What Part Of The US Constitution Permits The Death Penalty?
The document seeks to protect citizens from government. How does it permit the government murdering its citizens?
All civil laws inherited from England are assumed in force unless specifically altered by the US Constitution.
In the Bill of Rights there is a prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Maybe one day the death penalty will be seen an unusual and declared unconstitutional. At the time the Founders wrote it there were talking about torture or maiming as punishment that was cruel and unusual.
The interpretation of the Constitution changes to fit the times. States do have the right to make laws punishing people for crimes.
The Fifth Amendment specifically references capital crimes and says that life can taken after due process. So the document isn't solely about protecting citizens from the government.
People like OP and other anti-death penalty are extremely limited in their capacity to understand the legal process. You sum up something so legally complicated as simply a citizen being murdered by the state. It's similar to anti-choice folks saying Democrats are responsible for the mass slaughter of "children." Simpletons.
The accused committed an atrocious act for which he was accorded due process. He was tried and convicted by a jury of his peers. He exhausts all the legal appeals accorded to him. Then and only then does the state carry out the sentence.
r5 = Freeptard.
Cunt kickin be goit birf controls
And, simpletons like r5 assume that the "due process" accorded to citizens has not been consistently abused and used to convict innocent people.
If the process were error free, if the process were not affected a variety of factors like the quality of one's attorney, money, race, sure. However, how many deaths of innocent people would be considered too many?
R5 deserves the death penalty for idiocy.
"Maybe one day the death penalty will be seen an unusual and declared unconstitutional."
It was, R3. But then it was reversed.
So long as there are serial killers who rape and torture, and people who go into gay bars and shoot an innocent man merely for his sexuality, the death penalty will not go away any time soon.
CA banned the death penalty and then came Charles Manson.
You all may think you have the higher moral ground, when in actuality, you fail to see that there are certain people who prey upon society just because they can.
I don't know if there is a God, I know that laws were made to punish acts that are committed in the here and the now. It's societal justice upon those who feel they are beyond reproach.
The Constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishment. It is up to the courts to determine whether capital punishment is cruel and unusual. So far, the federal courts have refused to hold as such. It is getting more unusual, thank goodness, but that's only have the battle. It certainly wasn't unusual at the time of the Constitution. Unfortunately, the federal courts have not accepted that death is, per se, a cruel punishment, but rather focus on the means of killing those condemned to die.
I'm from Norway, we had the worst terrorist attack here in recent years. That monster killed a bunch of kids. I'm still against the death penalty. I'm against a state murdering its own citizens. It's a barbaric act. It makes us no better than them, because we're murderers too. There's a reason all of the western world got rid of the death penalty years ago.. with the exception of USA of course :)
Is the death penalty any less cruel than life in prison? But, then I am all for assisted suicide. I really think we make far too much of a fuss over death.
Excuse me r2?
R14, did your kid die in that attack? You might feel differently if you we're connected to that crime.
I can never judge a victims family if they wanted the death penalty or not.
Everything is permitted unless expressly prohibited.
It's up to the states.
As abortion used to be and will be again some day.
I just don't understand bleeding hearts sympathy for murderers.
There are too many people on this planet.
"Nor shall any person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law."
There is truly no reason for it except for politicians to seem butch and "tough on crime" and for victims to satiate their blood lust.
it is not effective. it is not cheaper than prison. it will never be foolproof. almost all families of victims say their grief was not relieved by the killing of the murderer of their loved ones.
lock em up in some shit hole with no chance of parole, no access to the outside world, living in their own excrement. so much worse punishment than death but we as a society can still say "at least we're not condoning murder".
R19 brings out the straw man.
You pretend that we're arguing that the murderer, once convicted, should go free. You know that isn't the case.
R14--Was the state barbaric in fighting the Germans in World War II? If not, what is the difference between killing soldiers in war and killing murderers and terrorists now that makes the first acceptable and the latter barbaric?
The way to eliminate the death penalty is through the political process, not the legal system.
R17, no.. but I haven't heard ANY of the parents of the kids who died said they are now suddenly for the death penalty, NOT ONE. They al said he should be locked up for life, and I agree, of course. But not one of them said they now support the death penalty. They actually feel quite strongly against the death penalty still, because they don't want to be as bad as him.
