Capital Defense Weekly

Baze: first reaction

With no clear opinion, Baze v. Rees is now decided. This is a loss for two former clients, but in some ways Baze appears to signal a sharp turn away from the Rehnquist Court’s capital jurisprudence.

Lyle Denniston sums up the opinion succinctly:

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.’s plurality opinion said that a death-row inmate cannot win a challenge to an execution protocol “merely by showing a slightly or marginally safe alternative.” Instead, there must be proof that the options available must prevent a “substantial risk of serious harm.” A state is free to choose a procedure, Roberts wrote, if it is shown to be “feasible, readily implemented, and in fact significantly reduce[s] a substantial risk of severe pain.” The opinion then added: “If a state refuses to adopt such an alternative in the face of these documented advantages, without a legitimate penological justification for adhering to its current method of execution, then a state’s refusal to change its method can be viewed as ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ under the Eighth Amendment.”

The Court concluded, though, that the existing protocol in Kentucky — the state involved in this case — did not violate the Constitution. The Court rejected the challenge by two Kentucky inmates that the state improperly administers the first drug in the three-chemical protocol — sodium thiopental, which is used to make the inmate unconscious. The Court said it agreed with “the state trial court and the State Supreme Court [in Kentucky]…that petitioners have not shown that the risk of an inadequate dose of he first drug is substantial.” The Court also rejected the inmates’ argument that the Eighth Amendment required the state to adopt a one-drug protocol, which the Court called an ”untested alternative.”

The meat of what this opinion really means is in the dicta, on page 23 of the Chief Justice’s plurality opinion:

Reasonable people of good faith disagree on the morality and efficacy of capital punishment, and for many who oppose it, no method of execution would ever be acceptable. But as Justice Frankfurter stressed in Resweber, “[o]ne must be on guard against finding in personal disapproval a reflection of more or less prevailing condemnation.” 329 U. S., at 471 (concurring opinion). This Court has ruled that capital punishment is not prohibited under our Constitution, and that the States may enact laws specifying that sanction. “[T]he power of a State to pass laws means little if the State cannot enforce them.” McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U. S. 467, 491 (1991). State efforts to implement capital punishment must certainly comply with the Eighth Amendment, but what that Amendment prohibits is wanton exposure to “objectively intolerable risk,” Farmer, 511 U. S., at 846, and n. 9, not simply the possibility of pain

As to the future of lethal injection protocol challenges, future challenges may well be had.

[W]e reject petitioners’ proposed “unnecessary risk” standard, as well as the dissent’s “untoward” risk variation. See post, at 2, 11 (opinion of GINSBURG, J.)

Instead, the proffered alternatives must effectively address a “substantial risk of serious harm.” Farmer, supra, at 842. To qualify, the alternative procedure must be feasible, readily implemented, and in fact significantly reduce a substantial risk of severe pain. If a State refuses to adopt such an alternative in the face of these documented advantages, without a legitimate penological justification for adhering to its current method of execution, then a State’s refusal to change its method can be viewed as “cruel and unusual” under the Eighth Amendment.

and p22

A stay of execution may not be granted on grounds such as those asserted here unless the condemned prisoner establishes that the State’s lethal injection protocol creates a demonstrated risk of severe pain. He must show that the risk is substantial when compared to the known and available alternatives. A State with a lethal injection protocol substantially similar to the protocol we uphold today would not create a risk that meets this standard.

And pages 11- 12 of Justice Stevens’ concurring opinion:

At the same time, however, as the thoughtful opinions by THE CHIEF JUSTICE and JUSTICE GINSBURG make pellucidly clear, our society has moved away from public and painful retribution towards ever more humane forms of punishment. State-sanctioned killing is therefore becoming more and more anachronistic. In an attempt to bring executions in line with our evolving standards of decency, we have adopted increasingly less painful methods of execution, and then declared previous methods barbaric and archaic. But by requiring that an execution be relatively painless, we necessarily protect the inmate from enduring any punishment that is comparable to the suffering inflicted on his victim.16 This trend, while appropriate and required by the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, actually under- mines the very premise on which public approval of the retribution rationale is based. See, e.g., Kaufman-Osborn, Regulating Death: Capital Punishment and the Late Liberal State, 111 Yale L. J. 681, 704 (2001) (explaining that there is “a tension between our desire to realize the claims of retribution by killing those who kill, and . . . a method [of execution] that, because it seems to do no harm other than killing, cannot satisfy the intuitive sense of equivalence that informs this conception of justice”); A. Sarat, When the State Kills: Capital Punishment and the American Condition 60–84 (2001).

Full recognition of the diminishing force of the principal rationales for retaining the death penalty should lead this Court and legislatures to reexamine the question recently posed by Professor Salinas, a former Texas prosecutor and judge: “Is it time to Kill the Death Penalty?” See Salinas, 34 Am. J. Crim. L. 39 (2006). The time for a dispassionate, impartial comparison of the enormous costs that death penalty litigation imposes on society with the benefits that it produces has surely arrived.

Doug Berman notes succinctly:

In part because the Baze decision provides a little something for everyone, the Baze decision’s true impact will largely be decided by local officials (including state judges and “local” federal district judges). Those local officials eager to get executions going again will have new wind behind the sails of an argument that standard lethal injection protocols are constitutionally sound; those local officials content with the de facto moratorium status quo can use various parts of Baze to justify claims that everyone should go slow as officials re-examine execution protocols in light of the Supreme Court’s new guidance in Baze.

In part because the Baze decision’s true impact will largely be decided by local officials, the politics and practicalities of the death penalty can, should and likely will now largely return to where they belong — namely in the hands of local officials, most of whom are elected and politically accountable. I often view the death penalty in America as an example of modern federalism at its finest: states with an affinity for the death penalty can spend (waste?) a lot of time and money on capital cases, while states less excited about this punishment can reject its use de jure or de facto in various ways.

My apologies for any delayed reaction, I’ve been at a family funeral.