-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is the Death Penalty Constitutional?
- Thread starter Nous
- Start date
In a gross sense, the Court is abiding by precedent with respect to the constitutionality of the death penalty. The Court has never found any method of execution to violate the Eighth Amendment. When people were electrocuted in chairs and it didn't work, the persons were just horribly sizzled, the Court found reasons to hold that that is OK, it doesn't violate the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause. And as Justice Sotomayor's dissent explicates quite well, the rationale and holding in Glossip is hardly different--there is no method of execution that is so tortuous that it violates the Eighth Amendment, according to the precedent. Indeed, the primary premise of Justice Alito's opinion in Glossip could be used to justify death by live dismemberment without anesthesia, which was a method of execution when the Eighth Amendment was ratified.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Somewhat horrifying from the standpoint of one living in a country that did away with the death penalty many years ago, I'll say that. So, sizzling them like a steak is not inhumane? Good to know. Personally, I don't know why they just don't administer a massive dose of heroin. You wouldn't know what hit you and there is almost zero possibility one would survive.
As I see it, it's not the death, per se, that is cruel, but the psychological hardship of the period of waiting, knowing what awaits one.
I gotta say, as often as junkies off themselves with opioids it would seem pretty easy to come up with a lethal cocktail that, on the street, would fetch a pretty penny.
It could have the brand name Texas Approved.
Tom
There is no rational reason for the 3-drug cocktail traditionally used in executions: The ignoble history of the 3-drug death penalty cocktail As noted, the paralytic agent has nothing to do with killing the person; it merely makes it impossible to discern whether something went wrong with the anesthetic drug and the person is still conscious or still can feel pain. Using such a paralytic agent in euthanasia of animals in outlawed in 42 states for precisely this reason.
Yeah, the waiting for years and years and years and keeping death row prisoners in solitary confinement for 23 hours per day is Justice Breyer's third reason that capital punishment is cruel in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The whole set up employs procedures that have been shown to be literally brain damaging to a person.
Do you honestly believe that the "cruel and unusual" punishment was meant by the Framers to include waiting? Or the possibility of some pain during the execution of convicted criminals?
I don't.
I'm totally sure that this is one of those "The Constitution is a living document" arguments, where it's reinterpreted to match somebody's modern beliefs.
Just like the gun rights enthusiasts think that the 2nd amendment was intended to protect the right to own semiautomatic weapons.
I don't think that anybody really takes the Constitution seriously, when it interferes with what they already want to believe. It's like the Bible.
Tom
Either killing a person is cruel or unusual or it is not.
Everything else is subjective.
Once we get beyond the point that we can kill someone, then it just goes with the times and popularity of the people as to how...
Decapitation, hanging, shooting squad, and then cocktails.
IMO, decapitation by guillotine and shooting squad are the least cruel. It's done within an instant. But then again, this just illustrates how subjective it can be.
Everything else is subjective.
Once we get beyond the point that we can kill someone, then it just goes with the times and popularity of the people as to how...
Decapitation, hanging, shooting squad, and then cocktails.
IMO, decapitation by guillotine and shooting squad are the least cruel. It's done within an instant. But then again, this just illustrates how subjective it can be.
You need to read my post (again, if you already have), as I didn't say or suggest any such thing.
Not always.
I believe I'd rather have the overdose of barbiturates, or asphyxiation by carbon monoxide. People who try to commit suicide by carbon monoxide but fail, to the best of my knowledge, never report anything distressful about it (such as happens when people suffocate). They all seem to report that they just experienced falling asleep.
Alright cool.
If I am ever on death row, I hope you will advocate my preference of method.
I'll have to think about that... I originally replied to someone else that I would not, but I'm getting into newer territory.
Yes you did.
You think that the modern version of cruelty and unusualness is what was meant by the Authors.
I don't think so.
I, personally, don't entirely care what some white slave owners thought that "cruel and unusual " punishment meant, any more than I care about Mosaic Law. Ethics and morality are much more sophisticated (better) than when the various Scriptures were being invented.
Including the current USA scriptures, The Constitution. The Scriptures that are diametrically opposed to the Christian scriptures.
Tom
Uncross your eyes and read it again. I didn't say or imply any such absurd thing.
Do you think that the Authors would consider modern methods of Capital Punishment "Cruel and Unusual " punishment?
It's a yes or no question, feel free to express your opinions after you have said Yes or No.
Tom
No, of course not. Why would they?
I don't have much of anything to add to my answer to that question, at least at the moment. As Justice Sotomayor's dissent notes, in past decisions the Court has clearly said that there is some risk of pain inherent in any method of execution. Presumably that is true, although I would think that the risk of excruciating pain involved in administration of barbiturate overdose and asphyxiation by carbon monoxide is exceedingly small. The Court has also said that the avoidance of all pain is not required by the Eighth Amendment--and precedent definitely bears that out. My own views on the constitutionality of capital punishment generally, however are essentially those expressed by Justice Breyer in his dissent in Glossip, with those couple of additional factors I noted in my first post (#11) on @Jumi 's thread: Convince me to oppose death penalty If you will read Breyer's dissent, or the OP here, you will see that Breyer makes no argument that the death penalty is a "cruel and unusual punishment" due to infliction of pain.
Poisonshady313
Well-Known Member
Could the system use a fair bit of reform? Absolutely. There ought to be ways to make the system BOTH more expedient AND more accurate.
That being said, as far as I'm concerned, the only way I can see the death penalty being cruel and unusual is if we start executing shoplifters and jaywalkers.
In fact, I think we should extend capital punishment to individuals who are sentenced to a term that could only be described as metaphorical. For example... Larry Nassar. Sentenced to 175 years for sexual assault of minors. He's already in his 50s. The federal sentence (60 years) is alone to ensure that he will die in prison, and his state sentence of 40-175 years is to be served consecutively.
So...
1) Nobody is claiming that Larry Nassar has been wrongfully convicted.
2) I bet sentencing him to a minimum of 100 years didn't cost as much as a capital punishment case.
3) The judge literally said "I just signed your death warrant"
This individual is essentially a dead man that the state of Michigan is going to provide (for several decades) with food, shelter, medicine, clothes, etc... the things law abiding citizens have to pay for with money they've earned through work. Line up a firing squad and put him out of our misery. There's literally no reason not to.
That being said, as far as I'm concerned, the only way I can see the death penalty being cruel and unusual is if we start executing shoplifters and jaywalkers.
In fact, I think we should extend capital punishment to individuals who are sentenced to a term that could only be described as metaphorical. For example... Larry Nassar. Sentenced to 175 years for sexual assault of minors. He's already in his 50s. The federal sentence (60 years) is alone to ensure that he will die in prison, and his state sentence of 40-175 years is to be served consecutively.
So...
1) Nobody is claiming that Larry Nassar has been wrongfully convicted.
2) I bet sentencing him to a minimum of 100 years didn't cost as much as a capital punishment case.
3) The judge literally said "I just signed your death warrant"
This individual is essentially a dead man that the state of Michigan is going to provide (for several decades) with food, shelter, medicine, clothes, etc... the things law abiding citizens have to pay for with money they've earned through work. Line up a firing squad and put him out of our misery. There's literally no reason not to.