R23, you got to be kidding me?! You're really comparing that? No words. And they wonder why the rest of the world look down on Americans and their stupidity.
Oh, and for the freepers in here.. this is proof that the death penalty do not solve anything. Read it and weep.
Connecticut fortunately did away with the death penalty. I do not believe it is us to play "god" -- even if a murderer chose to do that. And yeah, I would continue to feel that way even if the crime happened closeby to me in my world.
No I am not kidding you. Why is it barbaric to kill murderers but not barbaric to kill soldiers? If you have "no words" perhaps because you can't make a compelling case.
What is ridiculous is the statement that executions are barbaric. States kill people routinely in war, even wars of choice. Police kill criminals on the streets. There is nothing inherently barbaric about executing murderers.
The problems are practical--uneven application of the penalty, ineffective assistance of counsel and, most of all, the risk that the process reaches the wrong result.
R28, and that is wrong too.. wars for whatever reason.. state killing its own people is never acceptable, and therefore neither should the death penalty be.
[quote]No I am not kidding you. Why is it barbaric to kill murderers but not barbaric to kill soldiers?
You truly are an idiot.
[quote]You truly are an idiot.
Indeed, you are. However, please provide a naked photo or two because sometimes the biggest idiots are hot and perhaps you can add something valuable to this thread.
R28 - You don't see difference in context between you examples?
For example OK to kill soldiers in war - but not civilians. Also once the war is over no longer OK to kill soldiers.
OK to kill a criminal in the street if he poses a threat to other people, include the police themselves, but once he is no longer a threat you can't kill him.
You don't see how those differ from the state killing someone who is in custody and is not committing a crime at that moment?
It's darling when ignorant, soft-headed know-nothings demand for DLers to complete their education for them, because THEY'RE JUST SO UPSET AT HOW MEAN THE WORLD IS.
Like paralytic puppies falling to the floor, over and over again.
Keep on, OP!
R19, just wait until one day you are wrongfully accused and waiting to be executed.
I never understand why we give the authority to terminate lives to the institution we trust the least.
You know what I think is wrong? Insane even. A man can terrorize a nation and kill 77 people and walk away at age 53 a free man.
Every one of the 13 original and sovereign states permitted capital punishment, which certainly satisfies the argument of original intent of the framers of the Constitution.
And the 5th Amendment says you shall not be deprived of your life without due process. That would appear to permit the state to deprive you of your life, so long as it's with due process.
So that's where and how the Constitution permits the death penalty.
Whether it's a deterrent to crime, or cruel and unusual punishment, or does any good at all is an entirely different argument. Have at it.
And there's nothing preventing any state from outlawing capital punishment.
R23/R28, a declaration of war changes the circumstances. That is the entire PURPOSE of declaring war - an announcement that the normal laws of society no longer apply.
You are truly ignorant. No wonder you're in favor of the death penalty.
What is this with talking about the founding fathers like they were gods? Ask a native American if you can find one. America is based on racism and murder.
[quote]The interpretation of the Constitution changes to fit the time
Not if you're Scalia (or Thomas or Alito) and occasionally Roberts.
[quote]For example OK to kill soldiers in war - but not civilians. Also once the war is over no longer OK to kill soldiers.
But we do kill civilians. More than we kill soldiers. You can say it's not "OK" but the fact is states do this and that includes Norway which was active in Afghanistan recently.
The premise that killing by the state is always wrong does not hold up to history or logic.
So what you are really saying is that killing as punishment is unacceptable, but you state that as self-evident. Why? Why would it be morally wrong for Anders Breivek to be executed?
I don't think you can challenge it on Constitutional grounds, actually. It has to be a case of "appealing to the better nature" things, etc. Which explains why America still has it - we're being held back by the mouth breathing Bible beaters.
When you look at the list of countries America joins by having the death penalty... its basically the "Axis of Evil", to borrow a phrase from a man who executed the mentally handicapped with a smirk. You don't want to be on that list.
[quote]The premise that killing by the state is always wrong does not hold up to history or logic
That just means it is human nature to be bad. It doesn't mean killing by the state is ok because it happens. As you well know, shitting your pants and licking out the stains happens. Doesn't mean it is OK.
