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

Answer 1

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.

Answer 2

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.

Answer 3

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.

Answer 4

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!!

Answer 5

I dont think it does,there are many crimes that call out for the death penalty. I wonder how the victims familys feel about it .And to put them away for life doesnt do too much harm,some live far better in prison than they did on the streets,as they are provided all thier needs for the rest of thier lives at the state or governments cost ie me and you.Taking away ones freedom is a penalty,but at a high cost to the public. DNA test should be mandatory to prevent innocent people being put to death.Im not sure the fear of being put to death has ever been an effective way to stop or prevent crime but the person that is put to death will never do another murder or rape etc again.That works for me.( excuse any misspellings my spell check is not working)

Answer 6

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

Answer 7

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.

Answer 8

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!

Answer 9

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.

Answer 10

Oh, defintely not. The 8th ammendment was written in response to the english practice of drawing and quartering as a method of execution..where a man would be hung, but not until death....then have his belly cut open and his intenstines removed. His genitals would then be cut off, and piled ontop of his intestines..while the man was still alive..and he would be made to watch as they were burned. Finally, the man was decapitated, and his body cut into 4 pieces....the head going in the town center, and each piece of his body sent to the four corners of the settlement.

Compare that with a needle in the arm, and someone falling alseep.

Execution was a perfectly legitamte form of punishment...it was the method of punishment.....designed to cause as much pain and anguish as possible, that the Founders objected to.