Since we have banned cruel and unusual punishment, how is it possible to punish cruel and unusual crimes?

Question

I am re-posting this question with the wording a little different because last time the response was pathetic.

What if you were the parent of someone who died on the doomed airplane that crashed into the World Trade Center and you had the perpertrator right in front of you, their fate in your hands?

What if your child was accused of a crime he/she didn't commit, and you had to watch while a prison guard tortured him/her every day?

Please justify your answer (how would you defend it)? I will give 10 points for a unique viewpoint that forces me to consider something I hadn't thought of.

Answer 1

We DO punish cruel and unusual crimes. See: Dahmer. McVeigh.

The purpose for banning cruel and unusual punishment is: 1) the state does not exist to match the sadism of a sick criminal, only to fairly prosecute and punish. 2) the terms "cruel" and "unusual" are too vague for a committee or government to decide. What falls under this category? What doesn't? Is rape and murder cruel? How bout hit and run or DUI that results in murder? Is that cruel?

What if the person is insane or mentally retarded and committed a viciously cruel and unusal crime?

Also, this ban is consistent with the 14th ammendment of equal protection under the law. If two murderers are punished by death, but one is categorized as "cruel" and the other not, they would not be equally protected under the law. (We categorize murder as 1st, 2nd and 3rd degree for the purpose of disctinction when it comes to punishment.)

If I was a WTC parent: I would leave the punishment to the courts. It would be death.

If my child was wrongly OR rightfully accused, torture would obviously be bad, either way.

Bottom line: the state gains nothing from matching the cruel and sadistic evils of the criminal it is trying to punish. I think the last thing I'd want is to have my government thinking up new cruel ways to torture convicts.

Answer 2

If the standard of how we rate ourselves as a society is how we treat our criminals, then I think it has to be humanely. For most criminals, the problem is poverty and desperation. The only long term solution to this is to end extreme poverty in this country and around the world(Yes, I know easier said than done).

As for the aforementioned cruel and unusual crimes, I think the only thing we can do is lock them away, or maybe put them to work for the good of society in menial jobs like farm laborers and the like. I cannot say that vengeance is not particularly appealing, but the standards of a civilized society should be higher.

.

Answer 3

The death penalty goes in and out of style in the US. Right now, it's less popular. As long as it usually takes to actually put someone to death in this country, we can just hold them until it's back in fashion. Executions are not going to go away, they are biblical principals- an eye for an eye kind of thing. In your two scenarios, both should die and I would have no problem with either.

Answer 4

Poetic justice! There are powerful people in the prisons believe it or not. If you could get to the man in charge inside the prison you could get your justice, for a price I am sure but justice would be served. Ever e-mail inmates you can you know.

Answer 5

Assuming that the perpetrator is imprisoned and not put to death, it is possible to bribe his cell mate (hopefully named "Big Bubba") to kill him after a long night of hide the chorizo. Sort of "Death by Bula-Bula."