If the death penalty is to be used

[Gumboy]

Well, back in the day, their were quite a few less states, quite a few less congress critters, and they were not QUITE so hostile towards each other most of the time. They did not want set political parties (Well, some of them didn't) basically for this very reason. But, here we are.

- - - Updated - - -

I spent seven years in one, can attest that you're absolutely right about that, lol.

I understand what people are saying about executions being quick, however imo if you want the death penalty to actually be a deterrent, then the one being executed should suffer as much as his victim(s) did. People who are stabbed/beaten/raped to death spend their last moments in fear and pain. This may sound crass but giving their murderer a painless death seems like a travesty of justice to me. And this is coming from a convicted felon.

Nah, that would be pretty much the definition of cruel and unusual. Though I think sitting on death row for 20+ years is also cruel and unusual, but what can you do.

[Stormdash]

Give me proof. You're wasting keystrokes that could be better spent finding me a URL.

Um, okay --

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 offense 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.

Emphasis added, Amendment V, US Constitution, Proposed 9/25/1789. Ratified 12/15/1791.

Those dates are the exact same proposal and ratification dates for the 8th Amendment. How much of a fool does someone have to be to think that laws offered and ratified simultaneously are in direct contradiction? The 5th Amendment's double jeopardy protection is written explicitly envisioning that people will be placed on trial for their life, legally, so how can one seriously believe that the 8th Amendment makes any such trial for their life unconstitutional on its face?

[Independent voter]

They asked some doctors how they would like to be executed. Decapitation was the most popular choice, firing squad was second. I think the courts have ruled decapitation as cruel and unusual but if it's the best method maybe we should look at it.

[Rukentuts]

Um, okay --



Emphasis added, Amendment V, US Constitution, Proposed 9/25/1789. Ratified 12/15/1791.

Those dates are the exact same proposal and ratification dates for the 8th Amendment. How much of a fool does someone have to be to think that laws offered and ratified simultaneously are in direct contradiction? The 5th Amendment's double jeopardy protection is written explicitly envisioning that people will be placed on trial for their life, legally, so how can one seriously believe that the 8th Amendment makes any such trial for their life unconstitutional on its face?

You didn't answer my question, why can't SCOTUS abolish capital punishment when it has already narrowed the scope under the 8th amendment time and time again? Because, PS: the amendment doesn't say the death penalty needs to be under force of law.

A relevant link, please.

[psiko74]

The more horrific the crime committed the more they should suffer.

[Deleted]

I spent seven years in one, can attest that you're absolutely right about that, lol.

I understand what people are saying about executions being quick, however imo if you want the death penalty to actually be a deterrent, then the one being executed should suffer as much as his victim(s) did. People who are stabbed/beaten/raped to death spend their last moments in fear and pain. This may sound crass but giving their murderer a painless death seems like a travesty of justice to me. And this is coming from a convicted felon.

Pretty sure in the vast expanses of history and the world, we have somewhat come to the conclusion that no matter how harsh and cruel a punishment one can dish out, it was or will never be a deterrent.

[Gumboy]

They asked some doctors how they would like to be executed. Decapitation was the most popular choice, firing squad was second. I think the courts have ruled decapitation as cruel and unusual but if it's the best method maybe we should look at it.

I'd rather be decapitated then firing squadded. Or lethal injection to be 100% honest. I don't like drugs.... :P

[slime]

It should be made the longest taking most painful process possible. The thought of what happens to you during an execution should strike fear into the most cold criminal's heart. As you can see it doesn't work for shit to devert criminals now. And next time you preach huminity to the inhuman - do some research see what this criminal did to his victims.

[Wythel]

Guillotine was pretty effective

[slime]

Pretty sure in the vast expanses of history and the world, we have somewhat come to the conclusion that no matter how harsh and cruel a punishment one can dish out, it was or will never be a deterrent.

I disagree. I have come to the opposite conclusion.

