Supreme Court: Brief Service Breaks Do Not Bar Ad Hoc Employees From Regularisation || SC: Arbitral Awards May Be Challenged By Legal Representatives Only U/S 34, Not Via Article 227 || SC Stressed Caution in Uniformed Service Appointments and Restored Dismissal of an Unfit Constable || Supreme Court: Higher Qualifications Cannot Replace the Required Minimum Experience Criteria || Delhi High Court: Bank's Guard Post Involves Handling Arms, Strict Background Disclosure is Essential || Delhi High Court: CARA Must Obtain Foreign Clearances Before Issuing NOC For Inter-Country Adoption || Punjab & Haryana HC: Grounds of Arrest Need Not Be Reissued For a Second Arrest in the Same FIR || Chhattisgarh HC: Valid Caste Certificate Required To Prove SC/ST Act Offences; Oral Claim Not Enough || Supreme Court Directs Preventive Detention to Curb Illegal Mining in Chambal Sanctuary || SC: Courts Must Frame Points For Determination and Give Reasoned Judgments in Ex Parte Cases

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 :