Supreme Court to hear two controversial cases

[DoubleEdgeSword]

Supreme Court Considers Lethal Injection, Voter I.D.

http://download.npr.org/anon.npr-www/chrome/icon_listen.gif (javascript:launchPlayer('14687348', '1', '25-Sep-2007', '&topicName=Politics___Society&subtopicName=Legal_Affairs&prgCode=DAY&hubId=-1&thingId=14687358&ssid=&tableModifier=', 'RM,WM');)

Day to Day (http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=17), September 25, 2007 · The Supreme Court announces it will hear arguments on two controversial cases. The first asks whether lethal injection should be considered cruel and unusual punishment. The second asks whether voter identification laws deter people from casting a ballot. These cases and the way the court rules on them could be a factor in next year's elections. Dahlia Lithwick, legal analyst with the online magazine Slate, talks to Alex Cohen.


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14687358

[tiger_rascal]

Lethal injection is cruel and unusual punishment. To think otherwise you would have to be numb of any emotions.

Im not sure I understand the voting thing. :nc:

[DoubleEdgeSword]

Some states, counties and even municipalities are narrowing the guidelines for acceptable forms of identification for voting. For example, in Georgia a couple of years ago, that state changed the rules to allow only 6 types of ID from the former 17 forms of ID, one of them being a photo ID that would cost a voter $20. There was a constitutional argument in that state that said basically that charging someone to vote was unconstitutional and that any of these other 17 forms of ID should suffice. There is a movement out there to require a "national photo ID card," ostensibly to make access to voting more "uniform;" however, many constiutionalists are dead set against it.

Edited to add: It goes beyond what kinds of IDs are required, however. Many do not believe that IDs should be required to vote (not to register, but to vote) at all.

[tiger_rascal]

17 forms of ID?! I never knew there could be so many! Care to list them all? ;)

If 17 forms of ID were fine then, it should be fine now.

[SparkleHugs]

I am not numb of emotion. To suggest that of people who happen to have an opposing view is rather childish. I am numb of emotion to those who commit violent cruel crimes against innocent people. My emotion lies with the innocent who have been murdered. (and before anyone jumps down my throat about the possible innocent men on death row, I find it prefectly acceptable to have DNA evidence before anyone gets the death penalty)But my opinion on capital punishment has little to do with whether or not lethal injection is cruel and unusual, I don't think it necessarily is because that's how we put out animals down when they are old and ill. As long as it is administered correctly I think it's actutally probably the most humane way to do it. Have other methods of capital punishment been deemed cruel and unusual? If so, which ones? Also, I forget my case law, but is capital punishment legal at the federal level or the state level?

As for the voter ID, I can see why it would be beneficial so that no one votes under anyone elses name, I think any picture ID should suffice. However, after looking it up, many non photo ID's are accepted. Here is the link to what state accepts what form of ID http://www.electionline.org/Default.aspx?tabid=364. Not too sure where I stand on this one, without doing any real research on the matter I want to say I don't want a voter ID card.

I am really eager to see how these cases turn out. I imagine since it is a rather conservative court that the lethal injection thing will stay as it is and not be deemed cruel and unusual. I have no idea what could happen with the Voter ID card.

To go slightly off topic, does anyone else think that electronic voting should be banned?

[SparkleHugs]

I found this article about the Court deciding these cases and it suggests that the lethal injetion could be excricuating. http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1190710978656&rss=newswire Isn't there a way to give them some other sort of drug/shot/whatever to make it non-excruciating? If so, would the court be declaring the entire lethal injection method, or just the specific chemical they are currently using??

[tiger_rascal]

Its killing a life. Whether that life killed another life or not should not matter. There are other forms of punishment. I think killing a killer is giving the killer an easy way out.

Not to mention our justice system is not perfect, so innocent lives can and have been killed.

[SparkleHugs]

ok, did you not read my parenthetical note? I understand that innocent people can be prosecuted, so I would not object in anyway to have DNA evidence that they commited the crime. I am a big advocate of the Innocence Project. Punishments should suit their crimes. I think that this is suitable for certain crimes.
I have defended my position on this issue endlessly here. So I guess all I can say is agree to disagree, I respect your opinions all I can do is ask you to respect mine in order to avoid the same debate we have had numerously. lol

My comments and questions really lie with the upcoming court decision and not with the principles of it capital punishment on the whole. The court isnt going to deep capital punishment illegal, they will only decide on a methods.

[Venisenvy]

When our constitution was written the death penalty was perfectly acceptable and not considered cruel and unusual. Perhaps we should just go back to hangings or shooting squads. As much as I would love to get rid of the death penalty it is here to stay unless there is a constitutional amendment.

[*Katy*]

Hanging is cruel and unusual punishment, lethal injection is the most logical way. I get the whole two wrongs don't make a right, but in my mind its the same thing as abortion...neither is good or right, but its something thats better for society. It makes sense for a woman to get a abortion if she doesn't have the income or emotional support to support a baby, if someone killed another then they shouldn't be supported by our hard work and tax money. Same thing goes with the voting process, sure its definitely unconstitutional to make someone have a id card that they have to pay for in order to vote, its a indirect way of having a poll tax. But at the same time, its really not logical to think of not having a identification system...i mean then people could vote over and over. It would open huge loop holes. Also, making a national ID cards is a good idea but its not logical...its just another government program that would in the end be so useless and incompetent that it would really defeat the purpose.

[SparkleHugs]

I think our national identification system is our state Identifcation cards and Driver's licenses. I dont think we need anything else. I don't think that the fees for those shouldnt be too high, just the cost of paperwork. The cost to renew a license in California is a whopping $26 dollars. A little high I think, if any form of identification is suffice, then it doesn't matter which you use.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

When our constitution was written the death penalty was perfectly acceptable and not considered cruel and unusual. Perhaps we should just go back to hangings or shooting squads. As much as I would love to get rid of the death penalty it is here to stay unless there is a constitutional amendment.

Maybe, maybe not. In 1972, the Supreme Court effectively suspended the death sentence using arguments brought before it under the Eighth Amendment. That suspension stayed put for 10 years.

[Venisenvy]

And when the court acts like that it is abusing its power. They have to find what the constitution says on any given issue, sometimes it is hard and sometimes it is easy. The Death penalty is easy, it was clearly acceptable and constitutional. Any time the court over rules otherwise it is being activist court that is putting aside the history of this country and going by their passions. Trust me I hate the death penalty but I also respect the constitution enough to want it done the right way.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

That ruling was not about the death penalty, per se, but how the penalty was applied. That ruling brought changes in the way the courts heard and decided death penalty cases in nearly every state. What the Supreme Court basically said in this ruling is if you're going to do it, do it right. Until you can do it right, you can't do it at all. I don't see any abuse there.

