SC: ‘Abandonment of Service is Not Voluntary Retirement’, Denying SBI Clerk Pension Benefits || Supreme Court: Stranger Affected by an Interim Order is Entitled to be Impleaded in Writ Proceedings || Supreme Court: Courts Cannot Replace an Authority’s Discretion, and Sets Aside Direction to Governor || SC: Title Suit Hit by Constructive Res Judicata if Omitted in Prior Injunction Suit Disputing Title || SC Clarifies Whether a Co-Operative Society Can Act as a Resolution Applicant under the IBC || Chhattisgarh High Court: Innocent Litigants Should Not be Penalized For Lapses by Their Lawyers || Delhi High Court: Marriage With the Victim Cannot Absolve an Accused of Rape under POCSO || J&K&L HC: Acquisition Lapses if 80% Compensation is Unpaid Before Possession under Section 17A || Delhi HC: Policy Number is Not Mandatory For LIC Details under RTI, But Basic Details are Required || SC: Courts Must Curb Unlicensed Money Lenders; Probes Need Not Wait For New Law

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 :