L'incerto futuro dei metodi di esecuzione della pena di morte negli Stati Uniti. Scenari emergenti e prospettive dopo la sentenza "Glossip v. Gross"

Translated title of the contribution: The uncertain future of capital punishment execution methods in the United States: emerging scenarios and perspectives in the aftermath of Glossip v. Gross

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

This Article discusses the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2015 case Glossip v. Gross. The case dealt with the compatibility of the use of Midazolam, a mild anesthetic used as the initial drug in Oklahoma’s execution protocol, with the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution (prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments). In so doing, the essay recounts the history of execution methods in America, first developed and then abandoned in search of the most humane method of imposing death as the ultimate criminal penalty. The advent of lethal injection seemed to provide the final answer. However, recent difficulties faced by non-abolitionist States in obtaining drugs used in executions by lethal injections have put everything into question.
Translated title of the contributionThe uncertain future of capital punishment execution methods in the United States: emerging scenarios and perspectives in the aftermath of Glossip v. Gross
Original languageItalian
Pages (from-to)198-233
JournalRivista Italiana di Diritto e Procedura Penale
Volume60
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - 01 Jul 2017

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'The uncertain future of capital punishment execution methods in the United States: emerging scenarios and perspectives in the aftermath of Glossip v. Gross'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this