[oxymoron]

Venis,

I find your constitutional logic prepostorous. Note that at the time of the constitution it was also considered acceptable that kids work in sweat shops, pay women far less than men, fight duels...Not to mention women's suffrage et al.

You misunderstand even the wrong-headed conservative judicial philosophies out there. Your reading would leave us stuck with the mores and values of the 18th century. Not even Scalia is trying to accomplish that.

The constitution is silent on the death penalty. The constitution is clear about "cruel and unusual punishment." Maybe we should think about what they meant by "cruel and unusual" rather than what was "cruel and unusual" in the 18th century?

Of course, that would also not be possible to know and would rely on our interpretation. Isn't it funny how those original readings always seem to line up with one's ideological persuasion? Wonder why that is.

I find originalism to be 100% disingenuous. Just because it makes a legitimate case against legislating from the bench does not mean it is a valid method of interpretation. It fails to understand the last century of development in epistemology and textual theory.

It is identical to biblical literalism.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

Oxymoron, interesting perspective, and I can't say I disagree. I've always prescibed to the notion that our Constitution is a living, breathing document, one that must change in order to survive; more importantly, in order to ensure the survival of our form of democracy. The job of the courts is to act as the supreme guardian and interpreter of the Constitution with the goal of finding a balance between "society's need for order and the individual's right to freedom." What the Constitution is not is dogmatic. As humans evolve as a species it is my hope that we begin to see that state sanctioned execution is abhorrent and detrimental to society as a whole. When that notion of the death penalty becomes as unacceptable as forced child labor, I would expect the Supreme Court to recognize that this particular punishment is, in fact, "cruel and unusual" and dispense with it.

And by the way...

Not even Scalia is trying to accomplish that.



Hahaha!

[oxymoron]

Thanx DES. I think it is possible to view the constitution as a living, breathing document or possible to view it more narrowly. The thing is that the constitution doesn't tell us which of those is the correct textural theory. Thus, it is open to "interpretation."

That is where a rigid, text-based theory like originalism fails insomuch as it tries to claim the document is not open to interpretation, which is an interpretation of the document in and of itself.

[Incident]

Venis,


...The constitution is silent on the death penalty. The constitution is clear about "cruel and unusual punishment." Maybe we should think about what they meant by "cruel and unusual" rather than what was "cruel and unusual" in the 18th century?..

.

Not true, Capital Punshiment is allowed for in the 5th Amendment. Obviously then the Death Penalty is Constitutional. However there is nothing to stop Congress or State Legislatures from abolishing the Death penalty as a punishment. The fact that most States and Congress do not wish to do so indicates that the majority of the Public does not believe that the Death penalty is cruel and unusual. What I find objectionable is the possibility that Judges will use their own personal opinion to overrule the Constitution and impose their own morality in opposition to that of both the Constitution and that of the Public. I also find it objectionable for Judges to say that while the Death Penalty is clearly Constitutional every method of execution is cruel and unusual, there by defacto banning with an attempted end run.

[Richard Tafoya]

The Bill of Rights, for those needing a quick review:

Amendments

* First Amendment – Freedom of religion, speech, press, and peaceable assembly as well as the right to petition the government.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

* Second Amendment – Right to keep and bear arms.

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

* Third Amendment – Protection from quartering of troops.

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

* Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

* Fifth Amendment – Due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, private property.

No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

* Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and other rights of the accused.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

* Seventh Amendment – Civil trial by jury.

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

* Eighth Amendment – Prohibition of excessive bail, as well as cruel and unusual punishment.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

* Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

* Tenth Amendment – Powers of states and people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

[tiger_rascal]

...Capital Punshiment is allowed for in the 5th Amendment.

Fifth Amendment – Due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, private property.

No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.



Im so confused. :confused: Do I have to read between the lines or something? Can someone help me out?

[Incident]

It is pretty clear, the fifth amendment mentions death as a penalty 3 times.

No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

[Richard Tafoya]

That's the puzzle that everyone struggles with. The court system has, for the past two centuries, argued over what the framers of the constitution meant.

Try arguing the meaning of "a well-regulated Militia" with someone who wants guns to be provided to anyone that can fog a mirror.

[Venisenvy]

...nor deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

The government can deprive you of your life. It is clearly in the cosntitution, and to do away with it there has to be an amendment. As horrible as slavery was it was written into our constitution and to do away with it not only did we need to have a war but we needed to amend the constitution.

[Richard Tafoya]

A modern definition of cruel and unusual punishment is what the Supreme Court is taking on - not a challenge to the 5th amendment but ensuring that the 8th amendment is being upheld.

[Incident]

The government can deprive you of your life. It is clearly in the cosntitution, and to do away with it there has to be an amendment. As horrible as slavery was it was written into our constitution and to do away with it not only did we need to have a war but we needed to amend the constitution.

You could also do away it by law. (the Constitution does not mandate Capital punishment for a particular crime)

[tiger_rascal]

Try arguing the meaning of "a well-regulated Militia" with someone who wants guns to be provided to anyone that can fog a mirror.

LMAO! :roll:

[Venisenvy]

You could also do away it by law. (the Constitution does not mandate Capital punishment for a particular crime)


Yeah that could be done pretty easily on the federal level but you would still have all the states with the death penalty. How many people does the federal government kill? I somewhat remember it not being a whole lot. Which means that the death penalty will go on strong unless a constitutional amendment is passed.


Try arguing the meaning of "a well-regulated Militia" with someone who wants guns to be provided to anyone that can fog a mirror.

One of the purposes of the second amendment is to protect the people from the government. You see while the government protects us from outside threats what is stoping the government from turning on us the people? (I know many of you will argue it already has) but a preotection we have from the government is the second amendment. We cannot do away with it and we must protect it at all cost, because to not do so is taking away one of the very important tools given to us the people from keeping the government afraid of us. It gives us a rather substantial stick to wave, without it that layer of protection is gone.

[Incident]

Yeah that could be done pretty easily on the federal level but you would still have all the states with the death penalty. How many people does the federal government kill? I somewhat remember it not being a whole lot. Which means that the death penalty will go on strong unless a constitutional amendment is passed.

Federal government could do what they always do. They could pass a law that would deny Federal Funds (pertaining in any way to Courts or law enforcement, etc...) to any State that continues the practice of Capital Punishment. Much as they did when they passed a law that would deny highway funds to any State that had a drinking age below 21.

[Venisenvy]

Venis,

I find your constitutional logic prepostorous. Note that at the time of the constitution it was also considered acceptable that kids work in sweat shops, pay women far less than men, fight duels...Not to mention women's suffrage et al.

