• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Executions

Rolfe said:
Would it be tasteless to ask posters how long they think it will be before the death penalty is abolished in the USA?

Rolfe.
Click to expand...
It'll be a long, long time. Individual states will discontinue the practice, perhaps only to take it up again when the mood shifts.

For a nationwide abolition, it would take one of two events: The Supreme Court would have to radically shift in its interpretation of the US Constitution. This is unlikely, since they'd just about have to ignore it. Our founding document clearly considers capital punishment an acceptable punishment given due process. Or, a constitutional amendment would have to be passed. This would probably have to be proposed by the state legislatures since the US Congress is too gutless as an institution to propose it (a two-thirds majority would have to be willing to accept the label "soft on crime" during their next elections).
 
Rolfe said:
Would it be tasteless to ask posters how long they think it will be before the death penalty is abolished in the USA?

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

Its not tasteless.

I don't see this happening nationwide in the near future (20 years) but I think in that same time many more states will abolish it, while a few would hold out longer (I'm looking at you, Texas).

I don't see the current court any such within that time frame over-riding this as a state concern. As long as they do, there will be some states that continue to execute. However, public opinion does seem to be beginning to sway away from it, and I do forsee more states giving it up
 
slingblade said:
Hubby and I were talking. The fighting we'd do wouldn't be to get away. There is no getting away. The fighting would be our last, futile act of protest. They may be taking my not-guilty life away from me, they may be actually murdering me, but I won't go quietly. I will scream and thrash and tell them I did not do this until I can't scream and thrash anymore.
Click to expand...

That's what I am talking about. I think it would be unsettling for some people watching the execution to see a struggling, screaming person begging for their life snuffed out before them. In cases of lethal injection, it seems it would make it even more problematic considering the trouble a thrashing victim would pose to the person trying to inject the needle.
 
Babbylonian said:
The Supreme Court would have to radically shift in its interpretation of the US Constitution. This is unlikely, since they'd just about have to ignore it. Our founding document clearly considers capital punishment an acceptable punishment given due process.
Click to expand...


My God, I'm glad we don't have a "founding document", or feel constrained to adhere to a centuries-old paradigm because of what some guys wrote way back when.

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
Babbylonian said:
The Supreme Court would have to radically shift in its interpretation of the US Constitution. This is unlikely, since they'd just about have to ignore it. Our founding document clearly considers capital punishment an acceptable punishment given due process.
Click to expand...
I slightly disagree with this, as the term Cruel and Unusual Punishment is deliberately vague. There is no doubt that at the time of the founding, execution was not considered such, but the vague phrasing gives the SCOTUS the leeway they need to declare it as such as standards change.

That being said, I don't see our standards as near there yet, so also see this happening soon as very unlikely.
 
Verde said:
With the current crop in the running for power, I wouldn't be surprised to see the use of homeopathic substances being used for the final event.

V.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but with the placebo effect, some prisoners may actually die from a fear induced heart attack while receiving their homeopathic lethal injection.
 
cwalner said:
I slightly disagree with this, as the term Cruel and Unusual Punishment is deliberately vague. There is no doubt that at the time of the founding, execution was not considered such, but the vague phrasing gives the SCOTUS the leeway they need to declare it as such as standards change.

That being said, I don't see our standards as near there yet, so also see this happening soon as very unlikely.
Click to expand...
"Cruel and unusual punishment" isn't the problem. Granted, it's been used in the past in connection with arguments against capital punishment (at least regarding particular methods), but the bigger problem is contained within the 5th amendment:
No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
Click to expand...
It's unfortunately virtually impossible not to read that without realizing that capital punishment is constitutional.
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
My God, I'm glad we don't have a "founding document", or feel constrained to adhere to a centuries-old paradigm because of what some guys wrote way back when.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...


We don't "adhere to a centuries-old paradigm". The fact that you think so tells me that you don't understand how the Consititution remains perfectly relevant despite its age.

The court system in the US is constantly interpreting the Constitution so that it is applicable as times change. You may not like the fact that the US Supreme Court currently finds capital punishment permissable (I don't like it either), but that's what the most current ruling is. This may and probably will change sometime in the future as attitudes in this country change.
 
It just seems that every time there is a discussion about whether something might or might not be a good thing for the USA to do, someone says, oh but we can't anyway because it's against the constitution. This seems like a very limiting thing.

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
My God, I'm glad we don't have a "founding document", or feel constrained to adhere to a centuries-old paradigm because of what some guys wrote way back when.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

Just because it's not all written in one place, this does not mean the England has no Constitution.

The English Constitution begins with the Magna Carta and has been added to ever since.

It was, I believe, described as such first by Walter Bagehot in his book "The English Constitution" in 1867. See http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/4351
 
Rolfe said:
It just seems that every time there is a discussion about whether something might or might not be a good thing for the USA to do, someone says, oh but we can't anyway because it's against the constitution. This seems like a very limiting thing.
Click to expand...
If all you're paying attention to is political nonsense, I'm sure it can seem so. The truth is that cries of "it's against the constitution" are often just melodramatic statements intended to win an argument (or an election), regardless of their accuracy or lack thereof.
 
BenBurch said:
Just because it's not all written in one place, this does not mean the England has no Constitution.

The English Constitution begins with the Magna Carta and has been added to ever since.

It was, I believe, described as such first by Walter Bagehot in his book "The English Constitution" in 1867. See http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/4351
Click to expand...


If I was English, that might be mildly interesting....

Rolfe.
 
Vic Vega said:
We don't "adhere to a centuries-old paradigm". The fact that you think so tells me that you don't understand how the Consititution remains perfectly relevant despite its age.

The court system in the US is constantly interpreting the Constitution so that it is applicable as times change. You may not like the fact that the US Supreme Court currently finds capital punishment permissable (I don't like it either), but that's what the most current ruling is. This may and probably will change sometime in the future as attitudes in this country change.
Click to expand...

I blame the punctuation. IANAL, so maybe I'm mistaken but don't legal types avoid them like the plague so as to avoid misunderstandings? See Roger CasementWP, "hanged by a comma".
 
Rolfe said:
Just because it's not all written in one place, this does not mean the England has no Constitution.

The English Constitution begins with the Magna Carta and has been added to ever since.
Click to expand...
If I was English, that might be mildly interesting....

Rolfe.
Click to expand...
I think the reason he thought you were English is because you said there was "no founding document" (assumed to mean "a constitution").

The fact is, most western countries do have some sort of written, explicit constitution, England being one of the rare exceptions. So if you suggest you're glad you live in an area where you don't have to worry about "centuries-old paradigms" then assuming you're in england is natural. The alternative would be that you simply didn't know about the existence of your country's constitution.
 
Rolfe said:
My God, I'm glad we don't have a "founding document", or feel constrained to adhere to a centuries-old paradigm because of what some guys wrote way back when.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

I'm equally glad I don't live in a country that feels the need to let mass murderers of 270 innocent victims walk free. We execute them.

So, I kind of like our constitution.

More on topic, I wonder how al-Megrahi would have reacted on his walk to the electric chair? (Pretending, of course, that he was innocent)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom