NH death penalty: cruel and unusual?

The public defender for New Hampshire’s only death row inmate has filed an appeal that claims lethal injection in New Hampshire is “cruel and unusual.”

The Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishment. 

David Rothstein, the public defender, argues several aspects of lethal injection may violate the Eighth Amendment:

• The anesthetic drug used to render the prisoner unconscious might wear off before death
• Due to a European export ban, the anesthetic required by New Hampshire law is increasingly unavailable, leading states to experiment with similar but potentially less effective drugs
• A paralytic drug used is unnecessary and makes it impossible for the prisoner to move and express pain if there is a problem with the injection
• Three recent executions demonstrate how mishandled injections can cause the prisoner great suffering
• New Hampshire has no experience administering lethal injections, so the risk of error is unacceptably high

However, in 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court rejected several of these arguments in a case that challenged Kentucky’s lethal injections.

“Some risk of pain is inherent in any method of execution—no matter how humane—if only from the prospect of error in following the required procedure,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts. “It is clear, then, that the Constitution does not demand the avoidance of all risk of pain in carrying out executions.” 

Other death penalty supporters note that opponents of lethal injection have not suggested more humane alternatives.