You misunderstand even the wrong-headed conservative judicial philosophies out there. Your reading would leave us stuck with the mores and values of the 18th century. Not even Scalia is trying to accomplish that.

The constitution is silent on the death penalty. The constitution is clear about "cruel and unusual punishment." Maybe we should think about what they meant by "cruel and unusual" rather than what was "cruel and unusual" in the 18th century?

Of course, that would also not be possible to know and would rely on our interpretation. Isn't it funny how those original readings always seem to line up with one's ideological persuasion? Wonder why that is.

I find originalism to be 100% disingenuous. Just because it makes a legitimate case against legislating from the bench does not mean it is a valid method of interpretation. It fails to understand the last century of development in epistemology and textual theory.

It is identical to biblical literalism.

While I think I have answered part of this in subsequent posts I wanted to answer it directly because I am not trying to ignore or get out of answering some of the charges brought up here.

What I was trying to say was that the death penalty did exist at the time of the framing of the constitution and was aceptable. Seeing as the bill of rights does lay the ground for the government to deprive a person of life, and at the time the phrase cruel and unusual punishment did not include the death penalty. Unlike what you state Oxy the constitution is not silent on the death penalty, it is pretty clear that it is constitutional. It is not like other issues where the cosntitution says nothing and a game of trying to read between lines ensues on people of differing views. Look I am not trying to live in the moral stone age here but on issues that the constitution is clear on there is no way that I could support a court ruling something unconsitutional when the constitution clearly allows it.

My view on the constitution is more as follows:

1.The justices must first look towards the constitution. does it explicitly talk about an issue and what does it say?

2.If it does not explicitly talk about an issue, does it do so implicitly. Here is the part were the constitutional debates, the pulse of the nation at the time of the framing and the meaning of words at that tiem come into play.

3.If the constitution does not deal with an issue at all, and seeing as this country is a democracy does the law ignore the majority will? Afterall we are a democracy and not ruled by a king nor some sort of triumvirate. The people still have the power and the will of the people(represented by the legislature) should hold an a lot of weight.

[Richard Tafoya]

One of the purposes of the second amendment is to protect the people from the government. You see while the government protects us from outside threats what is stoping the government from turning on us the people? (I know many of you will argue it already has) but a preotection we have from the government is the second amendment. We cannot do away with it and we must protect it at all cost, because to not do so is taking away one of the very important tools given to us the people from keeping the government afraid of us. It gives us a rather substantial stick to wave, without it that layer of protection is gone.
There is no real-world scenario where a group of disgruntled citizens taking up arms against the U.S. government is going to accomplish anything.

Two hundred years ago, the most effective way to create upward change through the chain of authority was with armed conflict. Today, it's accomplished with television, radio and the Internet. A large enough pop culture uproar over anything can get legislation written and signed into law in a matter of days. No citizen "militia" holed up in a suburban bunker will ever accomplish that.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

Your absoultely correct, Richard. If, say, this government were to become so overbearing that it persecuted and arrested, maybe even started killing its citizens capriciously in the streets, a "well-armed militia" would be of little effect against the very well equipped military and police forces. Citizens would then turn to what? My guess would be small groups of gorilla fighters armed with roadside bombs, black market RPGs and IEDs. Funny how that works.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

Here's a brief rundown of some of the cases the Justices will be hearing this session:

1. Three capital punishment disputes, the biggest being a fundamental look at lethal injection protocols and whether they represent cruel and unusual punishment. Another deals with the rights of foreigners on death row, and the third with whether child rapists should be executed. The third case is not yet on the docket but is expected to be added.

2. The rights of accused terrorists held overseas by the U.S. government and whether the federal courts will have a say in how these prisoners will be tried before military commissions.

3. The "100-to-1 disparity" in federal sentencing for defendants in crack cocaine cases, who get far harsher prison terms than powder cocaine dealers and users.

4. Whether a tough federal law to combat child pornography unfairly targets those who merely talk about or promise to distribute the indecent material, without actually doing so.

5. Also on the court's horizon is an appeal over government efforts to restrict gun rights in the name of fighting crime.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/09/30/scotus.preview/index.html

[DoubleEdgeSword]

Double post.

[Venisenvy]

There is no real-world scenario where a group of disgruntled citizens taking up arms against the U.S. government is going to accomplish anything.

Two hundred years ago, the most effective way to create upward change through the chain of authority was with armed conflict. Today, it's accomplished with television, radio and the Internet. A large enough pop culture uproar over anything can get legislation written and signed into law in a matter of days. No citizen "militia" holed up in a suburban bunker will ever accomplish that.

I disagree a group of armed citizens can accomplish a great deal, add to it that depending on the conflict people from the military will turn to the sides of the militia to cut down on the advantage the US army holds will help as well. They would not be able to control every state.

Yes the media is a great tool and so is the internet but guns and the second amendment are our insurance policy.

[Richard Tafoya]

That's a video game fantasy. A bloody one at that.

[pinky]

More to the point, I'm still looking for the "well-regulated militia" that attends the NRA meetings.

[Incident]

Militia means something more specific today than it did in the 18th Century. Note this citation from Wikipedia .The original meaning of the Latin word is "military activity", or, since the ancient Romans had the same people fight crime or respond to disasters, "defense activity". In the idiom of English during the 18th century, the same word would often be used for an activity and for those who engage in it, so "militia" meant both defense activity and those who engage in it, whether as individuals or in concert with others. In later times the term has come to be used mainly to refer to armed groups, but it would be a mistake to use it that way in discussions of the concept in the U.S. Constitution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia



Now in context of that you could argue that a police force provides what a citizens militia would have provided in the 1700's. On the other hand you could also argue that since the police cannot provide total protection of the citizens, that a citizen has a right to arm himself to act as an individual "militia man" for the defense of himself and his family.

[pinky]

You could also argue that all those people out there with guns (and I'm speaking of legal gun owners here) are not very well regulated.

[Incident]

You could also argue that all those people out there with guns (and I'm speaking of legal gun owners here) are not very well regulated.

So then regulate it. You can require that gun owners take and pass gun self-defense classes without denying them the right to their own self-defense.

[pinky]

Obviously, and I wouldn't have a problem with that, especially if it included liability for accidental shootings that occurred with their guns.

[oxymoron]

Can you guys read? The comment about depriving life is about "NOT" depriving of life or liberty without due process. That does not mean that it is OK to derpive of life. On that, the constitution is silent.

None of Incident's highlights indicate in any way, shape or form that the death penalty is prescribed.

Of course, the death penalty is no circumscribed in the constitution. So it is not necessarily unconstitutional either. But, of course, neither is anal sex with a chipmunk.

Like so many other things, we get to decide for ourselves. Yippeee! Isn't that the way it should be?

