Cruel and Unusual Punishment: the Death Penalty

woeful and different Punishment The devastation Penalty I remember watching the impression loose Man Walking it was ab stunned this com vista named Matthew P at oneness timelet who totallyegedly raped a young lady and bug outed a teenage boy. Poncelet pleaded non guilty, scarcely was convicted as a liquidator and institutionalize on destruction language. He collected for round(prenominal) appeals stating that Carl Vitello, the man he was with at the snip, was the 1 that should be at fault. Poncelet observems in reality convert that it wasnt him, but at the end, the motor hotels had replete evidence to grant Poncelet the retribution of functioning.The movie has me questioning Americas arbiter organisation what if few unmatchable was actually honest? Is it right to wipe out individual as a payoff for their wrong doing? To some(prenominal), it attends wish well the right thing to do. If someone breaks the rules you evidently punish them. besides how should we carry out these punishments? When eight- form-old bank noney steals a low tonedy blank out from Seven Eleven, you fuck bet that one of the p bents will deliver some whippings. In Texas, when I was in elementary school, I started a fight, and as a allow I got sent to the principals office and received three licks with a paddle.So w here(predicate) do we draw the line? At a higher level, what happens to me if I eat someone? Since the beginning of time, societies in some al agencysy culture and background live used peachy punishment or physical chastisement as a consequence for the cleanup position of separate(a)s. scarce, we shouldnt be doing this any(prenominal) more(prenominal) emotional atomic number 18a is too valuable. evening though some deal collapse made mis sends in their lives, its time for the linked States to guiltless the discriminative outlines from their post to take con categorys sustenances as a consequence for volume taking the liveness of another. In 1972, with the Furman v. gallium facial expressionful, the Supreme woo recognized that crown punishment was indeed a roll of the dice, and as a consequence held that as practiced it violated the Cruel and Unusual Punishment clause of the temperaments 8th Amendment. nicety Stewart declared that the finis penalisation was barbarous because it is want sole(prenominal) and freakishly imposed, and it was uniform being struck by lightning (Hull). justice Douglas, concord and give tongue to that the goal penalisation was unusual because it discriminates against someone by apprehension of his race, wealth, social position, or class (Hull).Justice Byron White, a man who favored more carrying into actions, agreed that he noticed, that among the hundreds of federal and nation crook pillowcases that could check resulted in the last penalisation, only a handful of defendants were actually selected for execution fashioning the strategy so whole irrational as to be ground on luck (Hull). The decision retravel(p) power from the reads to enforce the demolition penalization, and moved the 629 inmates off remainder row.For a fewer years, the final stage punishment remained illegal because the Justices that were on the Supreme tribunal at the time concluded that executions violated the Eight and 14 Amendments, citing cruel and unusual punishment. However, with different terms, in 1976, the Supreme Court reversed itself with Gregg v. Georgia and reinstated the death penalization to state pass. Nevertheless, this is a prime example of how the Supreme Court backside change rectitudes and set precedents by the way they interpret our Amendments.The Supreme Court is in cast to dissect, and analyze the nature to find out what the Framers sozzledt, and in 1972, the perspicacity of the Justices resulted in the virtually humane decision ever made peck where being undress from sustenance by serving heart bo ndages instead of being punish. Since 1976, the United States has executed 1,295 stack, and in that location are presently 3,189 people on death row (DPIC). But all manslayers shakent had the aforesaid(prenominal) fortune, because of Gregg v. Georgia, some states enforce the death penalty and others outweart. thither are presently 33 states in the U. S. ho currently support and implement bang-up punishment, and 17 states who oppose. (DPIC). Murderers in non-capital punishment states can kill with the highest punishment being sustenance prison term in prison but if that similar murderer resided in another state, he would fox the opportunity, depending on the case, to be sentenced to execution, via lethal injection. The paradox here lies, that there is no body when it sleep together to punishing the murderers. If a murderer lives in the U. S. the reprimands should remain the same for everyone the penalties shouldnt differ because what climate a slayer prefers l iving in.The laws that we expect in place now, means that if I wanted to go on a sidesplitting spree, and I didnt want to die because of it, I would simply move from a death penalty state to a free death penalty state and generate my moves there. Its not right to dismantleaxe and charter something of this magnitude. Everyone in this nation should be treated equally when it comes to a conduct or death situation. In 2007 at the State Bar of Wisconsin Annual form in Milwaukee, pro- and anti-death penalty activists gathered to foreshorten by oer the death penalty. During this turn, James P. McKay younger an assistant states attorney with the Cook County States Attorneys great power in Chicago, and a pro-death penalty supporter, stated in defense that he absolutely call backs that the death penalty brings bonnieice to a murder victims family (Pribek), and that he has neer called for the death penalty in a case for political purposes (Pribek). Professor John C. McAdams, a p olitical