he voted to block Missouri from performing Russell Bucklew in 2018. Now, Justice Minister Brett Kavanaugh has replaced Kennedy, and on Monday he gave the fifth vote to let Missouri kill Bucklew – and tacitly regret its predecessor eighth amendment case law.

    Criminal court reformers now have to wait for the other shoe to fall, to see how far Kavanaugh is willing to jump to the right. If the court succeeds Gorsuch's originalist path, it must turn Kennedy's juvenile justice decisions and allow youth life without parole again. It may happen as early as next year. The court could also allow the execution of minors, mentally handicapped people and those who committed crimes other than murder. As long as a state does not "superadd" pain, it may seem to come away with something even barbaric executions that do not intentionally cause unnecessary suffering. Welcome to our post-Kennedy death penalty case law, where legalized torture is back on the table.

    Source link