Detailed Instructions: In this task, you are given a text of many news articles seperated by special token "|||||". Your task is to summarize them.
Problem:Paul Buck/AFP/Getty Images 
  
 On April 29, 2014, the state of Oklahoma tortured Clayton Lockett to death. An anonymous executioner, carrying out a death penalty sentence, attempted to administer a secret three-drug cocktail, starting with a chemical designed to render Lockett unconscious. The executioner then added a drug to paralyze Lockett, and another to stop his heart—both of which would cause a conscious person immense pain, a sensation of asphyxiation and burning. Unfortunately, Lockett was conscious: The first drug was improperly administered. Lockett tried to rise up from the table but could only raise his head. “Oh man,” he said. “I’m not … something’s wrong.” Then he began to buck and writhe. Prison officials closed the curtains to hide the scene from witnesses. Thirty minutes later, Lockett was declared dead. 
  
 Mark Joseph Stern Mark Joseph Stern is a writer for Slate. He covers the law and LGBTQ issues. 
  
 Lockett’s family sued Oklahoma and Lockett’s executioner for violating Lockett’s Eighth Amendment right to be free from “cruel and unusual punishments.” On Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit tossed out the lawsuit, ruling that Lockett’s lengthy torture was not “cruel and unusual,” but rather “an innocent misadventure.” The ruling is especially disturbing on the heels of a decision by the 8th Circuit allowing states to continue keeping their execution drugs secret. Together, these rulings effectively guarantee that there will be more botched executions in America—and that the victims of this torture and their families will have no legal recourse. 
  
 Advertisement 
  
  
  
 The 10th Circuit rooted its ruling in the fact that “some risk of pain is inherent in any method of execution,” no matter “how humane” it may be. “Simply put,” the court insisted, “the Eighth Amendment does not require the avoidance of all risk of pain in carrying out executions.” Instead, the Constitution simply forbids “the deliberate infliction of pain for the sake of pain.” To bolster this proposition, the court cited a Supreme Court decision from 1890, which is almost comically out of step with modern death penalty jurisprudence. 
  
 “Everyone acknowledges that Lockett suffered during his execution,” the court then conceded. “But that alone does not make out an Eighth Amendment claim.” In this case, the court concluded, the state had not intentionally tortured Lockett, but simply embarked upon an “innocent misadventure.” This “isolated mishap” did not violate Lockett’s constitutional rights, and his family’s lawsuit must thus be dismissed. 
  
 One aspect of the 10th Circuit’s reasoning is especially perverse. The execution apparently went wrong because the execution team selected an injection site near Lockett’s groin, then placed a cloth over the “groin area … to shield any view of Lockett’s naked groin from witnesses.” This cloth interfered with the injection site, partially displacing the IV. The 10th Circuit dismissed this hugely consequential error with sympathy and admiration for the executioner. His team, the court explained, “covered Lockett’s groin area” not “to cause Lockett pain,” but out of “concerns for Lockett’s dignity and privacy.” These concerns, the court insisted, were reasonable, even commendable—and their ostensible laudability outweighs the fact that they actually constituted gross negligence that resulted in torture. 
  
 Although lethal injection was designed to be a humane alternative to more gruesome forms of execution, it has proved to be flawed and unreliable. Lethal injection has the highest rate of botched executions, and when the procedure goes awry, the agony inflicted on the inmate is indescribably severe. Judge Alex Kozinski, who serves on the 9th Circuit, has written that “subverting medicines meant to heal the human body to the opposite purpose was an enterprise doomed to failure.” He has argued earnestly for the return of the firing squad, which is effective and largely foolproof, declaring: 
  
 Sure, firing squads can be messy, but if we are willing to carry out executions, we should not shield ourselves from the reality that we are shedding human blood. If we, as a society, cannot stomach the splatter from an execution carried out by firing squad, then we shouldn’t be carrying out executions at all. ||||| Please enable Javascript to watch this video 
  
 DENVER, Colo. - An appeals court has upheld a decision that a now-infamous 2014 execution did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. 
  
