LETHAL INJECTIONS RESUME IN ALABAMA  "AS SOON AS POSSIBLE"

In a 7-2 ruling, the United States Supreme Court upheld lethal injection as a method of death penalty execution.  Dozens of executions have been delayed around the country.  Alabama Attorney Troy King said that executions in Alabama would resume as soon as possible, stating: "It is time to move forward seeking the execution of the guilty for their murderous acts.  As attorney general, I will do so."  U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. issued the court's controlling opinion.

The ruling does not shut the door on future legal challenges to lethal injection in other states, but it did set a precedent that will make it more difficult for attorneys and their clients to challenge the most common method of state sanctioned execution.  Lethal injection was challenged in Kentucky due to claims that a combination of 3 chemicals in the deadly injection could cause acute pain that was not detected in the inmate.  Most states use the same methods as Kentucky, but have also adopted additional safety precautions to ensure that the inmate is properly sedated with non-lethal anesthethics before administering the lethal chemicals.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice David Souter issued the two dissenting opinions.  Ginsburg cited Alabama in her dissenting opinion as taking an extra safeguard to lower the risk of painful execution.  Alabama recently adopted this safeguard which occurs after the initial wave of non-lethal chemicals renders the inmate unconscious.  Now, during the condemned inmate's unconscious state, a prison official will speak the prisoner's name, pinch his arm and brush a finger over his eye.  If the corrections offficer determines that the inmate is indeed unconscious, then the lethal chemicals will be injected.  According to these lawsuits filed by Death Row inmates, before the addition of these steps, Alabama's lethal injection procedure was identical to Kentucky's.

The focal point of this case was not whether it was constitutional under the Eighth Amendment, which bans cruel and unusual punishment, but rather the details of the injection, such as: the training given to executioners, risk of error, and the types of lethal and non-lethal chemicals used.  The Supreme Court's decision means 35 states can resume execution by lethal injection today.  A major legal question revolved around how to evaluate the risk of a painful execution.

Attorney Mark Martin, who practiced criminal law in Alabama for 20 years stated: "Over 200 prisoners who were convicted of violent crimes have proven their innocence and been exonerated of their crimes through the use of modern DNA analysis.  This is the first time in the long history of our judicial process that we have had an objective way of testing it's effectiveness at finding the truth and thus determing guilt.  These DNA findings fly in the face of the commonly held legal belief that trial by jury is an infallible way to seek truth.  I think we need to re-think our judicial process and until we do we should be very cautious about utilizing the death penalty."

Art Richey, a political science major from Birmingham-Southern College had this to say: "I think the Supreme Court ruling dodged the major decision of the death penalty's constitutionality. The ruling displays the difficult assessment of pain measurement and the death penalty will remain a hot button issue for years to come."