In your opinion, does the death penalty violate the Eight Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment

quiet

No, capital punishment has been upheld for some time by the courts and the founding fathers didn't intend for the death penalty to be unconstitutional. There is nothing unusual about it or particularly cruel.

bebe

I think its better for the law just to lock them up for life sentence because that would be more turturing.

It does, but in some cases it's necessary

nativeamerican1968

No because:
convicted felons lose some of their rights, such as voting, gun ownership etc, and they should and do lose this right too...if you consider the death penalty cruel and unusual (which I do not). What about the person they murdered?...their loss of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...the rights of all the people who loved the murdered person. The killer takes away the rights of several people when he chooses to take someone elses rights...Im more concerned with the victims.

Jonh

Yes it does!

John

How could it? If an animal is rabid and goes crazy, the animal is euthanized. If a person is so despicable and puts their need for power, money or drugs ahead of someone else's life, (which is the only reason the death penalty is given), then they are no better than a rabid dog.

freebird

No. I think allowing murderers to live long enough to kill again violates my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The last guy executed in California was convicted of murders that he had contracted while serving a life sentence. Three teenagers died because he was not dealt with appropriately. But he won't kill again.

RuneDragon

The punishment should fit the crime!

Meg

No, it's not like being tortured in the old days.. drawn and quartered or set on fire.
Firing squad, hanging and injection are *relatively* quick ways to go. I mean, beats a lot of other ways to die.
The bad thing about the death penalty is the corrupt justice system that manages to send innocent people to their deaths. That's why I switched from supporting it to opposing it...
Peace,
Meg

waymore

My opinion is its only cruel if you didn't deserve it and if you murdered someone or raped them its really not that unusual compared to what you've done either an eye for an eye

briang731/ bvincent

No1 It's the perpetrator that violated the 8th Amendment. The law is following the old testament regarding "an eye for an eye."

yog062750

No, but we could make it much less "unusual" if we executed more people. That would help resolve the question. Is it "cruel." As praticed, it is actually NOT very cruel, other than the fact that the murderers know they are going to die. The murderers are killed quickly and quite painlessly. I suppose it depends on your definition of cruel, but ALL justice consequences could be considered cruel, even monetary fines. My reading of the constitutional debate leads me to believe that what the founders wanted to prohibit was meaningless torture, and exceptional cruelty. Remember, the Inqusition was still ongoing when the Constitution was written-and they did stuff that wasn't very nice at ALL!

fr_chuck

No, since at the time the Amendment was written, the death penalty was in force, and the courts at the time the amendment was wrote, they would have outlawed it at that time. Instead they increased its use and even had it public.

It was dealing with issues of torture, making sure they were feed and got needed medical care, had clothes and the basics.

Man today has put too much into it, not looking at the historical real meaning as written. not someones liberal idea of what it should mean, but what it actually did at the time of writing.

sonyack

If it is wrong to kill people, then it is wrong to kill people.

The death penalty is not about whether it is a "fitting punishment" and not about whether it is cruel. It's about revenge, and letting the government be the agent for the crime victim survivors' thirst for revenge.

The death penalty is revenge killing. It does nothing to mitigate crime, which goes up and down depending on economics, cultural fads, social disparities, population density and mobility, etc. etc.

And the criminal justice system is very imperfect and is shown again and again to have convicted innocent persons and sentenced them to death, which cannot be taken back.

timgsweet

No,and what about victims rights.

thedude

the death penalty is totally acceptable. if someone is a criminal what is the difference between locking someone up for life and killing them. in my opinion the death penalty is just a way to expedite the life in jail process. locking someone up is the same thing as killing them because in one case you are killed and in the other case you stare at bars until you die. they are both killing and they are both appropriare punishments

mad_mav70

The men who wrote the amendment believed in the death penalty. They didn't think so.

party_at_lake_vostok

As you are well aware, the whole thing boils down to the definitions of 'cruel' and 'unusual'.

In the bigger picture, worldwide and throughout history, the death penalty is profoundly widespread. It is also not unexpected. If I shoot at somebody, I don't think that anyone would argue that I should be surprised if they shoot back. That's pretty much the quick and dirty death penalty. "Under penalty of death" appears all over the place throughout history - in public and private organizations. Bottom line, I do not that that it is at all 'unusual.'

Cruel is trickier. By definition, punishment is, to some degree, cruel. People sue for 'mental anguish' caused by R - rated office office jokes. Spanking your kids will get you put in jail. "Psychological Bullying" is now a big deal.