The Constitution sets out broad ideals and some process. Other than that it is largely irrelevant. Jurists decide cases in accordance with their ideology. They merely use the Constitution as justification. As such, it is quite dishonest. Worse so, for those who claim to be interpreting the constitution as it is written.

[oxymoron]

Venis,

The constitution does not EVER say that the death penalty is constitutional. Reread those lines. It only says that death is NOT acceptable in certain circumstances...without due process or double jeopardy. That doesn't mean that we have to accept that it IS acceptable ever. The constitution is utterly silent here.

Venis, where I think you misunderstand Conservative jurisprudence is in #2. Not even Scalia claims that we need to look to the conditions as existing at the time of the constitution. Your hermeneutics could legitimize slavery, denying women the vote...

I suggest you read a bit more about Originalism or Strict Constructionism or whatever theory you are trying to apply here. Because you have them wrong.

[oxymoron]

The problem with Originalism (courtesy owf Wikipedia)

Suppose that the Constitution contained (which it obviously does not) a provision that a person may not be "subjected to the punishments of hanging by the neck, beheading, stoning, pressing, or execution by firing squad". A Strict Constructionist should interpret that clause to mean that the specific punishments mentioned above were unconstitutional, but that other forms of capital punishment were not. For a Strict Constructionist, the specific, strict reading of the text is the beginning and end of the inquiry.

For an Originalist, however, the text is the beginning of the inquiry, and two Originalists might reach very different results, not only from the Strict Constructionist, but from each other. "Originalists can reach different results in the same case" (see What Originalism is Not — Originalism is not always an answer in and of itself, infra); one originalist might look at the context in which the clause was written, and might discover that the punishments listed in the clause were the only forms of capital punishment in use at that time, and the only forms of capital punishment that had ever been used at the time of ratification. An originalist might therefore conclude that capital punishment in general—including those methods for it invented since ratification, such as the electric chair—are not constitutional. Another originalist may look at the text and see that the writers created a list. He would assume that the Congress intended this to be an exhaustive list of objectionable executions. Otherwise, they would have banned capital punishment as a whole, instead of listing specific means of punishment. He would rule that other forms of execution are constitutional.



Now, either of those interpretations are fair and legitimate. But, both are INTERPETATIONS. They rely on the subjectivity of the INTERPRETER. There is no access to the meaning of a text outide of subjectivity--and that include the Bible.

Anyone who has read Wittgenstein understands the problem of assigning singular, fixed meaning to words--not to mention groupings of words.

Scalia intrepets the constitution on a RELIGIOUS basis...a basis which a century of epistemology across all manner of philosophical disciplines from Analytic to Post Structural to Pragmatism have ALL completely devastated and discredited, each from their own point of view.

Note: That is not discrediting religion. But discrediting perfect accesss to the original meaning of a text. In actuality, it is stopping human beings to try to claim they are God...which is exactly what Scalia is trying to do...for who can disagree with God?

[Venisenvy]

Venis,


Venis, where I think you misunderstand Conservative jurisprudence is in #2. Not even Scalia claims that we need to look to the conditions as existing at the time of the constitution. Your hermeneutics could legitimize slavery, denying women the vote...


(just to include thism, I just got back from watching a 13 innong baseball game at the bar, so excuse anything that makes no sense)

The death penalty was acceptable before and after the constitution. I think it is pretty clear that according to the behavior before and after that it is perfectly constitutional. You are right to say that this thinking would lead to okaying slavery because slavery was legal under the constitution we had until it was amended. The same I believe goes with the death penalty, it is legal until the constitution is amended. Sure nwe can put certain limits to it, as with the recent ruling doing away with juvinile executions but its still here to stay baring a constitutional amendment or every state deciding it would rather do without.

I think to just accept that jurist will decide their cases based on their ideology is wrong. We can't give in to accepting another political branch if we can help it. I am moraly opposed to the death penlaty, its just wrong. But as someone that believes in the constitution i am against a court just deciding that it is not constitutional when it is clear that the constitution supports it. It clearly tells you that you can deprive life if you have due process. Sure that does not mean that you have to deprive life but it does mean that it is constitutional and a court cant rule it being unconstitutional without ignoring the constitution.

We cannot know an exact interpretation of the constitution seeing as even then there were many difference among the framers. But we can have a pretty good general idea and it is up to us to try to come as close to the intentions without just saying screw it I will just let it mean what I want it to mean.

words change over time, what once meant happy now means gay. Look what we read something to mean today might not have been the same 200 years ago. We need to do our best to understand the constitution as it was then because otherwise we can just give any meaning to the constitution and reduce it to nothing but a piece of paper that you can wipe your you know what with. To me the constitution is like the bible for our country and we should treat it as such, it is sacred and should not be f***ed with.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

From The Congressional Quarterly, two opposing views on just this question from two Justices, Blackmun and Scalia. Interesting reading:

From Congressional Quarterly Researcher, March 10, 1995 Volume 5, No. 9.

IS THE DEATH PENALTY UNJUST?


Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun, from an opinion dissenting from the Supreme Court's decision denying review in a Texas death penalty case, Callins v. Collins, Feb. 22, 1994.

"Bruce Edwin Callins will be executed [tomorrow] by the state of Texas. Intravenous tubes attached to his arms will carry the instrument of death, a toxic fluid designed specifically for the purpose of killing human beings. The witnesses...will behold Callins...strapped to a gurney, seconds away from extinction. Within days, or perhaps hours, the memory of Callins will begin to fade. The wheels of justice will churn again, and somewhere, another jury or another judge will have the...task of determining whether some human being is to live or die.

We hope...that the defendant whose life is at risk will be represented by...someone who is inspired by the awareness that a less-than-vigorous defense...could have fatal consequences for the defendant. We hope that the attorney will investigate all aspects of the case, follow all evidentiary and procedural rules, and appear before a judge...committed to the protection of defendants' rights...

But even if we can feel confident that these actors will fulfill their roles...our collective conscience will remain uneasy. Twenty years have passed since this court declared that the death penalty must be imposed fairly and with reasonable consistency or not at all, and despite the effort of the states and courts to devise legal formulas and procedural rules to meet this...challenge, the death penalty remains fraught with arbitrariness, discrimination...and mistake...

