Supreme Court Upholds Conviction as Husband Failed to Explain Wife’s Death in Matrimonial Home || Supreme Court: Crime Scene Re-Enactment Does Not Always Violate Right Against Self-Incrimination || Supreme Court: Cognizance Taken Without Hearing Accused under BNSS Section 223 is Void Ab Initio || Supreme Court Upholds Will in Sister’s Favour, Says Excluding Natural Heirs is Not Suspicious || Delhi HC: Absence of Public Witnesses and Videography in NDPS Recovery Relevant for Bail Decisions || Raj HC Initiates Suo Motu Cognizance Over Severe Water Crisis in Jodhpur, Issues Interim Directions || Del HC: Courts Cannot Direct, Monitor Inquiry Into Police Delay in Investigation After Bail Decision || 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

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 :