Couldn’t the same be said about seeing the gurney that they’re about to be strapped to, or back in the day, looking at the electric chair? (Does anyone still USE the electric chair, or the gas chamber?)
I guess you could always blindfold the guy.
I always love (i.e., hate) this argument. Appeals to the supposed masses. Aside from which, it defines civilization largely by votes. In which case, I’m sorry, but Europe isn’t it, because they’ll be outvoted by everyone else.
Personally, I’d rather be shot. It may not be as “humane” or other such rubbish )look, ma, I’m British!) but it has the advantage of having a personal touch. I’d rather be killed by someone, not an anonymous machine. I guess that must sound wierd.
I’m just wondering what kind of card Hallmark would write about it.
I think this is very well said, and I very much agree. Note the first paragraph in particular. (Although to be technical, the Constitution itself does not directly address the death penalty, but that it is permissible is such a strong inference that it might as well be said that it does: “…shall not deprive … of life … without due process of law.”)
Messrs. Justices Brennan and (Thurgood) Marshall were convinced that the death penalty was “cruel and unusual punishment,” and always argued in this sense, in dissents (and in one case a majority) and in dissents from denial of cert., something very rare other than their insistence on doing a DDC for every Death Row case that came up as a cert. petition. Save for the unique (and patently illegal) circumstances of that one case, though, they never were able to put together a majority. [I don’t recall the specifics of the case, except to say that I recall that the trial court took “railroading” a prosecution to a new level; if any lawyer or law student wants to dig out the details, I’d be interested.]
New York’s law some years back (I don’t know if it’s changed) permitted the death penalty in only two circumstances: murder while already serving a sentence of life imprisonment, and murder of a police officer while he was in the line of duty.
North Carolina has a strong upswelling for a moratorium on imposition of its death penalty, including by advocates of capital punishment who are, like their counterparts in opposition to it, convinced that it is being imposed arbitrarily and more based on whether the accused can get a good lawyer than on any aggravating circumstances associated with the case.
I guess i don’t understand why, if we must execute people, we don’t just give them a lethal dose of some type of depressent, like barbiturates. It would seem to me the most humane way to kill someone. They could just take the pills - heck, let 'em wash them down with their favorite beer or liquor if they like - say their final piece and lay down for a nap.
Lord knows i’d prefer that to an injection or any of the other methods currently employed.
I thought that when I saw the story on the news. That or a gunshot to the back of the head.
It seemed to me that the manner of execution had to be less grisly for those watching, not for those suffering it.
We have means of euthanizing animals that are painless, at least as far as I could tell from holding a beloved pet while he was “put to sleep.” The vet injected something that put him into unconsciousness – not paralysis. He said it was the same stuff that would be used prior to surgery. Then the drug that caused the heart to stop was injected and in a minute he was gone. If we truly wanted to execute someone with zero pain, that would be about as close as we could get. Why isn’t the same method used? Or is it in some places?
With animal killings, a skilled practitioner who does the job regularly (and working with a being with no concept of imminenet death) and whose intent is an easy death, is able to do the job humanely.
With human killings, semi skilled practitioners who do the job irregularly (and working with a being who is all to clear about their intentions) and whose intent is wreaking death as a punishment, are unable to do the job humanely.
I am not a constitutional lawyer.
My understanding of “cruel and unusual” as originally intended in the consitution is that it ensures consistency and fairness in sentencing. There should be a particular penalty for a particular crime, comnsistently applied. A sentence is “unusual” if it is rarely imposed and “cruel” if it is substantially harsher than the standard penalty.
What makes the current US death penalty “cruel and unusual” is the fact that it is so rarely used. Youi could have 100 nearly identical murders, 99 get 20 year sentences, the 100th gets a death sentence. The difference is random and arbitrary, and may be due to a politician seeking reelection at that particular time.
Thus even a completely pain-free execution would be cruel and unusual if it is used rarely and capriciously. This leads to the arguments: how rare is rare? If the law specifies the precise conditions for a death sentence, is that sufficient? Is the death penalty sought for ALL cop killers, or only 1 in 100?
As I understand it, this is the primary meaning of cruel and unusual. A frequently used but painful method of execution *might *also qualify, because it amounts to torture, and torture is cruel and unusual within the primary meaning. But painful does not automatically mean cruel, legally speaking.
Speaking for myself, I am opposed to the death penalty in all circumstances.
I’d rather one of the practicing lawyers on the board spoke to the reasoning here, because I’m not certain about the underlying premises.
But I do want to point out that there is a real if minor flaw in “There should be a particular penalty for a particular crime, consistently applied. A sentence is “unusual” if it is rarely imposed and “cruel” if it is substantially harsher than the standard penalty.” Rather, there should be a particular range of penalties for a particular crime, consistently applied. A mandatory sentence for grand theft auto that gives a judge no discretion between a teenage joyrider and a part of an interstate car-theft/chopshop ring is not doing justice.
The point would be, if the death penalty is appropriate for only certain particularly aggravated and heinous killings, is it consistently charged and imposed as a sentence? Or is it a case of “Killing while black is punishable by death,” as some critics of the sentence in some states have suggested is the unspoken true criterion? (That is, by the way, not an intent to hijack with the “race card,” but repertorial about an apparent disparity: Strangely enough, if you take the trial-and-conviction figures with a straight face, a black killer is six or seven times more
likely to commit capital murder than a non-capital homicide, which is a crime more often committed by a white killer. It leads one to suspect, not that a black man is more inherently vicious in his means of killing, but that there is residual racism in how homicide crimes are charged, prosecuted, and tried.
To address the incorrect and misleading statements made here:
The brain does not “remain conscious for several minutes” upon cardiac arrest. Immediate loss of consciousness is the rule. The onset of brain death will not occur for several minutes, but the individual in cardiac arrest is not aware during this period.
All forms of execution have traditionally involved restraint, as condemned killers might just decide to evade the penalty otherwise.
None of these allegations of “extreme pain” have been documented, nor are they likely to be, as subjects of execution do not return to document their experiences.
In any event, as the OP and the Lancet article demonstrate, the protestors in this case have zero interest in ensuring a painless execution process - only in banning the death penalty, which has outlasted decades of challenges (whether or not “neocons” were in the ascendancy). The Lancet article’s conclusions remain suspect for the reasons I cited earlier.
It is also strange that while the authors cite supposed poor training on the part of those administering sedation prior to execution, the journal editorial fulminates about any involvement of physicians in the process. The training issue is therefore a smokescreen.
Argue against the death penalty on moral grounds as you please, but spare us the phony arguments about “cruel and unusual punishment”.
The article that Peter Morris linked to has a good, basic explanation of the 8th Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The punishment must be known to the common law, not barbaric, not torture, and not excessive for the crime committed.
Gregg v. Georgia, 453 U.S. 153, 169-70 (1976) (plurality opinion).
Most importantly for this discussion, however, is that the concept of “cruel and unusual” may change over time:
Id. at 171. In other words, while currently the Constitution permits the death penalty, we may reach a point as a society where we consider the death penalty to be barbaric; at that time, it would become unconstitutional. We’re not there yet:
Id. at 180-182. Admittedly, Gregg is a 1976 case, and I haven’t looked very hard to see whether the Court has considered the death penalty as violative of the Eight Amendment since then, although I’ll note that the Court cited Gregg with approval in 1998 in Buchanan v. Angelone on an unrelated point.
That being said, it will require work on the part of those who oppose the death penalty to create a national consensus of sufficient scope that the Court will consider finding the death penalty unconstitutional. In my opinion, it must start with the states, whose legislatures continue to permit the death penalty for crimes.
Polycarp is right, by the way. A particular sentence, rigidly imposed without care for the individual circumstances of the crime of the defendant, is prohibited by the Constitution. I’ll stop there, as this is long enough already.