 The State of Oklahoma executed Clayton Lockett for killing 19-year-old Stephanie Nieman in 1999. 
  
 The resulting 43-minute procedure featured a never-before-used combination of execution drugs and went awry as Lockett awoke from his unconscious state, twitching and convulsing on the table. 
  
 Lockett's brother, Gary, sued several Oklahoma officials on the grounds that Clayton's execution was "prolonged, painful, and torturous," and constituted cruel and unusual punishment. 
  
 On Tuesday, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals maintained Lockett's Cosntitutional rights were not violated. 
  
 Instead, the court ruled the mistakes made represented "isolated mishaps" rather than deliberate attempts to inflict pain. 
  
 "Although we accept that Lockett's execution was 'unnecessarily prolonged and horribly painful,' ... the problems during Lockett's execution fit under [an] exception for events that, 'while regrettable, do not suggest cruelty,'" Judge Gregory Phillips wrote in his majority opinion, citing past cases. "'Simply because an execution method may result in pain, either by accident or as an inescapable consequence of death, does not establish the sort of objectively intolerable risk of harm that qualifies as cruel and unusual.'" 
  
 Phillips added, "some risk of pain is inherent in any method of execution, no matter how humane," noting Supreme Court recognition that executions can go awry. 
  
 Since Oklahoma has taken steps to change its execution protocol, the court writes "we likely will never confront another Oklahoma execution presenting the same circumstances as Lockett's execution." 
  
 But attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union, which expressed its own concerns with Lockett's execution, sees the opposite. 
  
 "I think what this opinion seems to do is joins a growing course of courts that are really closing the doors of the courthouse to claims having to do with botched executions," said Brady Henderson, legal director of ACLU of Oklahoma. "And of course what that will do long term is guarantee that there will be more botched executions and that we're going to have a lot more embarrassments." 
  
 Henderson sees an unfair playing field by essentially asserting that corrections officers didn't mean to hurt Lockett. He worries about the precedent it sets, noting few, if any, others have to meet such a high standard for negligence. 
  
 What's more, Henderson says the ruling fails to levy consequences against a state that is now working to change its execution protocol to effectively carry out capital punishment. 
  
 "The problem is if you don't hold the state liable for the failure, then where is the incentive to make it better next time?" he said. "It echoes some other disturbing things we've seen around the country where some states aren't really being held to a high standard here. And states shouldn't be held to a high standard when you're talking about the biggest, bravest exercise of state power here, which is the government actually killing one of its own citizens. That should be about as high standards as it gets." 
  
 A spokesman for the Department of Corrections said the ruling "speaks for itself." The Governor's office did not comment on the ruling. |||||
Solution:
In dismissing his family's lawsuit Tuesday, an appeals court called the 43-minute-long botched execution of Clayton Lockett—during which he regained consciousness and thrashed around—an "innocent misadventure," Tulsa World reports. Lockett, a convicted murderer, was executed in 2014 in Oklahoma. According to Slate, a drug meant to knock him out was improperly administered, and the following two drugs meant to paralyze him and stop his heart very likely caused a conscious Lockett "immense pain." He was able to raise his head during the procedure, uttering his final words: "Something's wrong." The trio of drugs given to Lockett had never been used before, and his family sued, claiming he was the victim of "torture and human medical experimentation." But while the court admits Lockett's execution was "unnecessarily prolonged and horribly painful," it ruled that his constitutional rights were not violated, KFOR reports. It calls the botched execution "the sort of 'innocent misadventure' or 'isolated mishap'" that, per the Supreme Court, does not fit the definition of cruel and unusual punishment, and notes that "some risk of pain is inherent in any method of execution." It also argues the pain wasn't intentionally inflected. To bolster its ruling, the court cited a US Supreme Court decision from 1890. Slate calls the ruling "especially disturbing" and "especially perverse." It reports another court ruling allowing state's to keep their execution drugs secret means more botched executions are likely in the future.