From this day forward, I no longer shall tinker with the machinery of death. For more than 20 years I have endeavored...to develop...rules that would lend more than the mere appearance of fairness to the death penalty endeavor...Rather than continue to coddle the court's delusion that the desired level of fairness has been achieved...I feel...obligated simply to concede that the death penalty experiment has failed. It is virtually self-evident to me now that no combination of procedural rules or substantive regulations ever can save the death penalty from its inherent constitutional deficiencies... Perhaps one day this court will develop procedural rules or verbal formulas that actually will provide consistency, fairness and reliability in a capital-sentencing scheme. I am not optimistic that such a day will come. I am more optimistic, though, that this court eventually will conclude that the effort to eliminate arbitrariness while preserving fairness 'in the infliction of [death] is so plainly doomed to failure that it and the death penalty must be abandoned altogether.' (Godfrey v. Georgia, 1980) I may not live to see that day, but I have faith that eventually it will arrive. The path the court has chosen lessen us all."




http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/angel/procon/deathissue.html

[DoubleEdgeSword]

And the rebuttal:

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, from an opinion concurring in the Supreme Court's decision denying review in a Texas death penalty case, Callins v. Collins, Feb. 22, 1994.

"The Fifth Amendment provides that '[n]o persons shall be held to answer for a capital...crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury...nor be deprived of life...without the due process of law.' This clearly permits the death penalty to be imposed, and establishes beyond doubt that the death penalty is not one of the 'cruel and unusual punishments' prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. [H] owever, over the years since 1972 this court has attached to the imposition of the death penalty two quite incompatible sets of commands: the sentencer's discretion to impose death must be closely confined (see Furman v. Georgia, 1972), but the sentencer's discretion not to impose death (to extend mercy) must be unlimited (Eddings v. Oklahoma, 1982; Lockett v. Ohio, 1978). These commands were invented without benefit of any textual or historical support; they are the product of just such 'intellectual, moral, and personal' perceptions as Justice Blackmun expresses today, some of which...have been made part of what is called 'the court's Eighth Amendment jurisprudence.'

Though Justice Blackmun joins those of us who have acknowledged the incompatibility of the court's Furman and Lockett-Eddings lines of jurisprudence...he unfortunately draws the wrong conclusion from the acknowledgment... Surely a different conclusion commends itself, to wit, that at least one of these judicially announced irreconcilable commands which cause the Constitution to prohibit what its text explicitly permits must be wrong. Convictions in opposition to the death penalty are often passionate and deeply held. That would be no excuse for reading them into a Constitution that does not contain them, even if they represented the convictions of a majority of Americans. Much less is there any excuse for using that course to thrust a minority's views upon the people.

Justice Blackmun begins his statement by describing with poignancy the death of a convicted murderer by lethal injection. He chooses, as the case in which to make that statement, one of the less brutal of the murders that regularly come before us, the murder of a man ripped by a bullet suddenly and unexpectedly, with no opportunity to prepare himself and his affairs, and left to bleed to death on the floor of a tavern. The death-by-injection which Justice Blackmun describes looks pretty desirable next to that. It looks even better next to some of the other cases currently before us, which Justice Blackmun did not select as the vehicle for his announcement that the death penalty is always unconstitutional, for example, the case of the 11-year-old girl raped by four men and then killed by stuffing her panties down her throat. How enviable a quiet death by lethal injection compared with that!"

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/angel/procon/deathissue.html

[oxymoron]

Again, the Constitution is MUTE on the death penalty. It does not say it is Constitutional, nor does it say that is it unconstitutional.

Thus, it is up to jurists to decide. But anyone who bases their decision on the original meaning in the constitution is:

Disingenuous (as I have already indicated we do not have access to the original meaning, but only an interpreted meaning contingent upon time, place and individual subjectivity).

Again, the argument for the standards of the time is not Scalia's argument at all and would result in neandrathalsim if carried to its logical conclusion.

Personally, I am strongly opposed to the death penalty. But it has nothing to do with what is in the constitution or not. I would suggest this is exactly how the Justices make their decisions too. Then, they just look to the constitution to justify their pre-ordained decisions.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

It would seem the question of the death penalty for many of us revolves around this issue of "cruel and unusual punishment." The Constitution gives us no guidelines as to what is or what is not "cruel and unusual." How then are Justices to decide this question other than to bring to it some manner of subjectivity? I suggest it would be impossible to define this phrase without applying subjective reasoning.

[Incident]

...

None of Incident's highlights indicate in any way, shape or form that the death penalty is prescribed.

Of course, the death penalty is no circumscribed in the constitution. So it is not necessarily unconstitutional either. But, of course, neither is anal sex with a chipmunk.....


Contrary to your insinuation, I never claimed that capital punishment is Constitutionally prescribed. I specifically made that point when I argued that under the Constitution laws can be passed that eliminate the death penalty.


What I did argue though is that capital punishment is specifically not proscribed in the Constitution, in contrast to your chipmunk comparison.

What this means is that the government (with certain limitations) can (if they wish) pass laws that subject a person to be "...deprived of life, liberty, or property.." for an action taken by that person takes.

The Court's role is not whether Congress or the States are Contitutionally allowed to pass laws that allow for implementation death penalty , their role is to decide if a particular or set of laws meets the "due process" qualification of the Constitution.

[oxymoron]

Incident,

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about above. The Constitution is mute on the death penalty. That does not mean that jurists can not find reasons to rule the death penalty constitutional or not within the document.

Congress or States can pass any law they damn well please. And court's can rule those laws unconstitutional, whether that is explicitly spelled out in the constitution or not.

A legislature can pass a law not only legalizing anal sex with chipmunk's, but mandating it. And a court can rule whether that is constitutional or not--even though there is no mention whatsoever of chipmunks in the constitution.

[Incident]

Incident,

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about above. The Constitution is mute on the death penalty. That does not mean that jurists can not find reasons to rule the death penalty constitutional or not within the document.

Congress or States can pass any law they damn well please. And court's can rule those laws unconstitutional, whether that is explicitly spelled out in the constitution or not.

A legislature can pass a law not only legalizing anal sex with chipmunk's, but mandating it. And a court can rule whether that is constitutional or not--even though there is no mention whatsoever of chipmunks in the constitution.

Whatever, how can you believe the Constitution remains mute on the Death penalty, when it no less than four times mentions capital punishment by placing restrictions on its use?

[tiger_rascal]

*raises hand*

I have a question. :confused:

If the Fifth Amendment mentions "capital punishment", and even losing a limb, and the Eighth Amendment comes later prohibiting "cruel and unusual punishment", would the Eighth Amendment then not cancel out losing life or limb for a crime, especially if the taking of the life can not be done quickly and painlessly?

[Incident]

*raises hand*

I have a question. :confused:

If the Fifth Amendment mentions "capital punishment", and even losing a limb, and the Eighth Amendment comes later prohibiting "cruel and unusual punishment", would the Eighth Amendment then not cancel out losing life or limb for a crime, especially if the taking of the life can not be done quickly and painlessly?

