Interpreting the law: Auburn High hosts mock death penalty Supreme Court case

Auburn High School students, teachers and an array of other law experts gathered at the high school Friday morning and presented, argued and ruled on an actual Supreme Court case for “Case Day.”

The case is Ralph Baze and Thomas C. Bowling, Petitioners v. John. D. Rees, Commissioner, Kentucky Department of Corrections, et al.

Parties argued the constitutionality of the current form of lethal injection and a death row inmate’s Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment.

Cory Callahan is an educator and the Auburn City School System’s Social Studies Vertical team leader.

Callahan established “Case Day” three years ago.

“I put them in the situation to succeed,” he said, referring to students involved in the trial.

The students find the materials, but Callahan answers questions for them and tells them things such as where to stand in the courtroom.

Most of the students have some kind of burgeoning interest in law, he said.

Friday’s death penalty case did not debate whether or not the death penalty in itself is cruel and unusual, but whether the three-part “drug cocktail” used to stop an inmate’s heart is cruel.

The “drug cocktail” includes an anesthetic to prevent pain and render the inmate unconscious, a paralyzing agent to keep the inmate immobile and a toxin to kill the condemned.

If the drugs are administered incorrectly, they can cause pain or even botch an attempt at execution, said court petitioners (the party bringing the case before the court) Marion Park, Keegan Hankes, Elen Aghekyan and Patrick Donnan.

On the other hand, the respondents Morgan Bettcher, Fuller McClendon, Wade Lipscomb and Tag Mosholder, or those arguing against the suit, defended the three drugs.

People cannot prove the drugs do not work, they said. The cocktail is a good option and less cruel than other forms of execution such as electrocution, respondents said.

Switching the current drugs for new, more up-to-date, and maybe more humane, alternatives would set a precedent that would open metaphorical flood gates and allow people to bring suit before the Supreme Court any time there are newer, more viable, drugs for the execution process, respondents said.

Students involved said the case was a good learning experience.

“It gives us a great view point from both sides of the case, which is very important,” said McClendon, a senior student respondent.

Steven P. Brown, professor of political science at Auburn University, presided as chief justice at the event.

Callahan was a previous student of Brown’s at Auburn University. They developed the concept of “Case Day” together.

Much like the chief justice of the Supreme Court in Washington D.C., Brown said he has a lifetime appointment as Chief Justice of “Case Day.”

In a 7-1 decision, the court decided in favor of the defendant, in other words, to keep the current “drug cocktail” in use. Setting a new precedent would allow new cases to be presented every time newer drugs were available.