[Deleted]

I am betting we do not get to page 3 before some edgy kid comes up with a cruel and sadistic alternative, probably offering to administer it themself.

It should be made the longest taking most painful process possible. The thought of what happens to you during an execution should strike fear into the most cold criminal's heart. As you can see it doesn't work for shit to devert criminals now. And next time you preach huminity to the inhuman - do some research see what this criminal did to his victims.

Ding ding ding, we have a winner

[prwraith]

Decapitated is the best choice.

Sleeping Drug + Guillotine = best

[Gumboy]

It should be made the longest taking most painful process possible. The thought of what happens to you during an execution should strike fear into the most cold criminal's heart. As you can see it doesn't work for shit to devert criminals now. And next time you preach huminity to the inhuman - do some research see what this criminal did to his victims.

Does not seem to work that way in human history. People commit crimes now knowing they could be raped in prison every day for the rest of their lives; people commit crimes knowing they could be held in solitary for the last 65 years of their lives; you think threat of pain is going to stop some guy from shooting his wives lover in a fit of rage?

[Monoxide]

Give me proof. You're wasting keystrokes that could be better spent finding me a URL.

People like you are annoying, lazy, twats who don't want to actually contribute to the topic but rather send people on fetch quests to deflect from the fact that you have no idea what's going on.

30 seconds of google search will show you the fifth amendment:

"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."

Pretty clear right there.

Don't be that guy, Rukentuts.

[Rukentuts]

People like you are annoying, lazy, twats who don't want to actually contribute to the topic but rather send people on fetch quests to deflect from the fact that you have no idea what's going on.

30 seconds of google search will show you the fifth amendment:

"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."

Pretty clear right there.

Don't be that guy, Rukentuts.

Perhaps you should read my response. You can find it here.

[Gumboy]

Again, this is not about whether the death penalty should be abolished guys...but about the method that they use to do it (And they will continue to do it, and we all know it)

[Stormdash]

You didn't answer my question, why can't SCOTUS abolish capital punishment when it has already narrowed the scope under the 8th amendment time and time again?

A relevant link, please.

I mean, they can I suppose, nobody's going to arrest them, they just can't do so without blatantly ignoring the actual purpose and scope of the 8th Amendment as it was put to the nation and ratified into law. They can't without disgracing their oaths and office. They can't without undermining the nature and purpose of a republic in which the law is supreme and the people are sovereign. I know that sort of ethical consideration is wasted on such as you, but it does matter to those who think that the means matter as much as the ends, that the law is no place for pure consequentialists.

It would be perverse to leave the public's only remedy as enacting a constitutional amendment to legalize what is already legal under the constitution as it was ratified but justices decided to ignore and declare illegal.

[Rukentuts]

I mean, they can I suppose, nobody's going to arrest them, they just can't do so without blatantly ignoring the actual purpose and scope of the 8th Amendment as it was put to the nation and ratified into law. They can't without disgracing their oaths and office. They can't without undermining the nature and purpose of a republic in which the law is supreme and the people are sovereign. I know that sort of ethical consideration is wasted on such as you, but it does matter to those who think that the means matter as much as the ends, that the law is no place for pure consequentialists.

It would be perverse to leave the public's only remedy as enacting a constitutional amendment to legalize what is already legal under the constitution as it was ratified but justices decided to ignore and declare illegal.

This isn't evidence as to how they've been able to do so.

If you actually read the amendment, it said only a grand jury was required, not that capital punishment was. Please, get me a link.

[Deleted]

Ha, I read this article by chance last night.

Just remember: Prisoners aren't people.

Yes they are and should be treated as such.

[Deleted]

I don't see how a lethal injection is humane. You suffer through the terror of knowing that they are about to pump you full of poison, and on top of that, they give you a paralytic agent so that even if you suffer immense pain, there would be no way of showing it.

That's some sadistic shit.

The more horrific the crime committed the more they should suffer.

Why? So people like you can get off to the thought of some poor fucker getting tortured to death?