Jones, Imogen and Malkani, Bharat ![]() ![]() |
Preview |
PDF
- Accepted Post-Print Version
Download (368kB) | Preview |
Official URL: https://doi.org/10.1177/1743872117739563
Abstract
In determining whether executions are “humane,” authorities in the USA tend to balance the interest of the condemned person to be free from suffering with the interest of observers to be free from distress. This “welfare model” mirrors the approach to terminating the lives of companion non-human animals. We argue, therefore, that lethal injections are unconstitutional not because of the risk of pain that they present, but because, as a matter of principle they relegate human beings to the same moral space as non-human animals. This conflicts with the Eighth Amendment requirement that punishments respect the dignity of the person.
Item Type: | Article |
---|---|
Date Type: | Published Online |
Status: | In Press |
Schools: | Cardiff Law & Politics Law Cardiff Centre for Crime, Law and Justice (CCLJ) |
Subjects: | K Law > K Law (General) |
Publisher: | SAGE |
ISSN: | 1743-8721 |
Date of First Compliant Deposit: | 10 November 2017 |
Date of Acceptance: | 9 October 2017 |
Last Modified: | 19 Nov 2024 03:45 |
URI: | https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/106158 |
Actions (repository staff only)
![]() |
Edit Item |