Glass v. Louisiana
471 U.S. 1080 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A method of execution violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment if it inflicts unnecessary pain, violence, and mutilation beyond the mere extinguishment of life. The constitutionality of an execution method must be evaluated based on evolving standards of decency and contemporary knowledge, not solely on antiquated precedents.
Facts:
- Jimmy L. Glass was convicted and sentenced to death by the state of Louisiana.
- Louisiana's prescribed method of execution for Glass was electrocution.
- The governing state statute defined electrocution as passing an electric current of sufficient intensity through the body until death occurs.
- Glass contended that this method causes gratuitous and unnecessary pain and suffering.
- Considerable evidence, including eyewitness accounts from past executions, described the process as extremely violent, often causing severe burns, bodily contortions, and the smell of burning flesh.
- In several documented instances, electrocution failed to cause instantaneous death, requiring multiple jolts of electricity to be administered over several minutes before the prisoner was pronounced dead.
- At the time of the case, some states had already begun abandoning electrocution in favor of methods believed to be more humane, such as lethal injection.
Procedural Posture:
- Jimmy L. Glass was convicted and sentenced to death in a Louisiana state court.
- Glass challenged the constitutionality of his mandated execution method, electrocution, in state court.
- The Supreme Court of Louisiana rejected Glass's claim on the merits.
- Glass filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking it to review the decision of the Louisiana Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does execution by electrocution constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments because it inflicts unnecessary pain and fails to comport with evolving standards of human dignity?
Opinions:
Majority - N/A (Per Curiam)
The Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari without a written opinion, letting the lower court's decision stand.
Dissenting - Justice Brennan
Yes, execution by electrocution raises a substantial question as to whether it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, and the Court should have granted certiorari to decide the issue. The Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment must be interpreted according to the 'evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society,' not by antiquated precedents. The dissent argues that lower courts have wrongly relied on 'In re Kemmler,' a 95-year-old case decided before the Eighth Amendment was applied to the states and based on outdated factual assumptions that electrocution is instantaneous and painless. Justice Brennan details extensive empirical evidence and eyewitness accounts suggesting that electrocution is extremely violent, frequently causes extreme pain and mutilation, and carries a significant risk of 'lingering death' through botched attempts. This infliction of 'unnecessary and wanton pain' violates the core of the Eighth Amendment, which proscribes punishments that go beyond the 'mere extinguishment of life.' The availability of more humane alternatives further underscores the unnecessary cruelty of electrocution, making it the 'contemporary technological equivalent of burning people at the stake.'
Analysis:
Although a dissent from a denial of certiorari carries no precedential weight, Justice Brennan's opinion is highly significant for its detailed and graphic critique of electrocution, which brought national attention to the issue. It provided a comprehensive legal framework for challenging methods of execution under the Eighth Amendment's 'evolving standards of decency' test. This dissent armed future litigants with powerful arguments and evidence, shifting the legal debate from whether capital punishment is permissible to how it may be carried out, and has been influential in subsequent litigation concerning electrocution and other execution methods.