Briefly, IMO since the 5th and 8th amendments were proposed and ratified concurrently I don't think that one would cancel the other out. I would suggest that since they were ratified together the the writers believed that the Death Penalty could exist without being termed "cruel and unusual". Furthermore the 14th Amendment some eighty years later, also used the phrase "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process) of law......" This would indicate to me that writers of that amendment believed that the Death Penalty, in general, was not incompatible with the Eighth Amendment.

This is not to say that various methods of execution could not be considered unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment.

[tiger_rascal]

Just from past reports, I think lethal injection is cruel and unusual punishment.

What other methods of state sanctioned murder was later abolished? Stoning? Hanging?

[Incident]

Just from past reports, I think lethal injection is cruel and unusual punishment.

What other methods of state sanctioned murder was later abolished? Stoning? Hanging?

I think most states that have the death penalty use Lethal Injection, though I think that in some states, hanging, firing squad, electrocution and the gas chamber are still authorized. I live in Wisconsin we haven't had the death penalty for 150 years.

I personally am against the death penalty in all but the most extraordinary circumstance, and would support a law or an amendment that bans its practice. But I can't make a rational argument that would suggest that is not constitutionally allowed, because to me it clearly is.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

Whatever, how can you believe the Constitution remains mute on the Death penalty, when it no less than four times mentions capital punishment by placing restrictions on its use?

Perhaps in the same way the First Amendment compels the government to "make no law respecting the establishment of religion of free exercise thereof," it does not say that any and all religion is "constitutional" per se, nor does it specifically give religions the right to enjoy any special benefits under federal law, yet that is the case. I read this amendment in the same way as I read others pertaining to the death penalty; that is, "if" there is to be a religion, or "if" there is to be a death penalty, then these certain rights and/or restrictions shall apply. With the death penalty, I keep coming back to Amendment VII, of course -- the question of "cruel and unusual punishment." If the framers had wished to exclude the death penalty specifically from this definition, I believe they would have. Since they did not, then I believe it is up to the Court to decide the question.

[SparkleHugs]

*raises hand*

I have a question. :confused:

If the Fifth Amendment mentions "capital punishment", and even losing a limb, and the Eighth Amendment comes later prohibiting "cruel and unusual punishment", would the Eighth Amendment then not cancel out losing life or limb for a crime, especially if the taking of the life can not be done quickly and painlessly?


I always thought that the lethal injection was the quick and painless way. If that is incorrect, wouldn't it be the cause of whatever chemical they are using? I think the lethal injection method shouldn't be in question, but what substance they are injecting. Why can't we just use something similar to what is used when putting an animal down, it's painless and humane for the animal, it should be for a human.

I still say that the Constitutionality of the death penalty isn't the question here. It's the method. So, everyone can oppose it and support it with whatever evidence you have, the Constitution is ambiguous on this and depending on how you interpret it you can make very valid arguments for both positions. As of now, the death penalty is legal, and is going to stay that way. The only thing that may soon be illegal is lethal injection. These 9 Justices are not going to outlaw the death penalty. Maybe a different 9 will in the future, but until some of these Justices die or retire, it's here to stay.

[tiger_rascal]

Actually, one past case not too long ago had a man suffer for hours because the medics could not get the needle in his veins. Both his arms were poked and poked and the guy screamed out that he just wanted it over with.

That is cruel and unusual punishment. And it has nothing to do with what they injected him with, but the method.

[tiger_rascal]

Some reading material on lethal injection.

http://www.richard.clark32.btinternet.co.uk/injection.html

[DoubleEdgeSword]

I happen to think it's pretty cruel and unusual for a government to prosecute those who kill and then turn around and kill them for it. Makes absolutely no sense to me.

[pinky]

I personally am against the death penalty in all but the most extraordinary circumstance, and would support a law or an amendment that bans its practice. But I can't make a rational argument that would suggest that is not constitutionally allowed, because to me it clearly is.
Freaking hell just froze over.

[Venisenvy]

I believe that yes the court can find that certain methods are cruel and unusual but not methods that existed at the framing of the constitution. Methods that have come after like the lethal injection can be found to be cruel and unusual.

[Incident]

I believe that yes the court can find that certain methods are cruel and unusual but not methods that existed at the framing of the constitution. Methods that have come after like the lethal injection can be found to be cruel and unusual.

I don't agree. The "cruel and unusual" clause could be used to limit execution methods to that which results in the least amount of discomfort, realizing that there will always be some degree of pain with any method. The "cruel and unusual" clause to me means that the method of death shouldn't in and of itself be an additional punishment.

[SparkleHugs]

Actually, one past case not too long ago had a man suffer for hours because the medics could not get the needle in his veins. Both his arms were poked and poked and the guy screamed out that he just wanted it over with.

That is cruel and unusual punishment. And it has nothing to do with what they injected him with, but the method.

Can I just say that I had the same experience last time I gave blood for some tests? It's part of the territory of needles, that happens DAILY in hospitals and blood banks across the country. Should we stop taking blood for tests and donating blood too because some phlebotamists just suck at their job?


I still think you guys aren't getting that the Justices will not be questioning the Constitutionality of the death penalty. So anyones opinion pro or against the matter is completely irrelevant, including the Justices. They are focusing on lethal injection only, nothing more. You all can debate it back and forth as much as you want, but the Justices will not be doing that this term.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

Absolutely right. The method is in question, not the death penalty itself; however, if the Justice, under the 8th Amendment, rule that lethal injection as it is now adminstered constitutes cruel and unusual punishment and effectively ban it, the states will have to come up with something else. This is the manner of ruling the Court used in 1972 to ban capital punishment. Of course, it will not effect those states that still have alternative means of execution on the books, e.g. New Hampshire (hanging) and Idaho (firing squad), but I can just hear the public outrage now.

[tiger_rascal]

Can I just say that I had the same experience last time I gave blood for some tests? It's part of the territory of needles, that happens DAILY in hospitals and blood banks across the country.

I know you're not comparing giving blood to lethal injections. For one, the needles are different, and two, it might hurt just a little while a nurse pokes you a few times for just a minute when you're giving blood, but being poked by a huge needle for an hour trying to find a vein or just get the needle in so you can be killed, that is cruel and unusual.

[Incident]

......because some phlebotamists just suck at their job?....
.

Ewwww Gross, now that would be "cruel and unusual".

[SparkleHugs]

I know you're not comparing giving blood to lethal injections. For one, the needles are different, and two, it might hurt just a little while a nurse pokes you a few times for just a minute when you're giving blood, but being poked by a huge needle for an hour trying to find a vein or just get the needle in so you can be killed, that is cruel and unusual.

Yes, I am comparing one procedure with needles to another. I hope our Justices can be more unbiased in their decisions than you.

And still, if it is so humane for our dogs, why is it unhumane for humans?

