The U.S. Supreme Court opinion that upheld a controversial lethal injection procedure used in Florida was notable for two other reasons. It included dissents from two justices who said the death penalty is likely unconstitutional and practically invited an appeal to revisit the issue. It also prompted Attorney General Pam Bondi to immediately push to resume executions in Florida even as most of the rest of nation abandons the death penalty and heads for higher moral and practical ground.

Death penalty advocates won an incremental victory last week when the court decided in a 5-4 opinion to allow Florida and other states to continue using the sedative midazolam as part of a drug mixture for lethal injections. To reach that conclusion, the court heavily relied on the illogical reasoning that the plaintiffs did not suggest a better way for states to perform executions. Opponents of the death penalty should not have to propose new ways for the state to kill people.

The broader picture is more encouraging. There appear to be four likely votes on the Supreme Court for outlawing the death penalty, and Justice Anthony Kennedy could be the swing vote to break the tie as he often is between the most conservative and liberal justices. Justice Stephen Breyer, in a well-reasoned dissent joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, argued that times have changed since the court reinstated the death penalty in 1976 and left it to the states to ensure that constitutional rights are not violated.

"Almost 40 years of studies, surveys and experience strongly indicate, however, that this effort has failed,'' Breyer wrote, adding that he considers it likely that the death penalty violates the constitutional ban against cruel and unusual punishment.

The primary issue, of course, is that the states sentence to death innocent people. Breyer noted that there have been 154 capital cases in which the convicted person was exonerated after new evidence was discovered. That includes 25 who were exonerated from Florida's death row — the most from any state. Justice Antonin Scalia, in his caustic criticism of Breyer's position, casually suggested death sentences are better than sentences to life in prison. That would be the same Scalia who once used a horrific crime to justify lethal injection where the men sentenced to death were later exonerated by DNA evidence.

The national tide is running against the death penalty, and the number of death sentences are at historic lows. At least 30 states have either abolished the death penalty or held no executions in the last eight years. Yet Florida has headed in the opposite direction, with 21 executions since Rick Scott became governor in 2011. "If you don't have the death penalty, it's a free murder,'' Rep. Matt Gatez, R-Fort Walton Beach, told the Tampa Bay Times' Michael Auslen.

Life prison sentences are not free, and the risk of executing an innocent person is too high. Yet Gaetz and his colleagues in the Legislature have focused on speeding up executions while other states are banning the death penalty. And Florida also faces another legal hurdle. The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case challenging the state's requirement of just a majority vote by a jury to recommend that a judge impose a death sentence. Most states require a unanimous vote or at least a super-majority vote by the jury.

Most states have recognized that there is no place for the death penalty in a civilized society. Florida remains one of the last stubborn holdouts, and it likely will be the courts rather than the elected officials that will end executions here. Judging from the U.S. Supreme Court opinions last week, that day could be coming sooner rather than later.