Got it! We bring six of them out to Hollywood every week, and do a live show where the one who begs for his life best doesn’t die!
Bullshit.
However, since your proposal clearly does violate the 8th Amendment*, for the sake of this silly discussion, do you propose a new Amendment or just plan to impose this despite the Constitution?
- “Cruel and unusual.”
There is no country in the First world, no country following the principles of English Common Law, and no point in U.S. history where such punishments have been legislated or enforced, so it immediately fails the “unusual” test. Beyond that, of course, it is just dumb.
I tried to write a reply, I really did. But the fact that anyone could honestly think this is a good idea fills me with such a profound sense of despair that I can’t even bring myself to debate. You win. 
Hey, that’s a good point - the OP’s title is: “Death for any felony: Let’s bring it back.” (emphasis mine, obviously)
So I’d like to ask the OP exactly when he thinks we’d be bringing this back FROM, because I can’t think of any time in American history we did this. (Unless he wants to claim ancestral ties or Hammurabi-like legal ties from ancient Mesopotamia or whatever, but that’d be just silly.)
Ok, then I’ll seriously answer you. This is a remarkably bad idea. Keep in mind, I’m ok with the death penalty. I’m even ok with the death penalty for violent rape and for people under the age of 18, both of which the court found unconstitutional.
But I’m looking here at the Virginia criminal code.
In Virginia, maliciously setting fire to wood is a class 6 felony.
Possession of burglary tools is a class 5.
Removing a permanent identification mark from a piece of property, if the value of the property is over $200, is a class 5 felony.
Issuence of bad checks over $200 is a class 6 felony
Bigamy is a class 4 felony.
Bribery is a class 4 felony
I’m not saying these shouldn’t be crimes, but they shouldn’t all be punishable by death. One of the things our justice system does is rank crimes by their severity. We realize that someone who drinks underage shouldn’t be punished as severely as someone who kills a police officer, for instance. Your proposal would erase some of those distinctions, and it wouldn’t be good.
The Hamurabi code recommends the death penalty for a short changing serving wench. (True fact, you could look it up.) A modification was recommended by the Grand Vizier of Akkad, but he was summarily dismissed.
Wouldn’t it fail the cruel test rather than the unusual test? The unusual test involves the punishment of two people for similar crimes. So, you know, if everyone else gets a $25 ticket for speeding, and I get 5 years in jail, my punishment is unusual for the offense.
In most countries, fraud is a felony. Fraud is a deception made for personal gain.
The next (unrelated) question to consider, is why do some people post controversial OPs? Is it for some sort of personal gain? What are the consequences of this?
A significant problem with this is articulating what the “higher” standard of proof for execution is. “Beyond reasonable doubt” was developed at a time when executions were common, and is in principle the highest available standard capable of practical application. While juries are typically not directed further as to its meaning, it requires acquittal if there is any real-world doubt (as opposed to a fanciful doubt).
A standard of beyond any doubt could never in practice be achieved - fanciful doubts can always be generated, limited only by imagination, in the most rock-solid of cases.
People who approach this issue for the first time sometimes suppose that some quasi-mathematical test can be applied - 80% certainty? 95% certainty? - but this is not so. Such numbers are just arbitrary hunches because facts in the real world are simply incapable of that sort of precise assessment. If a child says she was molested, and the defence demonstrates some inconsistencies in her account but they are no more than what one would expect of anyone in a difficult situation, from where does any numerical assessment of certainty emerge? (And please don’t go all Bayesian on me - purported use of Bayes’s theorem doesn’t make the problem go away.)
Most cases can be reduced to whether or not you believe some witness or other. Every defence will involve attacking such a witness or witnesses - the mere presence of an attack is an artifact of the need to come up with something to talk about, and not necessarily of the merit of the attack.
You have given examples of the sorts of evidence which might make guilt “certain”, but in reality such certainty (in the sense that certainty means 100% certainty) is illusory. Mathematical truths can be expressed with 100% certainty; historical truths cannot. There is no case so secure that an attack cannot be mounted on it. Do you have DNA evidence? That can be attacked, and often is. (Is is possible the lab analyst made a mistake?) Do you have a confession? That, too, can be questioned. (Is the person to whom the confession was allegedly made making it up? Did the suspect confess for reasons unrelated to their guilt?) Is there video evidence of the offence in which the suspect says “I am going to kill you” to the victim before shooting him? How do you exclude that there was not some critical event which occurred immediately before the commencement of the video, or off-screen? The answer is necessarily that any suggestion of such a thing occurring is unreasonable, not that it is impossible. And how do you exclude the prospect that the video was tampered with? The prosecutor might call an expert to say it was not, but for every expert there is an equal but opposite expert to say the contrary.