[Incident]

From what I'm given to understand part of the problem with Lethal Injection is getting qualified Medical Professionals to participate in the executions as it goes against the idea of the Hippocratic Oath.

[Incident]

Perhaps in the same way the First Amendment compels the government to "make no law respecting the establishment of religion of free exercise thereof," it does not say that any and all religion is "constitutional" per se, nor does it specifically give religions the right to enjoy any special benefits under federal law, yet that is the case. I read this amendment in the same way as I read others pertaining to the death penalty; that is, "if" there is to be a religion, or "if" there is to be a death penalty, then these certain rights and/or restrictions shall apply. ...........

Do you believe that the Court would have been able to decide slavery was Unconstitutional prior to the 13th Amendment?

[SparkleHugs]

From what I'm given to understand part of the problem with Lethal Injection is getting qualified Medical Professionals to participate in the executions as it goes against the idea of the Hippocratic Oath.


So why don't we properly train those who are willing to do it? I don't think it takes much more skills than the average nurse has. find the vein, insert the needle, done.

[tiger_rascal]

And still, if it is so humane for our dogs, why is it unhumane for humans?

Im against that too.

And since you bring that up. If we put old, sick dogs down, why not humans too?

[Incident]

So why don't we properly train those who are willing to do it? I don't think it takes much more skills than the average nurse has. find the vein, insert the needle, done.

IMO, I think that will be the jist of the Supreme Court Ruling.

[Venisenvy]

I don't agree. The "cruel and unusual" clause could be used to limit execution methods to that which results in the least amount of discomfort, realizing that there will always be some degree of pain with any method. The "cruel and unusual" clause to me means that the method of death shouldn't in and of itself be an additional punishment.

But if they did not limit the methods of the death penalty at the time of their framing then how could they be cruel and unusal. Obviously at the time they were not found to be by the framers in which case I believe an amendment would be required to say that they are. Frankly hanging and guns are probably still the most humane ways.

[SparkleHugs]

Im against that too.

And since you bring that up. If we put old, sick dogs down, why not humans too?


So it was a bad decision to put down my dog whose back legs no longer functioned at all and I had to pick her up and take her outside so she could poop and urinate on herself?? She had lost about 40 lbs in 2 months and didn't have the strength to move and could no longer take herself to the water dish. Yes, what horrible people my parents and I are. Shame on us.

and YES old people whose lives are so full of pain and agony and live their lives on tubes and constant medicine and have absolutely no quality of life whatsoever, yes, if they desired they should be euthenized too. I have always thought that Dr. Kavorkian was a humane person. This is legal in Oregon.

Incident, I agree.

Venis, what about hanging is exactly humane? I'm not disagreeing, I just don't really see that right now. I think guns are humane in the sense that its quick, I just personally dislike the idea of it. Whatever happened to the gas chamber method? I'm not too familiar with it, but is that a good alternative?

[Incident]

But if they did not limit the methods of the death penalty at the time of their framing then how could they be cruel and unusal. Obviously at the time they were not found to be by the framers in which case I believe an amendment would be required to say that they are. Frankly hanging and guns are probably still the most humane ways.

Because more Humane Ways could have been found in the meantime, this would make the use of Guns and Hanging in light of the newer method "Cruel and Unusual"

[tiger_rascal]

Whoa! Back off Sparkle. Im agreeing with you.

What I dont agree with is putting healthy dogs down just because the pound is full and they cant find homes for them. Old, sick dogs, sure, and even humans. My older sister told me about my dad. I was too young to remember. He was in the hospital dying of colon cancer and she said he acted like he was in so much pain and he just wanted it over with. She said his body wasted away to nothing, by the time he finally died he was already a skeleton.

[SparkleHugs]

Oh, thats a whole separate issue I disagree with but the difference for me between putting down a healthy human and a healthy dog is that humans have reason and animals do not. Humans know killing is bad, dogs are animals...even domesticated ones. My cousin is an animal control officer and had to kill a dog that had attacked thirteen children. She was proud of this, it was apparently an allusive dog. I felt bad for the dog because many times those types of dogs are abused to the point of behaving that way. While I felt bad for the dog, i see how it was necessary to protect the people in the neighborhood.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

So why don't we properly train those who are willing to do it? I don't think it takes much more skills than the average nurse has. find the vein, insert the needle, done.

It's not about the training. To administer an IV drug anywhere in the US, one must be a licensed practioner, i.e., a registered nurse. And for a medical practioner, administering a drug to kill a person goes against every ethical code on the books, every bit of training, and the very core beliefs of medicine.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

Do you believe that the Court would have been able to decide slavery was Unconstitutional prior to the 13th Amendment?

I don't know. Let me research it more and I'll get back to you. I have rather limited time right now as the computer is in the hotel in London, and I plan on seeing the city, not the inside of their business center. ;)

[SparkleHugs]

wait, what? you dont want to spend your time abraod online? Psh, what kind of American are you? lol

I still compare it to Veterinarians, they are trained to help animals every way they can and make them healthy. But sometimes their jobs call for killing an animal. If they properly trained those willing to do it I still do not see the problem. It isn't like I am suggesting they teach lethal injections in all medical classes.

[pinky]

Veterinarians are called to kill an animal for humane reasons; other than putting animals down because they're not adopted (and that should be stopped), I've never known of a case where a healthy animal was put down.

That's very different from executing a healthy person as retribution for a crime. I can understand how a medical professional would refuse to do that.

[SparkleHugs]

What about the dogs that are put down because they bit a human??

[pinky]

Yeah, that's true. But if they're dangerous to humans, they're never going to be safe around people, and possibly not other dogs. For a dog, which is a pack animal, to be kept isolated may be just as inhumane as death.

[SparkleHugs]

But whether you agree with the death penalty or not, cant any of you think of the most humane way to do it? There are plenty of things i disagree with in the world but if given a choice, I would choose the lesser evil...what is the lesser evil for you all?

[oxymoron]

But if they did not limit the methods of the death penalty at the time of their framing then how could they be cruel and unusal. Obviously at the time they were not found to be by the framers in which case I believe an amendment would be required to say that they are. Frankly hanging and guns are probably still the most humane ways.

You still don't get it. Your method of interpretation is not held by anybody. You are completely misunderstanding the judicial philosophies of Scalia, Thomas et al.

[oxymoron]

Whatever, how can you believe the Constitution remains mute on the Death penalty, when it no less than four times mentions capital punishment by placing restrictions on its use?

Limiting the use of the death penalty has no bearing on whether that penalty is constitutional or not. The constitution does not say America must have a death penalty, nor America may not have a death penalty.

