WASHINGTON (BP)--The U.S. Supreme Court debated the constitutionality of the country's most common form of capital punishment Jan. 7, only three weeks after a state outlawed the death penalty for the first time in more than three decades.

The high court heard oral arguments in a case out of Kentucky in which two death row inmates challenged the state's method of lethal injection as "cruel and unusual punishment," thereby violating the Constitution's Eighth Amendment.

Kentucky is one of 36 states that use a three-drug protocol to execute prisoners. Sodium pentothal, pancuronium bromide and potassium chloride are used to render the inmate unconscious, cause paralysis and stop the heart, respectively.

The case, Baze v. Rees, concerns the constitutionality of a method of execution, not capital punishment itself, but it came on the heels of New Jersey becoming the first state since 1976 to abolish the death penalty. The Supreme Court ruled that year that states could reinstate capital punishment. New Jersey reinstituted the death penalty in 1982 but never executed anyone in the 25 years that followed.

On Dec. 17, New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine, a Democrat, signed into law a bill replacing the death penalty with life imprisonment without parole. Corzine said in a written statement he was "moved by the passionate views on both sides of this issue, and I firmly believe that replacing the death penalty with life in prison without parole best captures our State's highest values and reflects our best effort to search for true justice."

The Southern Baptist Convention approved a resolution at its 2000 meeting supporting the "fair and equitable use of capital punishment by civil magistrates as a legitimate form of punishment for those guilty of murder or treasonous acts that result in death." In support of its position, the resolution cited God's authorization in Genesis 9 of capital punishment for murder and Romans 13's approval of the death penalty as "a just and appropriate means" to be used by government authorities.

The resolution called for capital punishment to be used only where there is "clear and overwhelming evidence of guilt" and "as justly and as fairly as possible without undue delay, without reference to race, class or status of the guilty." It also urged the government to utilize "humane means."

"In that resolution, the messengers made it clear that they believe the Bible teaches that God has given the civil authorities the power to use capital punishment," said Barrett Duke, vice president of public policy for the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC). "We are also keenly aware of the potential for irregularities and inconsistency in its application. As a result, we call for clear and overwhelming evidence of guilt and also equity in its application.

"Capital punishment is a very serious matter," Duke said. "The civil authorities must do all they can to assure appropriate legal protections for those who face it. They must also make sure that even as they exact the ultimate penalty, they do so in a manner that is respectful of the life they are taking. Everyone is created in God's image. That image deserves all the respect we can give it, even in capital punishment."

Some justices on the high court seemed to indicate during oral arguments Jan. 7 they believe the three-drug method is constitutional, while others questioned whether there was enough evidence to show the protocol needed to be banned, according to The Washington Post.

"I'm at sea. You claim that this is somehow more painful than some other method. But which? And what's the evidence for that?" Associate Justice Stephen Breyer told Donald Verrilli, a Washington lawyer who represented the prisoners, The Post reported.

The three-drug protocol can be administered without causing pain, but there is evidence there can be problems, Verrilli said, according to The Post. "That is why in the state of Kentucky it's unlawful to euthanize animals in the way that it carries out its executions," he told the justices.

Associate Justice Antonin Scalia disagreed when it was suggested the court could return the case to the lower court for a comparison between the three-drug method and other techniques.

That "could take years," Scalia said, The Post reported. "Where does this come from, that ... in the execution of a person who has been convicted of killing people we must choose the least painful method possible? Is that somewhere in our Constitution?"

Death row prisoners Ralph Baze and Thomas Bowling challenged the method. Both men were convicted of double homicides and given the death penalty in Kentucky. Baze killed a Powell County deputy and sheriff, while Bowling murdered a couple with a young son.

The ERLC provides explanations of the biblical arguments in support of capital punishment at its website, www.erlc.com.

Comment on this Story