Capital Punishment: Should the Death Penalty Still Exist In A 'Civilised Society'?

aside from, like, Jesus being the Messiah, too. But you know that.

I don't think people and animals are comparible (one reason why I prefer to be referred to as 'a woman' rather than 'a female', but that's a whole nother rant).

Aha, this is a point of contention which I think it is best not to argue here. I don't really think serial killers or child rapists qualify as "people," though. It's interesting to note that I actively try to avoid referring to certain types of criminals as human, in fact, I just realized I even do this in normal conversation.

Maybe I'm the crazy person.

how does the death penalty not constitute "cruel and unusual punishment," as defined and prohibited by the Constitution?

The same way jailing Eugene Debs until he was practically crippled and incapacitated was not cruel and unusual, the same way interning Japanese-Americans was not cruel and unusual: like pretty much everything about our purposefully ambiguous US constitution, it's all up to the interpretation of the Court. If the Court says that the "eye for an eye" concept is not cruel or unusual, then it isn't. That's how our system is set up.

I'm not saying I agree with the Court, mind you. The system really is completely fucked up (justice in being handed out unevenly shockah), and I think that until a better system is set up perhaps a moritorium on the death penalty, as was in the early '70s, is perhaps called for. Not that that actually fixed the system back then, though, and one could make the point that the amount of false imprisonments in general and people getting handed really strict penalties for what seems to be petty crimes (the 3 strikes law, for example, is a pile of bullshit being used to hand what I would deem cruel and unusual punishment to fairly inane, boring, completely unthreatening "criminals") would imply that perhaps our entire justice system should be on moritorium, following the logic to its extreme.

The system en totale is just not really great. I do theoretically agree with the death penalty (I mean, would anyone here argue that the handful of executions of Nazis post-WWII were unjust?) but in practice it hasn't exactly done anything worthwhile enough to balance out the problems we have implementing it.

Also, the Messiah thing is NOT the biggest breaking point between Judaism and Christianity! Jews for Jesus 4eva!

the Jews for Jesus dudes in the Broadway-Nassau stop freak me out. Who funds these wackos?

(I am anti-death penalty, BTW.)

(OK I fully admit I'm just saying this because it came into my head--my grandfather used to threaten my mother when she was stroppy with that exact line)

If we developed a way to prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that someone had really killed other people in cold blood, with malice, for pleasure, would the death penalty still be a bad thing?

Also it is worth noting, to Tom I suppose, that death penalty is not something generally (read: ever, see here) applied to rape. Actually, real punishment is not something often applied to sex crimes. God help you if you're a Puerto Rican talking on your cell phone in your car in NYC though, tombs for a weekend.

xpost that's what I mean, hsilly!

lots of xposts

are "jews for jesus" really jew? i mean, were they ever actually jews? or is it just an evangelical organization with a strange twist?

Back to capital punishment.

And yes, hstencil, I agree, but you could pull a whole lot of issues and point to how they are extremely inconsistent vis a vis the issue of mitigating factors or historical precedent, in particular (the state legislature one is a little odder, they do seem more likely to tell the states to go done fuck themselves). It's like, ok, for example, part of Roe v. Wade cites that there WERE no anti-abortion laws prior to the 20th Century so therefore historical precedent says this is no one's business. However, historical precedent in cases like Debs or Abrams or Schenck (and I'm assuming whenever someone actually goes ahead and challenges Patriot Act) pretty much shows that the US didn't have draconian speech restrictions for 120 years and went thru several periods of tension/war without these laws but hey, dude, we gots to make you all shut yo' face. The 20th Century Court is wholly inconsistent, Holmes court v. Warren court v. Current Court etc.

Should I start a Supreme court thread?

btw everybody: http://www.ncadp.org/

Quite.

This is a no-brainer for a Supreme Court Justice cause when the states ratified the ban on cruel an unusual punishment they also included a provision for the execution of traitors.

Amendment V (1791)

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. (Italics mine)

I'm sure in the late 18th century hanging was seen as neither cruel nor unusual.

xpost I know about the Alien and Sedition Act, that was prior to the period I deliniated (120 years)--it was a failed law, only applied occasionally, and was deplored by Jefferson (who called it something like a witch trial or a reign of witch trials or something similarly pat and quaint and 1700s-y). It was only on the books a short period and was never an issue dealt with by the Court (unlike, say, segregation issues). It couldn't be used as a precedent (and isn't mentioned as such in any of the decisions).

I just don't understand why everybody seems to think that actually performing the action of executing dangerous animals is somehow a horrible idea and should be completely dismissed.

I'm also beginning to think I may not share the kneejerk distrust of The State that seems to pervade this board. Shocker.

i imagine her like that girl in secretary, doggedly remaining in her seat on the S.C. bench, wetting her pants, etc.

Allyzay, rumors like that about justices retiring are spread every election year.

Yes, I understand it means nothing. Aren't they all like 100 years old now anyway?

I agree but I think that the promotion of equal protection under the law is paramount especially inasmuch as, from a revenge point of view, spending the rest of one's days incarcerated seems as cruel as death, and from a rehabilatory point of view death seems counter-productive.

xpost

(xpost)
()

xpost Dan, I know, that's why I personally think the death penalty should be halted for now, the system is waaaaaaay too flawed and is not being used in any way I'd approve of persnoally.

yep, you only need to look at ILX for this (excuse sarcasm)