I was watching an episode of the TV show Oz last night, which got me thinking about the death penalty as it’s applied in the US.
I know that in and of itself, the death penalty isn’t automatically considered “cruel and unusual punishment” (depending on the state), and that various methods have been declared “cruel and unusual” in and of themselves- again, varying by state.
Anyway, just a quick one: Could a condemned inmate with a real and genuine phobia of needles (not just a “I don’t like needles”, but genuinely phobic to the point of hysteria), sentenced to death in a state where lethal injection is the sole legal method of execution, claim that this punishment is cruel and unusual because of the psychological terror induced by needles (separate from the death penalty itself)?
I suspect the answer is “Probably not”, but if anyone would know, I figured it would be someone here.
IANAL, but I would have to say no, it is neither cruel nor unusual. The prohibition concerns the punishment only. It doesn’t say anything about the person’s reaction to the punishment.
IANAL neither but the quote provided by Sgt Schwartz basically covers it.
Most people have some kind of fear of death. Very few people want to die, so if cruel and unusual punishment would apply to fear of needles for those due to be punished by lethal injection, it would apply to basically apply to any form used to punish by death.
When I was six I received an electric shock from the outlet. If I were sentenced to the electric chair it would be super cruel knowing I was going to have electricity running through my body.
It goes on from there. However, your question had me think for a brief second, making this a pretty good question. Perhaps one of the resident Dope Lawyers will come across with a good case pertaining to your question. I would assume something like it has been tried before.
“In Washington, a 410-pound convicted killer is fighting his execution on constitutional grounds. He claims that, if he is hanged, his head will be completely torn from his body, which would amount to “cruel and unusual punishment.” Now, having your head completely torn from your body is cruel, I’ll grant you, but is it really that unusual?”
A related question, if I may: I have long wondered how US constitutional scholars interpret the therm cruel and unusual punishment. Does it refer to punishment that is cruel and punishment that is unusual, or to punishment that is cruel as well as unusual? (in the second case state would be allowed to torture people provided that it did so often enough, wouldn’t it?)
Basically, no. It must violate one or the other. For example, the court cannot sentence you to being bludgeoned to death, because our society determines that is cruel. Niether can the court decide that [B]tschild**, for example, be sentanced to being drawn and quartered. A specific punishment for a specific person is forbidden. Also, a person may not be used as an object lesson for other people. That would also be unusual. Society and the courts will determine what is cruel.
Short answer, cruelty cannot become the norm. That is what I defend against.
