Where do we, as citizens, begin to draw the line between vengeance and justice? This is a very important question to ask while taking a stand on the death penalty.

Whether or not people support the death penalty, it is imperative that limits and boundaries are established concerning the issue.

Without setting limits and boundaries, how do we distinguish what is cruel and unusual punishment and what is not?

On Monday, the Supreme Court refused to consider a lethal injection case. Without comment, the denial was issued and court-watchers were left wondering the justices' reasons for rejecting the appeal made by a Tennessee death-row inmate.

By failing to acknowledge the importance of setting a precedent when it comes to defining the boundaries of the death penalty, the justices are shying away from the pedestals of justice that define them.

The specific issue presented in Monday's case was whether or not lethal injection should be considered cruel and unusual punishment.

The Supreme Court is currently considering one lethal injection case dealing with a Florida inmate on death row. In this particular case, justices are considering only whether prisoners can file last-minute civil rights challenges claiming their deaths by lethal injection would be cruel.

And according to a group of Tennessee doctors, inmates' deaths could be just that. The doctors agree that some inmates could possibly suffer "excruciating and unnecessary tortuous pain" because of the three-drug combination used in the state.

But if a life is being taken in the first place, is the pain felt at death really the most pressing issue?

While death penalty supporters argue that the Constitution does not guarantee convicted killers a pain-free execution, how can a society deem it is right to kill someone in the first place? Isn't ending a life — despite by who ends it, government included — in itself cruel and unusual punishment?

Supporting the death penalty in any form is sends a contradictory message.

This is a debate larger than the Supreme Court, and we need to be able to turn somewhere for a substantial answer on the lethal-injection controversy.

While religious and political factors can separate a room debating this specific issue, it becomes obvious that without a precedent from the Supreme Court, nothing will be solved.