Calling the Situation Grim, the Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance of Delays in NCLT Approvals || Supreme Court: Admission of a Claim by a Resolution Professional is Not Debt Acknowledgment || Supreme Court: Public Figures Must Exercise Caution as Their Words Have Consequences in Society || SC: State Must Act as a Model Employer, Criticising the Union For Not Regularising ISRO Workers || J&K&L High Court: Minor Minerals Have Major Environmental Impacts and Must be Regulated || Del HC: Unexplained Money Received by Public Servant is Not Bribery Without Proof of Official Favour || Del HC: There is No Absolute Bar on Granting Co-Convicts Parole/Furlough Together in Suitable Cases || Bom HC: LARR Authority Can Examine Limitation Issues in Land Acquisition References under 2013 Act || MP HC: Long-Serving Employees Cannot Be Denied Regularisation by Retrospective Statutory Amendments || J&K&L HC: Routine Challenges to Lok Adalat Awards Defeat Their Purpose of Quick Dispute Resolution

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 :