Show simple item record

dc.contributor
dc.contributor.author Berger, Eric
dc.date.accessioned 2016-10-12T15:42:06Z
dc.date.available 2016-10-12T15:42:06Z
dc.date.issued 2016-10
dc.identifier.citation 91 Wash. L. Rev. 929 (2016) en_US
dc.identifier.issn 0043-0617
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/1773.1/1618
dc.description Volume 91, Number 3, October 2016 en_US
dc.description.abstract Associate Dean for Faculty and Professor of Law, University of Nebraska College of Law. Abstract: Glossip v. Gross epitomizes judicial deference gone berserk. In rejecting an Eighth Amendment challenge to Oklahoma’s lethal injection protocol, the United States Supreme Court rested its holding on several forms of deference. Closer examination demonstrates that each of these unsupported deference determinations was, at best, contestable and, at worst, simply wrong. Far from being anomalous, such under-theorized deference reflects more generally the Court’s willingness to utilize various stealth determinations to manipulate outcomes in constitutional cases. The understandable concern that frivolous lethal injection challenges will clog courts and delay executions likely motivated the Court’s approach. Remarkably, though, the Court did not even attempt to distinguish humane execution protocols from dangerous ones. Many states, including Oklahoma, have repeatedly shown that they cannot be trusted to implement lethal injection procedures carefully. The Court’s deference turned a blind eye to this history and upheld a manifestly dangerous execution procedure. In so doing, the Court tried to shut down an entire category of litigation, thereby abdicating its constitutional responsibility to safeguard individual rights. Regardless of one’s views on capital punishment, Glossip v. Gross’s reflexive deference determinations collectively amount to gross error. en_US
dc.language.iso en_US en_US
dc.publisher Seattle: Washington Law Review, University of Washington School of Law en_US
dc.subject Article en_US
dc.title [91WashLRev0929] Gross Error en_US
dc.title.alternative Gross Error en_US
dc.type Article en_US
dc.rights.holder Copyright 2016 by Washington Law Review Association. en_US


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search digital.law


Advanced Search

Browse

My Account