One can interpret the constitution how they see fit. And if you want to interpret the fact that limits on the death penalty indicate its acceptability, that is fine. If someone else wants to interpret it as falling within cruel and unusual punishment, that is fine as well.

But don't confuse either of those with what the constitution says. It says NOTHING as to the constitutionality of the death penalty.

[SparkleHugs]

I think Oxy just said everything I had been trying to say but was not articulate enough to execute. lol

[tiger_rascal]

I think Oxy just said everything I had been trying to say but was not articulate enough to execute. lol

Are you trying to be funny? :nc:

[SparkleHugs]

Actutally no. lol I wasn't even thinking when I typed that. :laugh:

[ConnieB]

17 forms of ID?! I never knew there could be so many! Care to list them all? ;)

If 17 forms of ID were fine then, it should be fine now.Those 17 forms could be things like library cards which are not a legal form of ID.

In my own opinion, if you are going to vote, then you need to be registered and use a state ID whether it be your driving license or regular state ID, nothing else. And paying for the ID is not charging you to vote....it's charging you for something you should have in the first place, just like paying for a dirving license. I think everyone who is a citizen needs a form of state ID and it should be shown in order to vote. My kids need a school ID just to get lunch every day and my husband needs an employee ID just to get into the front door of his work, and we don't need one to vote...COME ON something is wrong here. I mean my kids can't use any other form of ID to get a lunch, nor could my husband use his drivers license to get into his work because the ID are scanned into the machines. Maybe if this was actually a norm for voting we wouldn't have all these problems we had with the "same" person or "dead" people voting.

Lethal injection is not cruel and inhumane...It's a damn shot of a lethal dose of drugs. This is just a way to stop the death penalty, which I do support depending on the situation.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

The objection is charging someone for a a photo ID to vote. If you have to pay for an ID in order to vote, then that is, in effect, charging someone to vote.

[tiger_rascal]

I agree. Someone should not have to buy a state photo ID just to vote. And the excuse that they should already have one is ridiculous.

[SparkleHugs]

I think as long as your name and face are on the card then it should be acceptable. I once forgot my ID and had my debit card with my picture on it and they accepted it, they have also accepted my school ID, i believe they also take a costco card.

I pay for the costco card, the Drivers license, the state ID, the school ID, etc I woudl also use them all regardless of the state allowing me to vote with them or not. It costs something to make the ID, I don't mind paying that charge simply because nothing is ever free. Most everyone has a debit card these days and i think that is acceptable.

Because there are so many acceptable ways of Identification these days I see absolutely no need for a federal ID voter card. it just seems to be another way to keep track of people and make us pay an unncessary fee. my Drivers License, State ID, and passport are sufficient enough.

[05Ivory]

Oh, thats a whole separate issue I disagree with but the difference for me between putting down a healthy human and a healthy dog is that humans have reason and animals do not. Humans know killing is bad, dogs are animals...even domesticated ones. My cousin is an animal control officer and had to kill a dog that had attacked thirteen children. She was proud of this, it was apparently an allusive dog. I felt bad for the dog because many times those types of dogs are abused to the point of behaving that way. While I felt bad for the dog, i see how it was necessary to protect the people in the neighborhood.

Many animals have reason, they just have more instinct then me do. Animals dream so they have their own thoughts, they learn, and make some decisions. Have you seen the show "Animal Heroes" on the Animal Planet? It's a good show. And as you go higher up, you'll find animals with outright intelligence. If a dog attacks or kills people, then I understand putting it down. But then again I'm also for putting people down who are mass murderers.

[Incident]

Executions to resume after high court OK's lethal injections
By MARK SHERMAN – 7 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The longest pause in executions in the U.S. in 25 years is about to end. A splintered Supreme Court cleared the way Wednesday, approving the most widely used method of lethal injection.

Almost immediately, Virginia lifted its moratorium on the death penalty. Mississippi and Oklahoma said they would seek execution dates for convicted murderers, and other states were ready to follow.

A nearly seven-month halt in executions was brought on by the court's decision to review Kentucky's lethal injection procedures, which are similar to those in roughly three dozen states. The break is the longest since a 17-month period ending in August 1982.

Voting 7-2, the conservative court led by Chief Justice John Roberts rebuffed the latest assault on capital punishment, this time by foes focusing on methods rather than on the legality of the death penalty itself. Justice John Paul Stevens voted with the majority on the question of lethal injections but said for the first time that he now believes the death penalty is unconstitutional.

The court turned back a challenge to the Kentucky procedures that employ three drugs to sedate, paralyze and kill inmates. Similar methods are used by roughly three dozen states.

Death penalty opponents said challenges to lethal injections would continue in states where problems with administering the drugs are well documented.

The case decided Wednesday was not about the constitutionality of the death penalty generally or even lethal injection. Instead, two Kentucky death row inmates contended that their executions could be carried out more humanely, with less risk of pain.


http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h_03CF5lNboO6lRuo483ldXUOMCwD9036M687

[Paulie]

What a sad, sad day for this country.

[Incident]

What a sad, sad day for this country.

Right decision, though. Unfortunate as it is, the death penalty is Clearly Constitutional.

[tiger_rascal]

Constitutional or not, its not right. Its not moral or ethical. Its barbaric.

[pinky]

And against the teaching of the Catholic Church.

[Venisenvy]

The death penalty is constitutional, I do not believe the lethal injection is any more inhumane than hanging, guillotine or firing squad. I hate the death penalty but the only way to get rid of it is to:

1.have all states decide they no longer want to use it
2.Pass a constitutional amendment.

Otherwise legally there is nothing we can do to stop it.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

Where was I just reading this... the US is among the top five countries with the highest execution rates, along with China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. We are also one of the few countries that executes children along with some of the countries listed above.

I think I found this information in a recent Amnesty International press release.

I'm completely against the death penalty.

[SparkleHugs]

When was the last time we executed a child? :scratch: we'll incarcerate them, but i am pretty certain we do not execute them.

[tiger_rascal]

I guess it depends what your definition of a child is. Some people consider people at the age of 17 and 18 to be children.

[tiger_rascal]

Oh my God. :noway:

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/young/child/5.html

The day after Stinney’s execution, June 16, 1944, a small, three-inch article appeared in The State newspaper, which contained the following line “Stinney, 14 years and five months old, was the youngest person ever to die in the chair”

[tiger_rascal]

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=27&did=203

The death penalty is forbidden in all states for those under the age of 18 at the time of their crime following the Supreme Court's ruling in Roper v. Simmons (2005)

2005?! It took long enough!

[DoubleEdgeSword]

Thanks for posting that, Chad. It's very possible I was reading an old release.

[pinky]

the US is among the top five countries with the highest execution rates, along with China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
That's some great company we keep. :greyno: