Does Death Penalty Violate 8th Amendment - Cruel & Unusual Punishment?

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

16 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Once is too many, but it's happened far more than just once.  Just one non-profit, The Innocence Project, has exonerated 20 people through DNA evidence who were on death row.  How many more have there been over the years who were executed before DNA evidence was available?

I'd rather a 1000 people be locked away til they die than end up executing one innocent person.  If we screwed up on a life sentence, we might not be able to give them back the years they lost, but we can set them free and pay them some monetary restitution.  But dead is dead.  It's over.  It can't be fixed.

Again, innocent people being put to death on execution row is not by any means the norm. Also, the legitimacy of your concern doesn’t really speak to whether or not the court should decide the issue.

Back on topic though. Let’s not derail the focus, please.

 Constitutionally speaking, the court should punt. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

And let's not forget our history of racial bias when applying the death penality.

That doesn’t speak to the current case 

[TexasTiger 12,811]

14 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Again, innocent people being put to death on execution row is not by any means the norm. Also, the legitimacy of your concern doesn’t really speak to whether or not the court should decide the issue.

Back on topic though. Let’s not derail the focus, please.

 Constitutionally speaking, the court should punt. 

I’m always amazed that folks who think government is inept at almost everything believe they are adept at deciding who should live and who should die. The higher the risk at stake, the lower the margin of acceptable error. You seem to think an opinion contrary to yours on the topic is derailing the focus.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

3 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

I’m always amazed that folks who think government is inept at almost everything believe they are adept at deciding who should live and who should die. The higher the risk at stake, the lower the margin of acceptable error. You seem to think an opinion contrary to yours on the topic is derailing the focus.

What a cheap statement. I don't even know what the hell your second statement is supposed to mean. You have utterly failed to understand the issue at play here. It has ZERO to do with one's emotional stance on the death penalty. It's not about whether one believes the government is inept or not. It's about who should decide the legality of it. It's about settling the issue while not tampering with democracy - namely, considering things like Separation of Powers and our Bicameral Congress. This doesn't even require one to make an emotional argument about the death penalty.. Simpling arguing that "the death penalty is wrong" does absolutely nothing to move the needle. 

It's an invitation to argue for or against whether the court is the proper branch of government to decide the issue - taking into consideration principles of democracy, constitutional provisions, etc. It's not about emotional arguments. Perhaps one who only offers emotional arguments is inept to speak on the issue. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

On 3/16/2018 at 9:23 PM, homersapien said:

Good grief.  

Good job speaking to the issue. 

[homersapien 11,354]

18 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Again, innocent people being put to death on execution row is not by any means the norm. Also, the legitimacy of your concern doesn’t really speak to whether or not the court should decide the issue.

Back on topic though. Let’s not derail the focus, please.

 Constitutionally speaking, the court should punt. 

Execution of innocent persons is "off topic"?   

[homersapien 11,354]

46 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Good job speaking to the issue. 

You seem to have 'thread-control' issues.    

[homersapien 11,354]

18 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

That doesn’t speak to the current case 

Not sure what you are trying to say, but history always speaks to the present.  

[homersapien 11,354]

4 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

I’m always amazed that folks who think government is inept at almost everything believe they are adept at deciding who should live and who should die. The higher the risk at stake, the lower the margin of acceptable error. You seem to think an opinion contrary to yours on the topic is derailing the focus.

You noticed also, huh?   

[TexasTiger 12,811]

57 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

What a cheap statement. I don't even know what the hell your second statement is supposed to mean. You have utterly failed to understand the issue at play here. It has ZERO to do with one's emotional stance on the death penalty. It's not about whether one believes the government is inept or not. It's about who should decide the legality of it. It's about settling the issue while not tampering with democracy - namely, considering things like Separation of Powers and our Bicameral Congress. This doesn't even require one to make an emotional argument about the death penalty.. Simpling arguing that "the death penalty is wrong" does absolutely nothing to move the needle. 

It's an invitation to argue for or against whether the court is the proper branch of government to decide the issue - taking into consideration principles of democracy, constitutional provisions, etc. It's not about emotional arguments. Perhaps one who only offers emotional arguments is inept to speak on the issue. 