Probably the part that wants to save the taxpayers the money it would cost to house them.I support the death penalty on a case-by-case basis.
I am NOT in favor of the death penalty with rare exceptions but my objection is not some wishy-washy "killing is bad" argument. I oppose it because too many innocent people have been convicted.
However, when you have a clear guilt with a confession and overwhelming evidence and a crime against society as a whole (McVeigh, Breivik), I think execution is justified and appropriate.
Of course war is different in many ways. I didn't say otherwise. I was simply trying to demonstrate that the argument that the state must never kill is not compelling. So, what is the line--simply stated--that says killing is OK sometimes but not as criminal punishment?
Ultimately, the argument in favor of killing in war must be that it is necessary to protect the nation or another nation or certain people in a nation or "international law." And, in your judgment killing a murderer is not "necesssary." But that is far weaker ground to stand on than the categorical declaration that the state must never kill. And it leaves you open to an argument over what is and is not necessary.
I would argue that the actions of someone like McVeigh or Breveik do far more damage to the society than any distant, potential enemy. Justice is not entirely a matter of reason. Sometimes, a people are entitled to vengeance. That is not barbaric. It is human.
[quote]That just means it is human nature to be bad. It doesn't mean killing by the state is ok because it happens. As you well know, shitting your pants and licking out the stains happens. Doesn't mean it is OK.
If this is your idea or argument I am proud to be called ignorant by you.
R40 You can make the argument that killing is wrong - period.
You can make the argument killing is OK under seom circumstances.
It is an illogical argument to claim that because we kill in this case we can kill in other cases.
The premise most of the western world works under is that killing is wrong except in specific cases.
To argue that death penalty is OK - you have to say why. Not say we kill in war so the death penalty is OK.
For example society thinks parents should raise their children. But we identify cases where they should not - child abuse for example.
But the fact we want to remove children from abusive homes doesn't mean we want to remove all children from their homes.
It actually is a pretty standard logical and ethical argument - as my grandmother use to say two wrongs don't make a right.
[quote] What Part Of The US Constitution Permits The Death Penalty?
A better question, is what part of the constitution prevents it?
The part when your kid is raped or your wife is stuffed up the keister, or any other number of things. Easy question actually. I don't think all on death row are guilty but there are some who we KNOW are. Those are a waste of taxpayer money. They're existence continues to worsen the system because they have nothing to lose and that attitude passes on to lower inmates creating a worse criminal yet. Let them burn in hell hell hell.
R48 - your argument is the same one used by people who thought we shouldn't spend any money on AIDS research.
Be careful what you wish for. Your world will be populated by white heterosexuals.
The question is which part of the US Constitution permits the death penalty. That was answered by R36. It has nothing to do with how "god like" the writers of the Constitution were. Every state in the country could abolish the death penalty tomorrow if they wanted. There is nothing in the Constitution to prevent them.
[quote]To argue that death penalty is OK - you have to say why. Not say we kill in war so the death penalty is OK.
Read it again. Slowly. Move your lips if it will help.
R51 - well now that you have added the insult I totally understand and agree with you.
There is no room for context or relativism.
There is no difference between killing someone who is threatening you and killing someone who is in state custody and poses no threat to you.
Most importantly vengeance and the need to punish are health emotions always based in logic and never result in bad ends.
We should ignore the realities of the death penalty. Our judicial system never makes mistakes. There is no relationship between how much money you have and whether or not you end up in prison - let alone on death row. There is no reason to pay any attention to statistics like those out of the state of Arkansas - out of 195 people who got death penalty sentences 134 were African-American.
r36, what would be the burden of proof for a due process case?
I've read so many cases over the years of systemic corruption, racism and incompetence (bordering on negligence) that I can't imagine how it's still allowed.
IIRC, one of the reason Ruben (Hurricane) Carter was finally released was not innocence, but because there were so many rights violations during his legal proceedings, they were effectively a due process argument.
STATES WITHOUT THE DEATH PENALTY & YEAR ABOLISHED
Massachusetts (1984) \t
New Jersey (2007)
New Mexico (2009)
New York (2007)
North Dakota (1973)
Rhode Island (1984)