“Kentucky’s continued use of the three-drug protocol cannot be viewed as posing an ‘objectively intolerable risk’ when no other state has adopted the one-drug method and petitioners have proffered no study showing that it is an equally effective manner of imposing a death sentence.”
This statement, however, disgusts me. What does the testing of an alternative method have to do with the question before the Court: is the three-drug protocol a violation of the 8th Amendment? I’m having trouble coming up with an appropriate metaphor to describe Roberts’ thought process here. If you come up with something, please let me know.