You’re “arguments” are driven by your emotions on this issue. You have little emotional fits when you encounter disagreements. The Court looks at how laws are applied. If a system is so rife with flaws, they may find the law as applied is unconstitutional even if it could theoretically be applied constitutionally.

Folks who think the government is inept at everything but deciding who lives or dies are hardly coming from a position of pure logic.

[homersapien 11,354]

51 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

What a cheap statement. I don't even know what the hell your second statement is supposed to mean. You have utterly failed to understand the issue at play here. It has ZERO to do with one's emotional stance on the death penalty. It's not about whether one believes the government is inept or not. It's about who should decide the legality of it. It's about settling the issue while not tampering with democracy - namely, considering things like Separation of Powers and our Bicameral Congress. This doesn't even require one to make an emotional argument about the death penalty.. Simpling arguing that "the death penalty is wrong" does absolutely nothing to move the needle. 

It's an invitation to argue for or against whether the court is the proper branch of government to decide the issue - taking into consideration principles of democracy, constitutional provisions, etc. It's not about emotional arguments. Perhaps one who only offers emotional arguments is inept to speak on the issue. 

Confirmation irony.  

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

Not sure what you are trying to say, but history always speaks to the present.  

The issue is one of justiciability. Whether the court even has jurisdiction to decide the matter. Why is that so difficult to understand? History shows us that the death penalty is not unconstitutional (this is not the same as saying it is constitutional; the constitution doesn’t prescribe it; states aren’t preempted from legislating it). In other words, the framers left the decision to the states, NOT the courts. If it’s banned, good - but don’t legislate it from the bench.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

3 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

You’re “arguments” are driven by your emotions on this issue. You have little emotional fits when you encounter disagreements. The Court looks at how laws are applied. If a system is so rife with flaws, they may find the law as applied is unconstitutional even if it could theoretically be applied constitutionally.

Folks who think the government is inept at everything but deciding who lives or dies are hardly coming from a position of pure logic.

Goodness you’re way off. My arguments are in no way driven by emotion.  My personal views on capital punishment are irrelevant when the issue is “who” has authority to decide the case. Yours are also. It doesn’t matter how bad you think it is. The issue is which branch of government has authority over the matter. 

Why is this so difficult for you??? Your last statement makes no sense. Who are you saying should decide the legality of the death penalty? The legislature or the courts?

If you oppose it, good. Now, who has the authority to ban it and why? I say the legislature does. Either you agree or don’t. If you don’t, i presume you think courts have authority to decide the issue; so explain your position.

its not even an argument - it’s you failing to even grasp the issue.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

You noticed also, huh?   

They aren’t making “arguments.” This isn’t about whether one “thinks” it should be banned: but rather “who” has that authority - courts or legislature? 

Goodness 

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

Execution of innocent persons is "off topic"?   

Yes. It doesn’t speak to the issue at all. If it evidences the notion that it should be banned, great. Now, who gets to ban it, courts or legislature?

[homersapien 11,354]

11 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Goodness you’re way off. My arguments are in no way driven by emotion.  My personal views on capital punishment are irrelevant when the issue is “who” has authority to decide the case. Yours are also. It doesn’t matter how bad you think it is. The issue is which branch of government has authority over the matter. 

Why is this so difficult for you??? Your last statement makes no sense. Who are you saying should decide the legality of the death penalty? The legislature or the courts?

If you oppose it, good. Now, who has the authority to ban it and why? I say the legislature does. Either you agree or don’t. If you don’t, i presume you think courts have authority to decide the issue; so explain your position.

its not even an argument - it’s you failing to even grasp the issue.

Or maybe it's you failing to define "the issue".   

[homersapien 11,354]

4 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Yes. It doesn’t speak to the issue at all. If it evidences the notion that it should be banned, great. Now, who gets to ban it, courts or legislature?

Is this a trick question?

The legislature could pass a ban, which might be followed by a court ruling on the constitutionality of such a ban.

