How does capital punishment violate a person's rights as an American citizen?

Question

does it not violate the 1st amendment and the right to bear arms? Justice is a necessity I believe but a pre-planned murder? That is an assasination and is worse than an imppulse killing. I am not saying people should not be punished and or held responsible for their actions but I am saying we should not judge lest we be judged to the extent of death.

Answer 1

A person can stand against the death penalty and not be against holding others accountable for the actions, behaviors, and choices. I believe very strongly that the death penalty is wrong. It has nothing to do with my having sympathy for those depraved individuals who commit such heinous acts, but in support of real justice and punishment. I have several objections to the death penalty.

First off it violates an individuals right to be free from harsh punitive penalties. It violates the right to have incarceration be the punishment chosen in this country. It violates the right for individuals to be free from torture. It is torture to know your death is waiting around the corner and is not only sanctioned by governemnt but carried out by government. It is undo suffering to walk a person down a hallway, shave his/her head, strap their limbs down to a chair, place a wet sponge on their head, a covering over their head, listen to people cat call during the execution, and then suffer injuries which bring about death. This is in my opinion torture and undo and exessive punishment, and sanctioned murder. I do not believe it is in the interest of justice to kill anybody. Many studies have shown that executions are not a deterent to the crimes which has this as the punishment. If it is not a derterent the only other excuse to use it is to give the victems and the families of the victems some degree of comfort that the culprit will never again cause them a sleepless night wondering if they will ever walk out a free individual and have access once again to citizens and ease of mind knowing they have the ultimate safety from this person as they are no longer walking the earth. This is simply not reason enough to kill anybody. The victems have a right to justice, but they do not have a right to an eye for an eye. We have taken the role of who the crime was perpetrated against from the actual individuals and placed ii upon the Federal or States as representitives of the People as the victem, which is reflected in "The State of California against so and so individual". This turns the actual victem into a "witness", and the government the representation of the People as a whole. This was intended to stop the revenge cycle and lynch mobs of the past. By the Federal and State governments becoming the entity the crime was perpetrated against the entire Prosecution department was created to try the cases as the ones sins against. As such it is prohibited for the actual victems in reality to seek revenge. That is the theory in any case. The actual victem can take the perpetrator to civil court for wrongful death, or other monetary judgements of damages perceived, but not inflict any other type of damage upon the person who committed the crime against them.

Our justice system says it represents the actual victems but in reality few survivors ever feel justice was actually ever done. The death sentence is used in those extreme cases, or in the case of an individual committing murder upon civil servents so those survivors can have a feeling of revenge. They use different wording to desribe this action, but that is the bottom line of what is transpiring. If it were not then the members of victems families would not be allowed inside the death chamber as "witnesses" to the execution. The death sentence is retribution, revenge and nothing more. As such it is against our constitution and our Bill of Rights. It is the definition of Cruel and Unusual Punishment and it always amazes me how people can find ways to justify it in the name of "justice". There is not a single justification which has any weight what so ever.

Now, there are other compelling reasons to not use the death penalty. If even one innocent person is put to death, then it is wrong. This is on top of what I previously wrote. The reason that not a single person who was put to death has been proven to have been innocent of the crime is due to the fact not one goverment body has ever allowed a body of an individual put to death to be exhumed for DNA evidence. With how many people are being released from prison based on being found innocent from the advances of DNA evidence we have to realize we have put to death innocent people. Once these folks are dead there is not any way to bring them back to life, say sorry, and let them go on about their lives. How silly. We have people on death row who were convicted on the flimsiest of circomstantional evidence, with little or no actual physical evidence. Look at the Scott Petterson case: Not a single peice of physical evidence was submitted at his trial. This man was basically convicted because he is just a horried person who had an affair while his wife was pregnant so of course he killed her. Emotions were running high in this case and regardless of where it was moved to it was so high profile there is no way he could have gotten a fair and impartial trial. I lived in CA during the entire period of his wifes death and the subsequent trial, and watched the entire proceedings. Not a single shred of physical evidence was submitted against him and yet he is sitting on death row. Regardless of what one wishes to believe in the innocent or guilt of OJ Simpson, it was shown in his trial that evidence was planted. He was rightfully aquited due to all, and there were many, decrepencies in his case. Now, why did OJ get aquited but Scott convicted? The difference between these two cases is that OJ was able to afford a good defence while Scot had to depend on a Public Defender. Public Defenders do not have the resourses or the time to give the case that private attorneys do. Had Scott been able to pay for a team of high profile attornies he most likely would not be sitting on death row today. This descrepency between the defense of individuals who can afford their own attornies verses those who can't is simply abhorant to me. It makes it appear as though justice can be bought in this country, when in fact the reality is only that the rich can afford true justice, to afford a real effort for defense.

