Skip to main content

The context you need, when you need it

When news breaks, you need to understand what actually matters — and what to do about it. At Vox, our mission to help you make sense of the world has never been more vital. But we can’t do it on our own.

We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism. Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today?

Join now

Sotomayor: Oklahoma’s lethal injections are “the chemical equivalent of being burned at the stake”

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, just allowed Oklahoma to keep using its experimental lethal-injection drugs even though they could be leading to an extremely painful death. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who wrote the dissent in the case for the court’s liberal justices, thinks that this is what the decision amounts to:

[I]t leaves petitioners exposed to what may well be the chemical equivalent of being burned at the stake.

The conservative justices, led by Justice Samuel Alito, found that there was enough evidence that the drugs were safe to let the executions go forward. Sotomayor and the liberals, on the other hand, maintain that there’s a scientific consensus that the drugs Oklahoma uses can’t reliably knock someone out before killing him.


The conservatives also found that if the Oklahoma prisoners were so worried about the drugs the state is using, it was their job to come up with a safer method. That’s impossible, or nearly impossible, since the reason Oklahoma and other states have been experimenting with lethal-injection drugs is that activists have successfully pressured drug companies to stop making the drugs that have traditionally been used to sedate prisoners before execution.

So the result of the Court’s decision is that, because the safer options for lethal injection have been eliminated, prisoners will have to be subjected to the riskier options.

More in Politics

Politics
The Supreme Court just handed down two surprisingly timid Voting Rights Act decisionsThe Supreme Court just handed down two surprisingly timid Voting Rights Act decisions
Politics

Why did a Court that hates the Voting Rights Act with the intensity of a thousand suns decide to stay its hand?

By Ian Millhiser
Politics
Packing the Supreme Court is no longer a fringe ideaPacking the Supreme Court is no longer a fringe idea
Politics

But is it a good idea?

By Ian Millhiser
The Logoff
Trump gets his slush fundTrump gets his slush fund
The Logoff

How Trump sued himself and settled for $1.8 billion, briefly explained.

By Cameron Peters
Politics
Data centers could actually be good for your hometownData centers could actually be good for your hometown
Politics

The case for the buildings America loves to hate.

By Eric Levitz
America, Actually
Inside the fight over America’s data centersInside the fight over America’s data centers
Podcast
America, Actually

“The ugliest thing I’ve ever seen”: How New Jersey residents feel about a data center in their backyard.

By Astead Herndon
The Logoff
Trump’s brazen plan for a $1.7 billion slush fundTrump’s brazen plan for a $1.7 billion slush fund
The Logoff

Trump will reportedly drop his IRS lawsuit — for a price.

By Cameron Peters