Alternatively, the courts could do it on their own by simply ruling on what constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment. (Like that's going to happen. )

 

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Or maybe it's you failing to define "the issue".   

Namely, whether the death penalty is unconstitutional under the 8th Amend. - I hold it is not. At the time when the framers wrote the Bill of Rights, the death penalty was the form of punishment for felons. So to immediately hold that it is unconstitutional is false. The Framers did not prescribe it in the constitution either. Its a matter that, then, I argue, the framers left to the states and certainly not to the courts. 

Notice, this doesn't require me to express personally whether I agree with it or not.  

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

17 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Is this a trick question?

The legislature could pass a ban, which might be followed by a court ruling on the constitutionality of such a ban.

Alternatively, the courts could do it on their own by simply ruling on what constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment. (Like that's going to happen. )

 

 

Not at all a trick question. It's the heart of the matter. If the legislature banned the death penalty, I don't know, under which grounds, the courts could come in and make a ruling that the constitution prescribes the death penalty. My reading of the constitution makes me aware of no clause under which such an argument could be brought. Also, note that some states have abolished the death penalty. Those statutes have survived constitutional challenges.

Alternatively, if the courts ruled on whether or not the death penalty fits within or not within "cruel and unusual punishment" they would effectively re-write an understanding of the clause that has been present since the passing of the Constitution. We know, when the framers wrote the bill of rights, capital punishment was not banned under the Amendment. It has been an area traditionally left to Congress. So, to hold that it is no longer constitutional based on an existing clause, the Court would be changing the meaning of the words in the Amendment. Again, if that's what's done, then we have a constitutional process for how to do that (bicameralism and presentment). But it is not up to nine unelected officials to change what the words of the document mean, it's up to the people of whom the Amendment protects. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

You seem to have 'thread-control' issues.    

Yeah and did you notice how I wasn't a d**k about it?

[TexasTiger 12,811]

37 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Goodness you’re way off. My arguments are in no way driven by emotion.  My personal views on capital punishment are irrelevant when the issue is “who” has authority to decide the case. Yours are also. It doesn’t matter how bad you think it is. The issue is which branch of government has authority over the matter. 

Why is this so difficult for you??? Your last statement makes no sense. Who are you saying should decide the legality of the death penalty? The legislature or the courts?

If you oppose it, good. Now, who has the authority to ban it and why? I say the legislature does. Either you agree or don’t. If you don’t, i presume you think courts have authority to decide the issue; so explain your position.

its not even an argument - it’s you failing to even grasp the issue.

Either has the authority. If the legislature disagrees with a Court ruling on the Constitution they can pass an amendment. This is basic civics. Your emotions are getting in your way.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

11 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Either has the authority. If the legislature disagrees with a Court ruling on the Constitution they can pass an amendment. This is basic civics. Your emotions are getting in your way.

My emotions?!?! HA! Please don't embarrass yourself.  

Basic civics? WTH?

How do you know either has the authority? Have you ever read the Case or Controversy Clause? The Court could decide that they don't have authority to rule on the case because of justiciability issues.  

The Court, many times, has punted on issues that they determine essentially required them to write law. They understand such a requirement exceeds their permissible, constitutional authority and would pervert the Separation of Powers. 

[TexasTiger 12,811]

1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

My emotions?!?! HA! Basic civics? WTH?

How do you know either has the authority? Have you ever read the Case or Controversy Clause? The Court could decide that they don't have authority to rule on the case because of justiciability issues.  

The Court, many times, has punted on issues that they determine essentially required them to write law. They understand such a requirement exceeds their permissible, constitutional authority and would pervert the Separation of Powers. 

Whatever they do in this particular case, the Court has the authority to address issues of Constitutionality. Full stop. I’m done with your insane ranting.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

Just now, TexasTiger said:

Whatever they do in this particular case, the Court has the authority to address issues of Constitutionality. Full stop. I’m done with your insane ranting.

Good. You're obsessed with arguing about something that isn't even relevant. 

[homersapien 11,354]

2 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Yeah and did you notice how I wasn't a d**k about it?

You've certainly been acting like a jerk.