Top court clears way for executions to resume

By James Vicini

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected a challenge to the lethal three-drug cocktail used in most U.S. executions, clearing the way for a resumption of capital punishment halted since last September.

By a 7-2 vote, the high court ruled against two Kentucky death row inmates who argued the current lethal injection method violated the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment by inflicting needless pain and suffering.

But the splintered court, which issued seven separate opinions totaling 92 pages, left open the possibility of future challenges to lethal injection practices if another method were devised that could be proven to significantly reduce the risk of severe pain.

The Supreme Court's decision was announced as Pope Benedict, an opponent of the death penalty, visited President George W. Bush at the White House.

"It is clear, then, that the Constitution does not demand the avoidance of all risk of pain in carrying out executions," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the court's main opinion.

The ruling means more than a dozen death row inmates likely will get early execution date. Officials in the leading death penalty states, like Texas, Virginia and Florida, said they planned to move forward with executions that had been on hold.

"There will be some executions going through but we won't see 50 or 100 in a short time. This is still going to be case by case," said Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, which opposes capital punishment.

Executions in the United States last year fell to a 13-year low of 42, and have been temporarily halted since the court agreed in late September to decide the case. About 20 inmates have received stays of execution.

An Amnesty International report this week placed the United States fifth in the world in the number of executions in 2007, behind China (470), Iran (317), Saudi Arabia (143) and Pakistan

(135).

The court's ruling stemmed from a challenge to the three-step lethal injection procedure of first an anesthetic, then a paralyzing agent and finally a heart-stopping drug.

Death penalty opponents argued the condemned prisoner can suffer excruciating pain, without being able to cry out, if given too small a dose of the anesthetic.

Justice John Paul Stevens agreed with Roberts that the evidence presented by the two inmates failed to show the state's method was unconstitutional. But he said for the first time he believed the death penalty itself is unconstitutional.

JUSTICE QUESTIONS DEATH PENALTY

"Instead of ending the controversy, I am now convinced that this case will generate debate not only about the constitutionality of the three-drug protocol ... but also about the justification for the death penalty itself," Stevens said.