[Parisa Zangeneh recently received her PhD from the Irish Centre for Human Rights. She is a postdoctoral researcher in the Aspect Unit of the Rinn AI Center at the University of Galway and a legal fellow at the Global Justice Center.]
In recent days, the world has been watching the developments in the Christa Pike case after she survived two botched execution attempts at the hands of the United States (US) government. The US has failed to respect its international human rights obligations and its constitutional safeguards against cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment, which explicitly prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. If a future attempt to execute Pike is in store, Governor Bill Lee, the Tennessee Supreme Court, and the US Supreme Court should act in line with human rights law and the Constitution and choose to spare her life.
Pike, her boyfriend, Tadaryl Shipp, and another girl murdered Colleen Slemmer in January 1995. An adolescent at the time, Pike had a childhood history of mental illness and abuse, including multiple rapes, abandonment, and neglect. Pike was sentenced to death on March 30th, 1996, by the state of Tennessee for the murder of Slemmer. On September 30th, 2026, the state of Tennessee attempted to execute Pike by lethal injection.
The state issued two doses of pentoarbital. A barbiturate, the drug is used in multiple states that impose the death penalty. Experts criticize the method of lethal injection due to the risk of paralysis that might prevent a prisoner from expressing pain. The Justice Department halted use of pentobarbital under the Biden administration after concerns were raised that it might cause “‘unnecessary pain and suffering’” or pulmonary edema, which results in a buildup of fluid in the lungs that might create a feeling of suffocation, but the Trump administration reversed this decision in 2026.
Pike survived the injections and has been in the process of recovery. Since the botched execution, Pike has regained consciousness. She was released from the hospital, where she had been shackled to the bed. Before the execution, authorities had been warned by her attorneys that it might be hard to find her veins for the purposes of administering the lethal drug. It is unknown if the drug might have bypassed her veins, if there were problems with the drug, or whether there is an alternative explanation. Pike has been burned and her arms injured.
The Eighth Amendment is the cornerstone of the Constitution’s human rights framework and the standards that govern the use of the death penalty in the United States. In the present case, continuing the execution of Pike would violate the provision and the developing jurisprudence that clarifies its meaning in contemporary society. The Eighth Amendment explicitly prohibits inflicting “cruel and unusual punishments.” The death penalty in itself is a violation of the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, although US law holds differently. However, in the present case, the potential future execution of Pike is likewise incompatible with the case law of the US Supreme Court on this matter.
In Trop v. Dulles (1958), the Court stated that the cruel and unusual punishment standard is governed by “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” These standards have been held to be the standards of the nation as a whole, not the individual states. In a case involving denationalization as a form of punishment against a wartime deserter, Chief Justice Earl Warren considered such punishment to be “offensive to cardinal principles for which the Constitution stands.” The circumstances in which Pike finds herself are far more severe, and the government’s malfeasance is far more egregious.
Warren asserted that “the death penalty is not a license to the Government to devise any punishment short of death within the limit of its imagination.” Pike’s case demands an assessment against this standard. She has survived two botched attempts at executing her. She has sustained severe injuries to her person, including her arms and hands. Further, she has suffered emotional harm and the turmoil of anticipating death but experiencing a failed execution attempt. Pike’s prognosis for recovery is unknown, and she reportedly struggles with cognitive issues, such as memory. It is unknown if she understands what is currently happening. Imposing the death penalty, a state-sponsored act of extinguishing human life, is more serious, crueler, and more unusual than denationalization. However, in the present case, allowing the state to attempt, for a third time, to execute Pike would be far crueler and more unusual considering the terrible mental and physical harm she has suffered.
Under the standards of IHRL, the execution of Pike would clearly violate multiple legal obligations to which the US is bound. The US has voluntarily adopted core human rights treaties that shape its understanding and practice of IHRL. The US is expected to adhere to its international obligations, regardless of the political leanings of its Supreme Court Justices, state and federal court judges, or its political leaders.
The core human rights treaties prohibit torture and other cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment or punishment (TCIDT), including the International Convention Against Torture (CAT) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 6 of the ICCPR also protects the right to life. While Article 6(6) protects states’ ability to impose capital punishment, states must respect the ICCPR’s other obligations at all times. For example, ICCPR Article 7 bans TCIDT, similar to Article 1 of CAT, which bans torture.
The US ratified the ICCPR in 1992, attaching reservations regarding the death penalty and limiting its obligations under Article 7 to existing safeguards. One of those safeguards is the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. Pike’s case already constitutes a clear violation of the Eighth Amendment under Trop v. Dulles. Pike has suffered harms, including blown veins, arms that were “‘swollen, burned, and blistered’”, and intubation on a ventilator. Under the ICCPR, the US is precluded from proceeding with further attempts to execute Pike, even considering its reservations to Article 7. An attempted third execution would propel the US into territory uncharted in recent history as a state violation of its constitutional law and international human rights legal obligations. The Supreme Court has not heard a question of whether a second attempt at executing a person could be done since 1947. The legal and human rights landscape has changed since 1947 in Louisiana ex. rel. Francis v. Resweber, and the Supreme Court should not follow its precedent in that case, in which the Court allowed a second attempt.
The international community argues that Pike’s execution should be stayed and has intervened in several channels. The United Nations Human Rights Chief Volker Turk has stated that, “The prolonged suffering – physical and mental – arising from multiple failed execution attempts is abhorrent and cruel.” Further, nine experts appointed by the UN Human Rights Council called for Tennessee to commute Pike’s death sentence. Moreover, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has urged the US to refrain from executing Pike, who has been the beneficiary of precautionary measures, which were granted on December 11th, 2020. The precautionary measures were granted through Resolution No. 95/2020.
The progress of a maturing society must go in the direction of upholding respect for and enforcement of human rights standards that are generated at the international or national level. The US is a major actor in international affairs and, after World War II, took an active role in shaping the post-War international legal order. This must be reflected internationally as well as at home in the way we conduct our international relations and in the way we treat each other. The standards of decency that ought to be respected in the Pike case are the Eighth Amendment, a longstanding standard of human rights protection, and the standards of IHRL, such as the prohibition against torture and CIDT, as well as the right to life. These obligations are not discretionary, nor are they political choices. Time is short, and Pike’s dignity must be protected.
