Question

in glossip, the court seemed to add a requirement to death penalty cases requiring the defendant to provide what, in order to succeed on a cruel and unusual punishment claim?

Answer 1

In capital punishment cases such as Glossip v. Gross, the Supreme Court requires defendants to present an alternative method of execution in order to succeed in a cruel and unusual punishment claim under the Eighth Amendment.

Step-by-step explanation:

In the case of Glossip v. Gross, the Supreme Court introduced an additional requirement for defendants challenging execution methods based on the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. To succeed in such a claim, the defendant must not only demonstrate that the proposed method is cruel but must also present a known and available alternative method that significantly diminishes the risk of severe pain.

This requirement places an added burden on inmates seeking to challenge the constitutionality of execution methods by imposing the obligation to suggest a feasible and less painful alternative. The introduction of this criterion in Glossip v. Gross adds a layer of complexity to claims against execution methods, potentially making it more challenging for inmates to successfully argue that the chosen method violates the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.