Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (2008), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which upheld the constitutionality of a particular method of lethal injection used for capital punishment.

In response to the petitioners' argument that the risk of mistakes in the execution protocol was so great as to render it unconstitutional, the plurality wrote that "an isolated mishap alone does not violate the Eighth Amendment".

As Lord Justice Denning argued in 1950, "'some crimes are so outrageous that society insists on adequate punishment, because the wrong-doer deserves it, irrespective of whether it is a deterrent or not.'"

Our Eighth Amendment jurisprudence has narrowed the class of offenders eligible for the death penalty to include only those who have committed outrageous crimes defined by specific aggravating factors.

A natural response to such heinous crimes is a thirst for vengeance.He further stressed concern over the process of death penalty cases where emotion plays a major role and where the safeguards for defendants may have been lowered.

Justice Ginsburg highlighted the excruciating pain caused by the second and third drugs, pancuronium bromide and potassium chloride, arguing that their use on a conscious inmate would have been "constitutionally unacceptable."

While the plurality argued that Kentucky's protocol was constitutional because it lacked substantial evidence of an inadequate dose of the first drug, sodium thiopental, Justice Ginsburg disagreed.

Examining previous Supreme Court cases on execution methods, Justice Ginsburg found limited guidance on the standard for evaluating Kentucky's lethal injection protocol.