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

The Supreme Court in Glossip v. Gross required defendants to provide an alternative method of execution to succeed in a cruel and unusual punishment claim, reflecting nuanced standards under the Eighth Amendment.

Step-by-step explanation:

In Glossip v. Gross, the Supreme Court seemingly added a specific requirement to death penalty cases concerning claims of cruel and unusual punishment. Defendants must now provide a known, available alternative method of execution that significantly reduces the risk of severe pain compared to the state's proposed method, in order to succeed on a cruel and unusual punishment claim.

This is in alignment with the Court's evolving standards on what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. Since the Furman v. Georgia ruling in 1972, there has been an ongoing debate about the constitutionality and humaneness of various forms of capital punishment, with the Supreme Court eventually allowing the death penalty under certain circumstances, such as the Gregg v. Georgia decision, assuming specific guidelines are followed. The rulings demonstrate a balance between the expansion of rights and governmental interests.