Supreme Court: Right to a Speedy Trial Cannot Override NDPS Act Bail Conditions || SC: Relatives Cannot be Implicated in Bigamy Solely Based on Knowledge of a Second Marriage || Supreme Court: Service Inam Land Attached to a Mosque Constitutes Waqf Property and is Inalienable || Supreme Court: Court Cannot Order an Accused to Surrender While Denying Anticipatory Bail || Supreme Court: Landlord’s Legal Heirs May Amend an Eviction Suit to Include Bona Fide Need || Supreme Court: Unsuccessful Party Can Invoke Section 9 of the Arbitration Act Even After an Award || Karnataka High Court: Accused Cannot be Required to Share Live GPS Location as a Condition of Bail || Guj HC: Plaintiff in Specific Performance Suit Must Prove Readiness &Willingness to Perform Contract || Madras HC: Transgenders are Children of God, Tragedy Lies in Society’s Blindness, Not Their Birth || Del HC: False Educational Qualification Declaration does not amount to Corrupt Practice U/S 123(4)

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 :