As long as one single person who is innocent is at risk of being put to the death penalty then it is wrong. Again, this is on top of how the death penalty is against our Bill of Rights and all of our freedoms. Now, another compelling reason to stop using the death penalty is the fact those who use it simply can't claim to be civilized. We are the only holdout in the Western countries who still employ the death penalty. What does that tell us about ourselves? That we simply are not civilized and we won't be able to legitimetnly lay claim to that until our government stops torturing and killing people.

To sum it up there are three compeling reasons we should not use the death penalty. First it is against our Bill of Rights. Second if even one innocent person is put to death it is wrong. Third and last is we simply can't lay claim to civility until we stop using such barbaric actions.

Thanks for this question it is one you well know is a very controversial issue. To me it is just plain common sense and therefore should not be debatable if one wishes to hold true to our Bill of Rights, real justice and not revenge, and to lay a real honest claim of being civilized or at least trying to be as civilized as we possibly can be.

Some individuals say that these heinous offenders need to be put to death because there is such uncertainty of whether another administration would ever commute their life sentence and allow them to walk free, free to terrorize their victems again, or to attack other potential victems. This is stupid as laws can be inacted which enables these folks to never walk out a free man/woman for the remainder of their lives. I firmly believe there are some individuals who should not be freely walking around society. However, I believe we reduce ourselves to their level of barbarity when we impose the death penalty. I never wish to be compared to animals such as that.

p.s. Animals are not capable of seeing the approach of time and therefore are not subjected to the fear of their impending death by a government body or by their owners. To compare putting down an animal to a human is simply flawed logic. Only humans have the capacity to use the frontal orbital lobe of the brain which is what gives us our human higher thoughts. This ability is what seperates us from the rest of the animal kinddom.

To say using the death penalty is preferable to paying the cost of housing these killers the rest of their lives is the height of uncivil behavior. To put a dollar amount on a human life and the suffering inherent in the death penalty is simply asinine.

Killing a human being IS murder regardless of it being "sanctioned" by the government. Any who wish to believe otherwise are simply refusing to be logical. When you kill somebody who does not wish to die, it is murder. Our goverment has even said killing oneself is murder and those who live through an suicide attempt can be charged and locked up.

For the young woman who says we should put these henious murders out on our streets to pick up garbage or on contruction sites to build hospitals and schools, that is just plain silly. Any of these criminals would LOVE an opportunity to escape. There are those criminals who should never have the opportunity to participate in society again, in any shape or form. To seperate these killers from society IS the punishment for killing and raping others. We now need to lock child molerstors up for life as it has been proven they are not reformable, that they just wait for the opportunity to victimize more children. Those who are not violent criminals should and do go out and serve society. We have a strong community service institution in the US, but only those who are deemed low risk are allowed to engage in this privelge. It is indeed a privelege to go back into the soceity they victimized. It is also used to help teach skills and ease them back in for preperation of returning to society. However, the revolving door syndrome we currently have needs addressing.

