Saturday, January 7, 2012
Is the Death Penalty Unconstitutional?
According to Furman v. Georgia 1972, the "Imposition and carrying out of death penalty in these cases held to constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of 8th and 14th Amendments." Read the following NYT article and post your reaction. Do you think that capital punishment in the United States is unconstitutional? Why or Why not?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I believe that the death penalty is unconstitutional because it violates American citizens 5th and 8th Amendment rights. According to the fifth Amendment, no person can be deprived of their life, liberty, or property without due process, yet in death penalty cases people are denied exoneration which allows them to be killed even if they are truly innocent of the crime. The death penalty also violates peoples eighth Amendment rights as well(cruel and unusual punishment), because the main execution methods in the U.S. is death by firing squad, electrocution, lethal injection, death by gas chamber, and hanging. All of which can most certainly be classified as either cruel or unusual.
ReplyDeleteThe death penalty was originally enacted to try to convince would be murders not to commit murder. The thought process was if you kill, we will kill you. At the time this made sense. It would be motivation to the populous to not commit egregious crimes. In practice however, the death penalty is arbitrary and capricious, because lawyers only seek the punishment if they believe that it is possible for them to win. If their is lack of evidence or an unfriendly jury they will seek much less severe forms of punishment. This makes the death penalty random at best which violates cruel and unusual punishment. Thus making it unconstitutional.
ReplyDeleteI am conflicted. When I hear of the crimes committed by people on death row, I feel that that death is just punishment. But then I consider how these decisions for the death sentence are often made because of racial discrimination and that the legal standards are not universally applied. Though these crimes are all of similar levels of cruelty, only some get this penalty. So why do these few deserve to die more than the others? My answer, they do not. So though I agree with the death penalty, I feel it is not being applied fairly by the legal system and therefore should be ended. One of the basic purposes of the Constitution is to guarantee all citizens equal rights and protection under the law. But the court system is not handing out equal punishments. So unless race and discrimination can be taken out of the equation, the death penalty must be ended instead.
ReplyDeleteI think mostly this is a moral issue that has always been a point of conflict.I believe that the death penalty is not unconstitutional. Looking at the issue literally it is in now way a violation of the 5th amendement as argued by some. According to the fifth amendment, people can not be deprived of life and liberty without due process but having committed a high crime, via the constitution, there is protection for people who violate laws under the Constitution. Being such a moral issue though makes it hard for peopleto take sides. However, in the long run, anyone who violates the U.S. Constitution has to anwser to consequences and if the crime is large enough that means death penalty in protection for law abiding citizens.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the death penalty is fine. If you kill someone and the court decides that you are eligible for capital punishment, then that state has the right to kill you back. We have all entered into a social contract that we will uphold the valuse that are nation was founded on of life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. If that contract is broken, there needs to be laws in place that has such measures to where others do not want to committ the same crime. Lawyers only go for the death penalty if they think that they can get the court to rule in their favor because it looks bad especially if these government attorneys are trying to seek political careers in their futures. Also the murders committed probably fall under cruel and unusual punishment for the victum so if one thinks capital punishment to be cruel, it is merely social justice. And these murderes typically sit on death row for years with seemingly endless amounts of appeals that go before numerous juries. The decision is rarely seen by just one court. "Evidence exists of modest, short-term reductions in the numbers of homicides in Texas in the month of or after executions," said the study published in a recent issue of Criminology, a journal of the American Society of Criminology. The Constitution is a contract of rights to protect law abiding citizens
ReplyDeleteThe death penalty is absolutely constitutional. Compared to one hundred years ago, our prisoners on death row are left to sit and rot in jail for sometimes 20 years, going through appeal after appeal. The death penalty has been imposed since our Revolution. Why? Because there are truly evil people on this planet that deserve nothing less than death. I often find that many opponents of the death penalty have never been victims of or affected by viscous murderers. Once you truly know the pain these people cause, you can never really understand why so many people are proponents of the death penalty. The death penalty is only imposed on people who are remorseless for the violent crimes they have committed. Im sure even people opposed to the death penalty would agree that people like Ted Bundy, Charles Manson, Jeffrey Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy, etc. Some people dont deserve to live the rest of their life in a cushy jail cell paid for by the tax payers. Also, the other option besides the death penalty is to just put the perp in general population and let get beat to death. Im sure the victims would agree that their murder is cruel and unusual punishment. The death penalty is social justice at its finest.
ReplyDeleteLike most debates dealing with the Constitution, it is an interesting issue and testy topic. Do I believe that capital punishment in this country is constitutional? Yes, if applied in compliance with the Constitution. However, as this professor from Stanford points out, it is not. The results from his Connecticut study clearly show that imposition of capital punishment is arbitrary and discriminatory. This is not ok. One of the core values of the Constitution is to provide all people with equal rights and protection under the law. If prosecutors are seeking the death penalty of this small of a number of cases, then it should be abolished as a whole, as it is simply arbitrary and unacceptable. It is not justified for the people for prosecutors of neighboring counties in big states, or any state rather, to be using a different criteria in order to impose the death penalty.
