Although Justice Stevens concurred with the majority in Base v. Rees today, stating that the three-drug cocktail does not violate the “framework for evaluating the constitutionality of particular methods of execution” set by case precedent, he appears to now believe that the death penalty, in and of itself, is cruel and unusual punishment that violates the Eighth Amendment.  In concluding his concurrence, he states:

In sum, just as Justice White ultimately based his conclusion in Furman on his extensive exposure to countless cases for which death is the authorized penalty, I have relied on my own experience in reaching the conclusion that the imposition of the death penalty represents “the pointless and needless extinction of life with only marginal contributions to any discernible social or public purposes. A penalty with such negligible returns to the State [is] patently excessive and cruel and unusual punishment violative of the Eighth Amendment.” Furman, 408 U. S., at 312 (White, J., concurring).

Way to go for the S man!  People should take the time and read through his concurrence for his thorough analysis on how the three justifications for the death penalty are questionable, if not outright applicable, in this day and age.