Supreme Court: SC/ST Act Does Not Apply to Alleged Casteist Abuse Inside a Private House || Supreme Court: Frictionless Relationship Between the Bar and the Bench Strengthens Justice Delivery || Delhi High Court: Eviction From Jhuggis With Rehabilitation Does Not Violate Article 21 || Madras HC: Courts Cannot Remain Silent When Single Disputed Vote Could Determine Government’s Fate || Allahabad HC Blamed State and Police For Delays and Ordered Reforms to Tackle “Tarikh Pe Tarikh” || Supreme Court: Banks Cannot Invoke IBC Against Debtors For Builder-Linked Loans || Supreme Court: Non-Disclosure of Failed Candidates’ Marks Does Not Imply They Passed Exams || Supreme Court: Murder Accused Cannot Inherit Property of the Person Allegedly Killed || Supreme Court: Delay in Deposit Does Not Automatically Cancel Contracts under Specific Relief Act || SC: Railways is Treated as a Consumer under the Electricity Act, Not a Distribution Licensee

Glossip et al. v. Gross et al - (29 Jun 2015)

Use of midazolam does not violate Eighth Amendment of Constitution

Criminal

Hearing a petition against the use of midazolam by the State of Oklahoma in carrying out the death penalty, the United States Supreme Court held that the Petitioners had failed to establish that its use would create a demonstrated risk of severe pain. It added, Oklahoma did not have access to alternatives, and the Petitioners themselves had failed to suggest a more appropriate substitute. Midazolam is the first of three drugs used in carrying out executions by lethal injection. It came to be used by State authorities after previous drugs, like sodium thiopental, used to induce a state of unconsciousness in the inmate were prevented from being used in executions.

Tags : DEATH ROW EXECUTION MIDAZOLAM

Share :