Supreme Court: After the BNSS, a Pre-Cognizance Hearing is Mandatory in PMLA Cases || SC: Landowners Cannot be Forced to Waive Statutory Compensation to Claim Other Benefits || Supreme Court: Banks are Lenient With Big Borrowers But Strict With Ordinary Loan Applicants || Delhi HC: Minimum Wages During Pending Litigation Cannot be Frozen and Must be Updated Periodically || Kerala HC: ICC Can Probe Sexual Harassment Complaint Against a Director Not Controlling Affairs || Delhi HC: Interim Protection From Blacklisting Does Not Remove Bidder’s Duty to Disclose in Tenders || Allahabad HC: After the BNSS, Pre-Cognizance Hearing of the Accused is Mandatory in NDPS Complaints || Delhi HC: Husband Cannot Avoid Maintenance For Wife and Children by Claiming Irregular Income || SC: Repeated Anticipatory Bail Pleas Abuse Process and Reduce Litigation to a Gamble || Supreme Court: State Officers Cannot Back Litigants Through Affidavits Against the 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 :