Provem cruel and unusual
Part of the beauty of the Bill of Rights is that it doesn't leave much wiggle room for the government in its duty to respect individual rights. It doesn't suggest anything. Rather, each amendment emphatically defines what the government "shall not" do. And, that list of rights is not confined to those specifically addressed in the document.
So it is with the Eighth Amendment: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted."
Oklahoma officials thus have much to answer for in the badly botched execution Tuesday night of murderer Clayton D. Lockett. After being injected with the first part of a lethal drug combination, Lockett writhed in pain for 20 minutes before dying of a heart attack 43 minutes after the procedure began.
Lethal injection is the method of choice now in most states because it is supposed to best comply with the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
Many states have suspended capital punishment over concerns about whether the procedure actually meets the constitutional standard, and most doctors refuse to participate in the practice because it violates their oath to "first, do no harm."
Oklahoma forged ahead despite concerns about the drug cocktail that was used.
Lockett was a brutal criminal, having killed a woman by shooting her and burying her alive. So, sentiment expressed by many that he got what he deserved has some resonance at the visceral level.
But the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment keeps the society above that level, where it must remain. The case for capital punishment already has been diminished by the frequent dismissal of charges against people already on death row and the impossibility of uniformly fair application. This case of cruel and unusual punishment weakens it further.