Lethal Injection: California Reform "On April 29, 2014, Oklahoma prison officials administered an untested mixture of three drugs to Clayton Lockett, a convicted murderer and rapist” (Greenberg 1). “The execution went immediately and terrifyingly wrong. Following administration of the first drug, Lockett, obviously conscious, started to writhe and groan, and then went into convulsions” (1). This is one example of the many botched executions that have occurred in recent history. With the possibility of an execution going as badly as Lockett’s, we must ask if we are violating the US constitution. The 8th amendment states, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted” (amend. XIII). …show more content…
She researched the similarities and differences between trends in mass incarceration and capital punishment. In her article “The Death Penalty and Mass Incarceration: Convergences and Divergences” she states, “Several polices central to the rise of mass incarceration have helped to promote the retention of capital punishment at the abstract level of theory and discourse” (194). Carol Steiker showed attitudes towards crime and punishment shifted to a more swift and severe approach, “In this atmosphere, the death penalty became a particularly potent symbol, offering politicians a way to signal in powerful shorthand their claims of toughness” (192). Politicians pushed for severe punishments as a way evidenced by the reinstatement of the death penalty. The political push for capital punishment the 60’s continued on into the 70’s. In 1972 California passed proposition 17 which amended the California constitution to state, “The death penalty provided for under those statutes shall not be deemed to be, or to constitute, the infliction of cruel or unusual punishments within the meaning of Article I, Section 6 nor shall such punishment for such offenses be deemed to contravene any other provision of this constitution” (CA Const. Art. 1 Sec. …show more content…
District judge, ruled the use of cyanide gas was cruel and unusual punishment and barred the state from using that method of execution” (CA Dept. Corrections par. 25). Cyanide gas was determined to be cruel and unusual on the basis of asphyxiation. With the removal of gas chambers, lethal injection became the primary form of execution in the state. The appeals process continued on and death penalty sentences showed no signs of slowing. All executions would come to a halt in 2006 when, condemned inmate Michael Angelo Morales’ execution was stayed because of his claim that California’s administration of its lethal injection protocol would subject him to an unnecessary risk of excessive pain and violate the Eighth Amendment” (par. 27). This court case created a de facto moratorium on the death penalty in California until the implementation can be “fixed.” Since this date there have been zero executions administered. While no executions have taken place, the death sentence has been continuous in its use as a verdict. This has proven to only add to the backlog of court cases to be heard by the California Supreme Court. Scott Howe observed the increase in death penalty sentences, such as “In 2009, California trial courts imposed twenty-nine new death sentences and, in 2010, there were thirty-three” (1462). A court case in Kentucky would give life back to capital punishment around the