Yep, the bible has nothing to do with crime and punshment in the U.S. of A. The fact that religion and government are to not be mixed precludes that. However, our founding fathers were very much Christian men and therefore many of our laws and the punishments attached do indeed reflect what is in the bible or the interpretation they had of it. So, to say that the commandments have absolutely nothing to do with our crime and punishment or even our laws is silly. Should we come to a place where truely religion and government is seperate under our laws, you bet. Especially as we have such a diverse mix of religions here. We have so many different religions that many individuals of different faths are forced to accept punishments which go against their religious beliefs. An "eye for an eye" is biblical and Old Testiment at that. Jesus did away with an eye for an eye and burnt offerings. Religion has no place in the American Justice System.

Just because there is wording in our constitution from the beginning of our country which outlines use of the death penalty does not justify it in todays world. There has been many changes to our constitution over the intervening years, such as freeing of the slaves, the right for black men to vote and own property, the right of women to vote and hold property, gain divorce, ect. To be a civilized people we must recognize that we must work towards progress of growth and make such changes as is neccassary to become a more mature and civilized people. We simply can't use the past to excuse actions of today.

Answer 2

The Fifth Amendment has 3 clauses which recognize that the death penalty is a permissible practice. The Double Jeopardy Clause refers to the principle that no person shall be put in jeopardy "of life or limb" twice for the same offence. The Amendment also refers to "all Capital cases" and to the principle that no person shall be "deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."

Government can execute a killer for the same reason that it can incarcerate a kidnapper. And taking the expression "judge not lest ye be judged" and using that as a reason to disempower any government punishment of anybody for any reason pretty much leaves our society in a state in which everyone is living by the laws of the jungle.

Answer 3

I have no idea how the Death Penalty has anything in the world to do with "The First Amendment" or "The Right to Bear Arms" but I do believe that civilized cultures did away with killing people as "punishment" long ago.

Killing a human being is NOT "punishment" it is pure barbarism.

All the people jumping up and down and screaming recently over "beheadings" probably never in their lives batted an eye over executions by electrocution or lethal injection, which is unbelievably BARBARIC. Go ahead -- google it, I dare you. Read what PHYSICIANS say about America's lovely choices of killing human beings.

Besides, ALL research has shown that the Death Penalty is absolutely no deterrent WHATSOEVER.

I believe there should be dialogue in this country about what a REAL punishment should be. Personally, I think persons who have severely wronged society should be forced to SERVE society, in order to pay back for what they have done. Isn't that the definition of "punishment?"

Let them pick up trash on the highways, dear God, that alone would keep them busy for years.

Let them build new schools, hospitals, low-income housing in communities. For the criminals who only serve a small portion of their sentence anyway, wouldn't it be better in the long run for society as a whole to TEACH these people some skills to survive in the real world?

The Death Penalty simply does NOT work, and every person supporting the KILLING of another human being has psychological issues if you ask me.

Answer 4

Regarding the basic theory, punishment by death as a deterrent does not actually work to deter others.
Also, DNA is proving that too many persons on death row and in prison are there falsely , due to faulty work on the part of the prosecutors.
HOWEVER . . . there are terminally insane people for whom there is no cure And who are such a danger to others that being out in society is Not an option.
The question then becomes . . .
How long do you hold persons in overcrowded jails that the taxpayer really can not afford ?
In cases where persons (Dalmer , the BTK killer and a list too scary to think about) are known , proven terminally insane and unsafe . . . euthanasia is actually the more humane solution .
We are kind enough to euthanize animals that are rabid , why not humans ? (until they are curable)

Answer 5

The death penalty has been the law of the land since the beginning of mankind. It's also in, I think the 5th amendment. Also, God's word says, "If you live by the sword then you shall as well die by it..."

Answer 6

Most murderers don't get the death penalty; it is primarily only for the worst of the worst.

George Washington personally ordered the execution of several people...so it would be odd to think he endorsed a document (the Constitution) whereby capital punishment would be illegal.

Answer 7

Execution as a punishment for heinous crimes is NOT murder or assassination. This is a silly assertion.

And the "judge not lest thee be judged" is not about crime and punishment, but about judging others souls and sins. You might wish to refrain from trying to quote the Bible when you seem to have such little familiarity with it.

Answer 8

Bear-arms?

How about the right to say, uh, I don't know... live!

Pursuit of life liberty and all that other BS?