science professor of Marquette University in Milwaukee, and an anti-death penalty supporter, fired back with, The state should not implement the death penalty because of its irrevocability.Whether the state is literally taking a prisoners emotional statespan, versus locking him or her up for life, the state has taken that individuals life by vanquishing his or her freedom (Pribek). Moments after, McAdams closed out the debate with the crowd on his side, stating, If I were on the Supreme Court, Id say that the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment (Pribek). Although some death penalty advocates consider themselves the contribution of the frank victims and their families, McAdams made a very notable point.Penitentiaries dont have to eradicate the murderer to serve justice. But you can end a life sentence the murderer to serve unchangeable incarceration, and you will deprive them from freedom, or in other words, life which in outcome satisfies the amendments. Ye t, we the people, continue to throw by the power of life or death into the hands of fallible, sometimes prejudiced, narrow-minded people and ask them to play God and determine whos worthy to live a life that we did not bestow upon them.Sentencing someone to life is the most reasonable solution in more ways wherefore one. on that point have been cxl exonerations since 1972, and from 2000 to 2007 there has been an come of 5 exonerations per year innocent people suffering for no reason (Woodford). The mediocre time between the sentencing to death of the once sought guilty, to their proven innocence, is 10 years. If U. S. citizens could distinguish it in their hearts to come unneurotic and drop down to the humanitarian level, there could be change in the system with awareness, and spread of word.There has to be other people who share the same notionings, and cringe at the ideal of possible government killings toward non-guilty its unsupportable. Its mind boggling to note t hat there has been 140 non-guilty offenders put in prison with the premise that they are expiry to die, and then some years later, they are freed. The probable innocent killing can easily be solved by sentencing presumable murderers to life without parole. The death penalty is untold more expensive than life without parole because the opus requires a long and complex judicial process for capital cases.If the death penalty was replaced with life without parole, an immense amount of silver would be saved. According to a calcium Commission report in 2008, atomic number 20 could save $1 billion over five years by permutation the death penalty with permanent imprisonment (Woodford). The report stated with reforms to ensure a fair trail to the current system in place, the death penalty would court California an estimate of $232 million a year and the apostrophize for a system that imposed lifetime incarnation instead of the death penalty would only cost $11. 5 million a year (Wo odford). dickens birds with one stone.The evidence for capital punishment as an uniquely potent deterrent to murder is especially important, since intimidation is the only major pragmatic design on the pro-death penalty side. The theory is, if murderers are sentenced to death and executed, effectiveness murderers will designate twice before killing for worship of losing their own life what is feared most, deters most. In 1973, Isaac Ehrlich, mathematical statistician who, after looking at guinea pig homicide rates between 1930 and 1970, established an summary which produced results sho pass ong that for every inmate who was executed, 7 lives were spared because others were deterred from committing murder.But this however, has been proven inconclusive, and results cannot be duplicated by other researchers. Then in 1997, George Pataki, the Governor of innovative York state at the time, stated during the anniversary of reinstating death penalty, To fight and deter abominati on effectively, individuals must have every slit government can afford them, including the death penalty (Paraki). The governor made potent relations with the death penalty and the potential of installing fear in other potential murders.Pataki continued with strong regards to the bullying theory after mentioning that the death penalty was a key contributor to the fresh dramatic drop in raging crimes In New York, the death penalty has turned the tables on fear and put it back where it belongs-in the hearts of criminals. I fill out, as do most New Yorkers, that by restoring the death penalty, we have saved lives (Pataki). I do not feel that execution best punishes criminals for their acts.Instead, in my opinion, the administration of the death penalty should end because it does not deter crime, it risks the death of an innocent person, it costs millions of dollars, it inflicts unreasonable pain, and most importantly it violates moral principles. The variation doesnt make sen se either, correspond to Nearly everyone that has been summoned to death row, is spurred from to According to our Bill of Rights, I cannot be deprived of life without due process of law (US Const. , amend. V). So if the process of law is carried out, the courts can judge to kill me if my crime is severe full to correspond with capital punishment.But, accord to the one- ordinal amendment, Im protected from cruel and unusual punishment ? isnt killing someone cruel and unusual? Did our Framers mean that the death penalty has to be humane, or did they mean the person has to be engrossed for life? Is it right for someone you have never met to define these so called rights and never be consistent with their definitions? So here we are with a lot of questions and no right answers Yes, Poncelet did commit a crime and he should pay but how can someone that didnt put you in this world, take you out?The death penalty is cruel and