ReplyDeleteI believe that, while the death penalty has not always been correctly used, it should still be legal. Life imprisonment racks up huge costs that are a burden on taxpayers. It is not "cruel and unusual" if the person HAS committed a heinous crime. If a person went on a killing spree, they do not deserve to live and it is neither cruel or unusual to do so. While the criteria for being executed may need to be changed to be more strict, the death penalty is constitutional and should remain legal
ReplyDeletei do not believe the death penalty is unconstitutional at all. if the convicted felon killed multiple people he or she has no right to their own life. i do not believe the criteria should become more strict because i think people who commit murder rape, killing an officer, killing for hire, and murder during a kidnapping are perfectly good reasons to sentence someone to the death penalty. those are all heinous crimes and they should not go unscathed for the crimes they have committed.
ReplyDeleteThe death penalty is not unconstitutional because there is nothing inherently wrong with the institution itself, and problems only arise in execution of the plan (pardon the pun). The death penalty, when administered properly is not cruel and unusual punishment. Modern execution techniques, such as injection, cause little to no pain in the process, and are thus not cruel. Also, since the defendant took a human life, the punishment is not that unusual. If it were instituted for a parking violation, then it could be considered cruel and unusual, but not for murder trials. Because the practice itself is not unconstitutional, the blame lies squarely on the shoulders of those imposing it so arbitrarily and sporadically.
ReplyDeleteI personally think that the death penalty is unconstitutional and should be deemed illegal. My first reason is that the disconnect between crime and punishment is unfair to anyone who has been found guilty. A person's race, gender, or the town they live in should not be the determining factor in letting a man live or die. It is unfair that two people could commit equally horrible crimes and one of them lives, while the other is sentence to death.
ReplyDeleteMy other reason is that a person is a person, regardless of who they are or what they have done. When a court sentences someone to death, they are committing an horrible act that makes them no better then the person they are sentencing.
The death penalty is absolutely necessary in our society because it institutes a just reaction for an egregious act. The right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness should be carefully protected for the citizens of the United States. If a person kills another person to the necessary degree in which the person can be capitally punished for it, that person should be absolutely killed. It is the legal system's job to work with the rights of the American people. A killer should be killed if that person is going to endanger other people's livelihoods as well. The death penalty is constitutional and usually justifiable in the cases it has been used. Capital punishment should remain legal for murderers who are the "worst of the worst" so they do not rot in prison and live on taxpayers' money to do so.
ReplyDeleteCapital punishment is, and always has been, unconstitutional. It is clearly a violation of the bounds of cruel and unusual punishment, a truly barbaric and antiquated means of punishment. We do not live in medieval times; the old maxim "an eye for an eye" has no place in the american justice system. The destruction of a human life, no matter how heinous or egregious in nature, does not justify the taking of another, under any circumstance. Not only is capital punishment unnecessarily cruel, but it is also overall unnecessary. The death penalty is inefficient and ineffective; it is often more costly to kill and inmate than to house him the rest of his miserable life, and the entire process is made inefficient through a lengthy series of appeals. Overall, the death penalty is unconstituional and impractical, a truly anomalous presence within the american justice system.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the death penalty is entirely unconstitutional. Killing one does not avenge the dealth of another, and principally it is wrong. The system around capital punishment is inconsistent because how murder and heinous crimes are judged are not fair. Any death of any innocent human in heinous, not just ones that are elaborate and require a public trial. Death row is extremely expensive, and in a time where our economy is at risk, it could be beneficial to save money by illuminating the death penalty. In my mind the cruelest and fairest punishment towards one who dishonored the law is to live with the grief and consequences it has caused during life in prison. Capital punishment it almost too easy for people who commit horrid crimes.
ReplyDeleteI can see both sides of the argument for capital punishment in the United States. Looking at it from a historical standpoint, the death penalty has always been something for criminals to worry about; therefore, economically speaking, those who think about committing crimes have to have a major incentive to go through with said crimes because the cost have to outweigh the benefits. I personally don't believe in the death penalty. A life for a life doesn't really make sense because the value of a single life has not been priced as of today. Speaking of price, our legal system spends a heinous amount of money on prisons, and keeping criminals fed, clothed, detained, ect. That money could be used in a much more productive way. The death penalty to me does not solve anything. Instead of killing those who have committed crimes worthy of the death penalty, I believe other options are better for society.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of someone who has freely committed an equal offense, such as a cereal killer, cereal rapist, the murder of a police officer, or a cold blooded murder the death penalty is appropriate. A defendant is always given the right to retrial, but after convicted I believe the death penalty is a necessary punishment. I feel that a confession before trial and a written apology should grant a lesser sentence such as life in prison. It is very expensive for the state to fund a life sentence, however, it seems that the current methods of the death penalty are also costly. I don't see why it is necessary for an often lengthy delay between sentencing and execution. It should be done the old fashion way, within a few days of sentencing as well as quick and easy such as a shooting or a hanging. Some of the methods used today are cruel and unusual, and the viewing behind glass doors is also disturbing.
ReplyDelete