Me - I am an Old Testament kind of guy. If I do really, really bad stuff unto others, I think that their doing the same back is the closest thing to getting us square. I live by that too.

If I come out of the blue and jack somebody up - then I have one coming. They owe me one. Fair is fair.

Back to your question: I think that waiting on death row for years and years is the cruel part. Easy for me to say while sitting here, but, whatever bad thing I have coming, I want to get it over now. I even pay my bills early - no kidding. I don't want anything hanging over my head. If we are gonna do it, let's do it.

I think that you may be getting at cases when innocent people are executed. I don't have an answer to that.

I also don't agree that certain crimes deserve the death penalty - like rape. Or even pedophilia. They are bad - no doubt about it. But, in my view, you only kill someone if they have literally killed another person (or people). I am not talking about psychological trauma - I mean killed them dead.

And we get into 2 different things: rehabilitation vs. punishment.

In my opinion, if you punch somebody else's ticket, you are on borrowed time.

The way that the system is now, the death penalty may not be a deterrent. If we 'got square' with convicted killers within a few weeks of conviction (like a lot of other countries), the deterrent part might change some.

mrklcoac2002

i honestly never thought about that but i will have to and i agree it is necessary in some cases like those who murder children

Yo #1 Day Dream

I believe the death pentality in immoral and it does violate the eight Amendment. many times the death penalty is used for all the wrong crimes. It is a cruel punishment i think it should stop

classyjazzcreations

I don't think it's cruel and unusual, if they killed someone in a cruel and unusual way.
It's that eye for an eye thing again.
They do need to keep death row inmates on death row for some time, because it does have to be determined beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they in fact were the one that did it, and if it were justified. That's why prisoners can write letters of reprieve to those government officials that can do something.
For example, if a person's crime was killing a person after that person had threatened to or nearly succeeded in killing them? It could be justifiable homicide. But if all the evidence doesn't come out in court due to lack of witnesses, should that person die? It's kill or be killed.
If a person's crime was systematically killing someone after thinking about it and or consistantly saying it or trying? Premeditated Murder Death penalty.
That person committed something cruel and unusual, and therefore deserves to die in the same way. The same is for someone who just accidently shoots someone and kills them. Same for killing instantly with no forethought.
For other crimes that don't include death, I say make the punishment fit the crime.
For example, if someone raped another, their punishment is to get raped by other inmates, or get castrated so he can rape no more.
I feel if the laws were changed in this way, there would be fewer crimes committed. Especially if they know that things might get chopped off. Stealing? Chop off the hands.
Embezzlement? Get stripped of all assets, and serve time in jail till they can pay back the money they owe. Chop their ability to make a living.
Many people, especially hardened criminals don't fear the death penalty, because they lived their lives like they wanted to die anyway.

Put "Chop It Law" into effect, and it would be a changed country.

TrippingJudy

Only if you're innocent.

I heard that the U.S. is the only country in the western civilized world that still has the death penalty.

The only reason I'm against the death penalty is because I think it's too easy.

J P

It violates Gods commandments.

n317537

kenoking@sbcglobal.net

oh hell ya it does even more if you were innocent

Susie

Hmm. It is cruel, but I wouldn't call it unusual.

I personally feel that people should be kept alive in prison so they have to live out the consequences of their horrible actions. If they die, that's not much of a punishment. Living in not-very-fun conditions with possible guilt is.

mrsjav

definitely not

Snake Oil

Good Question Miss Thang!
The way I see it the death penalty is cruel and unusual, but what's wrong with that? I certainly agree that the death penalty is revenge but again, (as Martin Lawrence would say) "What the pro'lem is?"
The Death penalty is a deterent to henious violent crime just like a Master lock is a deterent to burglary. (Honest people don't steal.)
I think the death penalty needs to be revisited regularly and brought into align with the available technology, so that mistakes aren't made. The reasonable doubt that is good enough to put a person in prison has to be greater for a death sentence.
Irrefuteable, beyond a doubt, proof positive.
But once that standard is met, CYA, wouldn't wanna BYA!!

blue_mist2002

i don't think it is cruel and unusual
but i do think its necessary
if it was up to me we would just though them out into a space for them to die on their own, because apparently society has no use for them anymore, and we just don't have "a space" for them so we have the death penalty. what would god want us to do in this age and time? i wonder

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: