Supreme Court decisions

[Vermouth]

Is the Supreme Court starting to make their decisions on the cases they've heard this session? All I've seen in the news so far is the lethal injection decision. That seemed like a fairly straightforward case.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld Kentucky’s method of execution by lethal injection, rejecting the claim that officials there administered a common sequence of three drugs in a manner that posed an unconstitutional risk that a condemned inmate would suffer acute yet undetectable pain.

While the 7-to-2 ruling did not shut the door on challenges to the lethal injection protocols in other states, it set a standard that will not be easy to meet.

[wow]

Is the Supreme Court starting to make their decisions on the cases they've heard this session? All I've seen in the news so far is the lethal injection decision. That seemed like a fairly straightforward case.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld Kentucky’s method of execution by lethal injection, rejecting the claim that officials there administered a common sequence of three drugs in a manner that posed an unconstitutional risk that a condemned inmate would suffer acute yet undetectable pain.

While the 7-to-2 ruling did not shut the door on challenges to the lethal injection protocols in other states, it set a standard that will not be easy to meet.

This is interesting to a person that has read about the brutal murders these people on death row have committed.
It's almost an insult to consider these murderers are suffering.

[spunkloaf]

I don't get it.

A person is not allowed to avenge the death of his kin by striking revenge upon the murderer with his own hands...yet the government is permitted to do it with taxpayers' money, because it is somehow more just and humane to kill a murderer in that manner.

I say, when found guilty--leave the punishment decisions up to the victim's family.  It is so much more fair that way to all taxpayers, victims--and even murderers.

[wow]

I don't get it.

A person is not allowed to avenge the death of his kin by striking revenge upon the murderer with his own hands...yet the government is permitted to do it with taxpayers' money, because it is somehow more just and humane to kill a murderer in that manner.

I say, when found guilty--leave the punishment decisions up to the victim's family.  It is so much more fair that way to all taxpayers, victims--and even murderers.

Interesting point.
Lawyers make the laws and Lawyers make money litigating.
This looks like a conflict of interests.
Your idea is similar to Shia Islam law.