Electrocution for DP cases violate the 8th Amendment?

[EMNofSeattle]

Yes it is. Lock people up unless you are absolutely certain

So you think it’s acceptable to lock up people without certainty?

 

[vegas giants]

So you think it’s acceptable to lock up people without certainty?

Yes. Because there is a remedy to that. There is no remedy to the death penalty

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Yes. Because there is a remedy to that. There is no remedy to the death penalty

Actually there is no remedy to prison either. But that’s not the point, the point is if the system sentences someone to be punished after trial and finding of guilty that is morally right, even if the person is later found to have not committed the offense any punishment Recieved after conviction for it was just.

 

[vegas giants]

Oh so someone who claims himself better then virtually all humans who’ve ever lived.

it is not “barbaric” to use the death penalty, it is perfect justice which is the opposite of barbarism.

the death penalty is not “racist” it is a concept of justice and thus cannot be.

it is not to enact vengeance, it is to enact justice, which is puntitive. It is punishment not revenge

Perhaps we should put the eyes out for a company president if he makes a product that left a person blind

 

[vegas giants]

Actually there is no remedy to prison either. But that’s not the point, the point is if the system sentences someone to be punished after trial and finding of guilty that is morally right, even if the person is later found to have not committed the offense any punishment Recieved after conviction for it was just.

Nope. Sorry that is morally wrong and why people wrongfully convicted get damages

 

[Antiwar]

This is where I have to break from my traditional moderate/ liberal politics. There are some crime so heinous that execution is not only deserved, but mandated.
When I lived in Florida there was a man who had intercourse with a baby, 6 or 8 months old I think (memory a little foggy, it was a few tears ago), the baby died in excruciating pain from massive internal injuries. I think that useless scum needs to be put down, and I don't even care if he suffers for a while.

Execution only adds problems.

Someone that does something like that should be the subject of much study (to determine what went wrong).

 

[911Sparky]

Execution only adds problems.

Someone that does something like that should be the subject of much study (to determine what went wrong).

Okay, study them for a couple years then execute them.

 

[vegas giants]

Okay, study them for a couple years then execute them.

And if you get it wrong? Oooooops

 

[911Sparky]

And if you get it wrong? Oooooops

See my other posts where I talk about standards for using the death penalty.

 

[Antiwar]

Okay, study them for a couple years then execute them.

Nope. Take very good care of this person for the rest of their life, prevent them from victimizing others, and study them.

 

[Antiwar]

See my other posts where I talk about standards for using the death penalty.

High standards for something with an unprincipled root.

 

[911Sparky]

Not necessarily. As long as the court found the person guilty and believed them to be guilty then executing them even if by misfortune when they didn’t commit the act is not wrong and is still morally good as the state has no obligation to be perfect but does have an obligation to enforce public order.

As long as it doesn't happen to you, right?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

As long as it doesn't happen to you, right?

In a society of 300,000 plus million people it is very bad to base public policy off of how any one person would feel if misfortune occurred to them.

 

[ASHES]

In a society of 300,000 plus million people it is very bad to base public policy off of how any one person would feel if misfortune occurred to them.

There's not even 300 billion people on earth.

 

[maxparrish]

Execution only adds problems.

Someone that does something like that should be the subject of much study (to determine what went wrong).

Problems like where to bury the corpse? No worry, composting works great.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

There's not even 300 billion people on earth.

regardless of typing errors, the point still stands

 

[ASHES]

regardless of typing errors, the point still stands

How do you think the Prison Warden would feel when it turns out they have executed an innocent person? Or that they were holding an innocent person against their will for decades? The punishments imposed affect many more people than just the prisoner. The system for finding, prosecuting, and punishing guilty parties is usually swift and accurate, but not always. The system for finding and correcting the mistakes is long and cumbersome. If the system was more enthusiastic about righting it's wrongs, I'd be cheaper for the taxpayers(not having to rightfully pay hundreds of millions to the wrongly convicted), and provide better justice for all involved.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

How do you think the Prison Warden would feel when it turns out they have executed an innocent person? Or that they were holding an innocent person against their will for decades? The system for finding, prosecuting, and punishing guilty parties is usually swift and accurate, but not always. The system for finding and correcting the mistakes is long and cumbersome. If the system was more enthusiastic about righting it's wrongs, I'd be cheaper for the taxpayers(not having to rightfully pay hundreds of millions to the wrongly convicted), and provide better justice for all involved.

Well the simple answer is the state should never be liable for a good faith conviction, ever.

 

[ASHES]

Well the simple answer is the state should never be liable for a good faith conviction, ever.

Wrong. Wrong is wrong, deprivation of civil rights shall not go uncompensated.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Wrong. Wrong is wrong, deprivation of civil rights shall not go uncompensated.

Your rights have not been violated if you are convicted in a jury trial.

 

[ASHES]

Your rights have not been violated if you are convicted in a jury trial.

Of course they have, if you didn't do it.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Of course they have, if you didn't do it.

No, you have procedural rights and if the procedure finds you guilty they were respected and not broken.

 

[JANFU]

Why, <SARC>the government digs them up and apologizes profusely before giving them a huge "Green Poultice"</SARC>.

More seriously, that seldom happens. Since the case is closed and any change in the outcome is moot the courts are not likely to allow any reopening (there not being any living person with any standing to even bring on the case for an appeal) and thus the verdict of "Guilty" stands.

US need a change in 1 area of law, that if a family member are willing to pay for DNA testing that would clear the convict, why impede them?

Now is below still the case?

U.S. Supreme Court Says Prisoners Have No Right to Test DNA Evidence That Could Exonerate Them

eji.org

On June 18, 2009, the United States Supreme Court held that prisoners have no right to obtain DNA evidence for testing that could prove they are innocent, even if the prisoner pays for the testing himself.

The case, District Attorney’s Office for Third Judicial Dist. v. Osborne, No. 08-6 (U.S. June 18, 2009), involves the 1994 conviction of William Osborne, for sexual assault and kidnapping, in Alaska. At the time of Mr. Osborne’s trial, the type of DNA testing used was similar to blood-typing — it showed that Mr. Osborne could have been the source of biological evidence on a condom found at the crime scene, but so could thousands of other people in Alaska. Mr. Osborne was convicted and sentenced to 26 years in prison.

 

[JANFU]

Of course they have, if you didn't do it.

Some have a block on that simple truth - juries make mistakes all the time

 

[Cordelier]

Pretty much any punishment can be considered cruel. That's why it's punishment -- it sucks. My point is that the "unusual" prong requires more than just something not being the average and ordinary punishment.

We can debate the meaning of "cruel" all you want... but I think no matter how you cut it, taking a person's life is always going to qualify. It's the ultimate punishment... and that's why capital cases are always given "unusual" treatment. You put the two prongs together, though, and I'm not really sure that it squares with the 8th Amendment. I'm not saying that the death penalty is itself unconstitutional - the 5th Amendment specifically says people may be deprived of life - but I do think the way it is currently being implemented is unconstitutional.