When it agreed last September to take up Baze v. Rees, a challenge to the constitutionality of lethal injection, the Supreme Court effectively imposed a national moratorium on the death penalty

When it agreed last September to take up Baze v. Rees, a challenge to the constitutionality of lethal injection, the Supreme Court effectively imposed a national moratorium on the death penalty. On April 16, the justices rendered their verdict: Lethal injection is neither cruel nor unusual. It may in fact be the most humane method of execution available.

Its relative gentleness is precisely why it has supplanted both the electric chair and the gas chamber as a way of dealing death. Chief Justice John Roberts got to the heart of the matter in his majority opinion. "Capital punishment is constitutional," he wrote. "It necessarily follows that there must be a means of carrying it out." The crusade against lethal injection was ultimately a mischievous attempt to throw a monkey wrench into the legal mechanics of capital punishment. Most advocates of the lawsuit simply wanted the death penalty to grind to a halt, by any means necessary. Reasonable people may differ on the merits and morality of capital punishment. The proper arena for their disputes, however, is not the Supreme Court, but the voting booth and state legislatures.