Supreme Court: Driving Licence Renewal After a Gap Will Not Take Effect From Expiry Date || Supreme Court: High Courts Cannot Quash Cheque Bounce Cases by Pre-Trial Inquiry Into Liability || Supreme Court: Passport Renewal Cannot be Denied if Trial Court Has Permitted it Despite Pending Case || SC: Delay in Depositing Sale Balance Does not Make Specific Performance Decree Inexecutable || Supreme Court: Non-Compete Fees Qualify as Deductible Revenue Expenditure under Income Tax Act || Supreme Court: Section 311 CrPC Should be Invoked Sparingly, Only When Evidence is Vital || J&K&L High Court: Successive Bail Applications Can Be Filed Even Without Change in Circumstances || Kerala HC: Fresh Arbitration Notice is Required For Second Arbitration After Prior Award Set Aside || NCLT Hyderabad: Mortgaging Property Without Lending Money Does Not Constitute Financial Debt || Supreme Court: Vacancies From Resignations under CUSAT Act Must Follow Communal Rotation

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 :