To be technically correct, states don’t have rights. States have powers. The subjects of states have rights. At best, as noted in the above quote from the Fifth Amendment, the power of the United States government to take the life of one of its subjects is an implied power, not an explicit one. Nowhere does the Constitution state “The Federal Government shall have the power to take the life of its citizens.”
If the legality of the federal death penalty hinges on the Fifth Amendment, and if the inclusion of that clause of the Fifth Amendment authorises a federal death penalty, I could make an argument based on the Tenth Amendment that the death penalty is illegal as applied by the states. The Tenth Amendment reserves those powers not delegated to the federal government to the states. If the Fifth Amendment delegates the power of capital punishment to the federal government, then the states don’t have that power. If, conversely, the power to execute is reserved to the states, then the federal government does not have the power to execute.
Of course no sitting judge would have the guts to invalidate a death sentence on this basis, but there you go.
The judicial system recognizes that wrongly-imposed non-monetary punishments are irreversible, but allows the wrongly-imprisoned to pursue civil action. We recognize that nothing can truly compensate someone for lost time, but at least some reparation is possible by addressing the monetary loss suffered by being falsely imprisoned. Punitive damages are also allowed in false imprisonment cases. In the case of capital punishment, there is no way to restore even a semblance of a life to someone wrongly executed. It is an aphorism of the system that it is better that ten guilty men go free rather than one innocent man be imprisoned. I would extend that to say that it is better that all guilty men go free rather than one innocent man be executed.
Hold on a minute. There are plenty of things that are the domains of both the federal government and the states. By your reasoning, since the federal government has the authority to imprison someone, then the states don’t. But that, as we all know, is simply not true. Both the states and the federal government both have the right to imprison someone for crimes committed. That being the case, I don’t see why both can’t have the power fo the death penalty.
That could also be arranged for the families of people executed wrongly (God forbid). Laws could be set up allowing them to sue the jurisdictions where the execution occured.
But that still doesn’t change the fact that in both cases, you are irreparably harming the prisoner. Either way (whether executed or imprisoned) you are taking away something that cannot be restored. Money can’t make up for the lost time anymore than it can for a lost life.
Those who are adamantly pro-execution have already made their minds up. But others, who may be less convinced, a little research would be a good thing.
Here’s a good (biased) place to start; (previously mentioned above.) http://www.criminaljustice.org/public.nsf/DefenseUpdates/Innocence
Killing a person because you feel life imprisonment is ‘too cruel’ is another subject. That subject would be “mercy killing”.
Peace,
mangeorge