Do you think that the electric chair is right?

Question

A friend and I are debating that the electric chair is unconstitutional. We need some supporting ideas on why or why not this is true. (It is for a high school government class.)

We also need facts and supporting work on the internet or in books that will help us. The project is due on Tuesday.

This is for our high school government class.

I mean cruel & unusual punishment.

Answer 1

Technically the electric chair cannot be unconstitutional because it is an inanimate object, so the laws of the constitution do not apply to it. As far as the use of it, it is really a two part question. Leaving out personal bias towards the death penalty, it is our constitutional right to have good general welfare and and domestic tranquility (This is found in the Preamble). In that sense, we have the right to be alive and healthy without the government or anyone else taking that away from us. Alive...but that only extends to a certain point. If you are convicted of taking another person's rights away from them unlawfully, through murder for example, then you technically don't have those rights anymore. At that point, you do not fall under most constitutional protections, so the use of the electric chair would be lawful. There are amendments, like the 8th, that say people have the right free from cruel and unusual punishment, but that only applies to while they are being held. If their sentencing is death, then that would not apply. In this case, the electric chair is lawful. If used against someone who was not convicted, then it would be unconstitutional treatment and would be tried as such. This doesn't answer the question entirely, considering there is a slew of gray area not taken into account, e.g. trial legitimacy, ethical treatment of prisoners, humanity, and religious views, but it does answer the constitutionality of it, so hopefully that will help with your project.

Answer 2

The death penalty is constitutional in that all of that document limits the actions of government on the populace. Many think its the reverse, that the constitution gives us our rights. As a result the consequences of poeples actions be it living right or wrong are theirs to bare as well. The death penalty is not specifically listed and it shouldn't need to be either as that would move beyond the purpose of the document. In my opinion, the electric chair is not a good method for executions, I prefer a firing squad and they should be public as well.
Many punishments used to be public, it worked well as a deterrent, a concept that escapes many leftist dems and mod repubs.
If I may suggest, both parties should do an indepth study of the constitution, its authors and the time period in which is was written. A great deal will be learned and perhaps some school-touted truths will be questioned.

Answer 3

No. In its day, the electric chair was thought to be more humane than hanging because it was supposed to be quick and less painful. Through the years, we have come to see that that isn't they way it happens. Some have actually caught fire from sparks before they died. I think now it could be argued that the electric chair is cruel and unusual punishment. I think it would be interesting to see someone argue that the death penalty is murder, which is why the person is being murdered. Perhaps others have done that already.

Answer 4

Here's the low down. Killing, in escence is not holy. But than again we didn't base our government and overall way of life on the bible, because once again, that would be unfair and another reason for people to complain. I do believe in the phrase "what comes around goes around", but I most surely do not live by it. I mean, I highly doubt that mass murderers were thinking about god or any form of faith or love when they decided to kill people. Life isn't always going to be fair,and please excuse me if I'm not politically correct, but why should be debating about what's humane when these people have killed others in a grusome manner? Your point does have validity to it, and so this ongoing critical debate is set up to be controversial, no doubt. I do take into consideration that murderers are people who make everyday "mistakes" that they will most certainly regret, but how can you tell the parents of the killed that justice hasn't taken toll on the one person who ripped part of their family away? There are of course more "ethical, quiet, or humane" ways to end ones life, but death comes even to the best of us, and innocent, kind-hearted people die horrible, inexplicable deaths every day. Our world is most certainly not perfect, and I believe that we need to take the initiative to strike justice where it must be dealt! This is not about being fair... It's about humanity. As long as the people who supposedly "deserve" the death sentence are prosecuted, convicted, and set up for time/ death then at least the world is trying. There are criminals that wait ten years to die, and by then... Wouldn't you think that they'd had enough time to find symathy, feel horrible, and regret their actions? You can call it cruel to lock them up and everything, but by the time their death sentence is near, half of them are crazy from staring at blank walls for ten years and the other half are on their way to being decent. People CAN change over time. I'm really sorry for blabbing but I hope that I helped a bit. This was a lot of information to roll over in your mind, but I feel strongly about it.

Answer 5

i don't think its right to kill a person .But if a person kills other people, say like a serial killer or a person that has taken the lives of several people .And I'm not talking accidentally . Well what I'm trying to say is... that's when the quote "" Do onto others as you would have them to unto you '' comes in ,if its OK for them to kill people then I think the government needs to do away with them. why should we be humanly to them especially if they did very slow painful deaths and tortures.

Answer 6

It would be unconstitutional if it was an innocent bystander. But they are killing criminals. You would feel differently if someone hurt someone close to you and they got the chair. Life is a gift and killers shouldnt have that gift. Simple as that.

Answer 7

I don't know about unconstitutional; perhaps you're referring to "cruel & unusual punishment?" But the death penalty itself is immoral. Society has no right to destroy a mind, because intellect is a more evolved state of being.

Answer 8

I don;t think any kind of death sentence is right, especially the electric chair. Innocent people die. What heppened to 2 wrongs don;t make a right? Why would you kill someone? Even iff they killed someone, they deserve to suffer severely but the gov't shouldn't have the right to kill people. What if they are mentally ill?

Answer 9

I don't care for the electric chair, I"m a fan of the firing squad. That way each man can tell himself he had a blank, coz no one knows who got the real bullet

Answer 10

No, there are more advanced, ethical, quick and less painful ways to kill someone. Definitly throw some ethical theorys into your debate, it will totally spice it up. I dont think it is unconstitutional...there are no ammendments that really go into that.