Baze v. Rees
Baze was convicted of murder and sentenced to death by a Kentucky state court. After exhausting his state and federal appeals, Baze was required, under Kentucky law, to choose a method of execution: electrocution or lethal injection. Baze refused to choose, which meant that lethal injection would be used as the default method. Baze sought a declaratory judgment that the lethal injection method of execution violates his federal and state rights to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. A Kentucky court held a bench trial to determine the legality of the lethal injection protocol in which seventeen depositions were presented and twenty witnesses were called to testify, including various Department of Corrections personnel, physicians, issues advocates and researchers. The court held that the protocol was legal.
The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed. The Court concluded that the lethal injection protocol was not cruel in part because the prisoner was sedated before receiving the injection of lethal drugs; the fact that the prisoner might feel some pain did not violate the Eighth Amendment because the Amendment does not require a complete absence of pain.
Questions Presented:
I. Does the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibit means for carrying out a method of execution that create an unnecessary risk of pain and suffering as opposed to only a substantial risk of the wanton infliction of pain?
II. Do the means for carrying out an execution cause an unnecessary risk of pain and suffering in violation of the Eighth Amendment upon a showing that readily available alternatives that pose less risk of pain and suffering could be used?
III. Does the continued use of sodium thiopental, pancuronium bromide, and potassium chloride, individually or together, violate the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment because lethal injections can be carried out by using other chemicals that pose less risk of pain and suffering?
IV. When it is known that the effects of the chemicals could be reversed if the proper actions are taken, does substantive due process require a state to be prepared to maintain life in case a stay of execution is granted after the lethal injection chemicals are injected?