The point is that the premise that there is possible some “higher” standard of proof capable of being applied in the sentencing phase beyond the one we already apply to get the conviction in the first place is flawed. We all have a sense that some cases are stronger than others, and I am not disputing that not all convictions are the result of equally strong bodies of evidence. The problem is articulating just what the higher test is in the margin between beyond reasonable doubt and a test so high as to be incapable of practical application because it could never in practice be fulfilled.
That, and the fact that giving people the needle for any felony at all without the possibility of considering circumstances of mitigation (even if they are guilty) is so extreme as to be in serious roll-eyes territory.
Draco of Athens is renowned for having organised and codified to a siginificant degree the criminal law of the day, but he propounded the idea that the death penalty should be imposed for even minor offences. Plutarch says: “It is said that Drakon himself, when asked why he had fixed the punishment of death for most offences, answered that he considered these lesser crimes to deserve it, and he had no greater punishment for more important ones.” (This from Wikipedia).
What you are proposing is, literally, draconian. In a modern democracy, both a sense of proportion about crime and self-interested fear of being the victim of zealotry would prevent such laws ever coming to pass.
The following things are felonies in at least some jurisdictions:
Stealing $101
Transporting $101 in cash into the country with declaring it on your customs form.
Transporting $101 in merchandise into the country without declaring it on your customs form.
Possessing any amount of marijuana or hashish with the intent to sell.
Possessing more than 1 gram of marijuana without intent to sell.
Helping an illegal immigrant enter the country.
Failing to report $10,000 on your income tax form.
Managing a business that engages in prostitution.
Possessing child pornography.
Failing to appear in court in certain circumstances.
Forging documents.
Forging signatures.
Perjury.
Obstruction of justice.
Assisting another person in resisting arrest.
Any attempt or conspiracy to commit any felony.
Animal abuse. (Goodbye, Michael Vick)
Animal neglect.
Vote fraud. (Goodbye, Ann Coulter)
Fixing a horse or dog race.
Unlawful diversion of funds.
Medicare fraud of $20,000 or more.
Barratry.
Practicing medicine without a license.
Arranging flowers without a license.
Falsely reporting the mileage on your vehicle.
Slander or libel of banks.
Timber purchase with the intent to defraud.
Pyramid schemes.
Lying to obtain employment.
Dispensing petroleum products into unapproved containers.
Criminal mischief.
Tampering with lottery equipment.
Vandalizing a cave.
Homosexual activity.
Peeping Tom.
Incest.
Bestiality.
Bigamy.
Playing a dice game for money.
Selling liquor without a license.
Maybe he’s thinking of the old wild west, when people got hanged for horse thievin’ and cattle rustlin’?
Felonies were punished by death when the 8th amendment was passed.
I am glad you clarified because I’m new here and thought you were joking. Are you aware that passing a bad check for $101 is a felony? I’m a tough on crime type of person but it’s hard for me to believe that anyone would think execution is an appropriate punishment for such a crime.
And God help you if you ever fail to report some of your income to the IRS. You’ll be on death row for tax fraud.
Why not? It is not like a person thinks it is OK to pass a bad check on purpose (I would oppose any law that made it a crime to bounce a check on accident). There is no excuse for this type of behavior. It is real simple, don’t steal from people.
Noel Prosequi, that was excellent (and probably much better than the OP deserves). Please post more often.
I oppose some these things even being illegal. I said before I am willing to not apply this law to lower level felonies. I now think it would a good idea to only apply this to more serious felonies―see above.
Videotape didn’t exist in the 18th century, so there couldn’t have been the intent to use this as evidence. For that matter, what about cases that aren’t so iron-clad - ones that depend on eyewitness rather than circumstantial evidence?
I came up with an alternative notion some years back - a state (though in my original version it was a province - I’d conceived it as a rational way to bring the death penalty back to Canada) gets one execution per year per five million population, rounded up. Many states would get one, California would get eight. The decision to seek the death penalty in a particular case is that of the state’s Attorney General (or similar official). Given the limited number of opportunities, the AG’s incentive is to pick cases where the evidence is especially compelling, as you describe above. If a jury agrees, the case gets fast-tracked to the state supreme court for review and, ideally, the execution takes place with one year of conviction.
As for the nonsensical justifications about “disrespect for society” or “the way things used to be”, those are just too stupid to accept at face value. If they are indeed your honest beliefs, they serve only to demonstrate the need for a judiciary and a constitution.
And shot for snorin’ too loud.
I took most of the things on that list from a document of crimes considered felonies in the State of Texas. The document also ranked the seriousness of each crime, to serve as a guideline for judges. Some of the crimes that seem the most trivial are officially considered among the most serious, at least in Texas.
Let me also say that I oppose your proposition because it is pointlessly cruel and stupid. Cruelty and stupidity are sins. Intelligence and mercy are virtues. End of debate.
A damnable lie! Nobody got hanged for snoring too loud, you got shot for snoring too loud! But only once!