capital punishment has been around for a long time, but it has also been misused by those in power.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_StatesQuote
In 1972, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down capital punishment statutes in Furman v. Georgia, reducing all pending death sentences to life imprisonment at the time.[10] Subsequently, a majority of states enacted new death penalty statutes, and the court affirmed the legality of the practice in the 1976 case Gregg v. Georgia.
this first case was a crucial start to constitutional clarity, albeit a split case that didn't clarify much.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/408/238
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furman_v._Georgiain the FvG case, not only was the decision 5-4, but none of the judges signed onto another's opinion and wrote opinions with differing concerns:
-one concern was a seemingly racial bias in the selection of persons to be included into this case, but left alone as there was not proof of it.
-if things were just this easy, i'd likely go along with this ruling. it's not though, we'll cover the 5th amendment later and why that affects the 8th and 14th. for now, i will only subscribe to the shared suspicion of human error and "wrongful execution".
ultimately, this decision didn't abolish capital punishment, but instead.. (more wiki)
Quote
The Supreme Court's decision forced states and the U.S. Congress to reconsider their statutes for capital offenses to ensure that the death penalty would not be administered in a capricious or discriminatory manner.[3]
-Flash History- (meat's back on the menu, boys) (more of that wiki..)
Quote
On July 2, 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Gregg v. Georgia[36] and upheld 7–2 a Georgia procedure in which the trial of capital crimes was bifurcated into guilt-innocence and sentencing phases. At the first proceeding, the jury decides the defendant's guilt; if the defendant is innocent or otherwise not convicted of first-degree murder, the death penalty will not be imposed. At the second hearing, the jury determines whether certain statutory aggravating factors exist, whether any mitigating factors exist, and, in many jurisdictions, weigh the aggravating and mitigating factors in assessing the ultimate penalty – either death or life in prison, either with or without parole. The same day, in Woodson v. North Carolina[37] and Roberts v. Louisiana,[38] the court struck down 5–4 statutes providing a mandatory death sentence.
Quote
Following the decision, the use of capital punishment in the United States soared.
after this some decades were spent limiting people/crimes that could be punished.
being under the age of 18, intellectually disabled, non-homicidal crimes (including rape), murder without an aggravating factor... all have been excluded from this punishment within the time.
the 5th
Quote
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
the 14th is largely an affirmation and extension of the 5th, but largely encompasses "citizens".
Quote
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
the 8th and cruel and unusual punishments... this is the one that is somewhat conflicting with everything else.
Quote
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.[3]
going back to the FvG case we can get a representation of what "cruel and unusual punishment" is.
in closing for this post... (i'm sure i'll be back in)
whether you are for or against capital punishment, it's constitutionally viable for the government to take someone's life. but...
ONLY when society
DOES NOT believe taking someone's life is arbitrary and/or offending our sense of justice.
i find it arbitrary and it offends my sense of justice.
as it has already been pointed out. death is hardly a deterrence to these crimes, and can often be a blessing compared to living your life out in prison and slowly suffering your death like the rest of us have to.
i don't actually see a reason to take someone's life, especially when we have the means to forever control it from that point on. (prison)
here's my dig at the (R)-side... are you, or are you not pro-life? what would have you waiver your morals here?
Guests cannot view or vote in polls. Please register or login.