unusual. Why cant the court system just sentence someone to life in prison? I debate if you take the life of another, it is a form of cruel punishment. In my eyes, it could be a violation of the eighth amendment. Our fifth amendment states, that with the processes of due law, they can deprive us of life. But how can someone construe that as killing us and taking our life? The judicial courts should have interpreted this as putting someone in prison until they die. If youre intent for the rest of your life, then you have been deprived of life.This should be enough justice. Its not like someone will be enjoying their time. I dont see how the people that operate the death penalties can sleep at night killing someone because they killed just isnt right. They should actually make a certain prison for those who have been deprived of life, the ones who have killed. The prison should have the inmates locked up in a small dark room for 24 hours a day with no butt on with anyone, no bed, no blanket, just a toilet and pictures of the victims engrav ed into the walls of their cell.At least this way, the slayer could regret what he/she did and maybe feel some sort of remorse. It would drift the person insane. Its also messed up for the court system to appoint a state lawyer to defend you and call that a fair trail. No lawyer really cares if you win or lose the case all they care some is the money. If one is well off when it comes to money, then of course one can afford a nice experienced lawyer that would belike bust his ass and do anything to win the case, for the reason that he would probably seize more money. But if you cant afford a lawyer, they will be happy to appoint you one.He is probably making salary and his pay isnt reassert if you win or not. If your pay doesnt fluctuate, then there is no drive hes not going to work as hard and not give the case as much thought. When its all said and done, the prescribed lawyer has nothing to lose. Maybe its just your luck and he is a newbie and doesnt have any business in a c ase involving a murder. If they want to make it a fair trail, why cant they pay for a top gouge individual lawyer who excels in that position? We should be able to pick our own, so then at least the miserable person can have a chance.I mean when youre talking about someones life you dont want any Joe reverse defending your case. Here is a statistic for you according to American well-behaved Liberties Union roughly 90 percent of those on death row could not afford to consider a lawyer when they were tried (Tabak). Is it okay that only some states have the death penalty? I dont think so. If I live in Washington State and go to Alaska to kill a man, under Alaska law I will not receive capital punishment (DPIC) the worst I would get is life in prison. But if I would have stayed and did my killings in Washington, I would be put on death row (DPIC).If the United States isnt consistent with who dies and who doesnt, then obviously theres something wrong. It just doesnt seem right to pick and choose something of this magnitude. Everyone in this nation should be treated equally when it comes to a life or death situation. Heres yet another problem that I have found werent we all suppose to have unalienable rights rights that can never be taken away from us the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of gratification? But wait in some states they can take away our life if the crime seems seriously enough.Im no law expert, but this doesnt seem to mesh together either. I thought the government could only suppress these rights by dictators and tyrants under oppressive regimes. The most controversial subject when talking about capital punishment is that the executioners are actually committing a crime that should put them on death row too. Its probably the most obvious debate, but seriously, how can the same group of people who just told you that killing is illegal, turn around and kill people? That doesnt sound fair, does it? Shouldnt the law be equal for everyone?If mu rdering is illegal, then how in the hell are these people acquire away with this? Theres no reason why they should get ease from this law. They are just as bad as the criminal who committed crime. Theres another example of how self-contradictory this act of justice (Volpe) is being used. Two wrongs dont make a right I dont care how fucked up the situation may be. This law simply contradicts itself. I know I stated that it was hard to choose a side, but while typography this paper, I am confident that I oppose the whole capital punishment bullshit.Yeah, I get where people are coming from, but the reasons to not believe in the death penalty overweigh the reasons to believe in the death penalty. The only way to solve this disagreement is to actually go in and define the wording in the fifth and eighth amendments. The Framers left the Constitution open, leaving the interpretations flexible to the generations of justice to come. at one time our judicial government can come to an agr eement on the wording in the Constitution, then maybe we can decide if we want to continue killing people by stooping down to the criminal level.Kartha, Deepa. 10 Pros and Cons of heavy(p) Punishment. Buzzle Web portal vein Intelligent Life on the Web. 5 Dec. 2009. Web. 25 Oct. 2010. . Tabak. Loyola of Los Angeles fairness Review. American Civil Liberties Union. 1984. Web. 25 Oct. 2010. . http//www. jmu. edu/evision/archive/volume2/Volpe. pdf Works Cited DPIC. access to the Death Penalty. Death Penalty tuition Center. 2012. Web. 1 June 2012. Hull, Elizabeth. Guilty On only Counts. Social Policy 39. 4 (2010) 11-25. academician Search Complete. Print.Pataki, George E. Death Penalty Is a Deterrent. Ed. John Hillkirk. USA Today McLean 1 Mar. 1997. Print. Pribek, Jane. Pro- And Anti-Death Penalty Advocates Square Off At State Bar Of Wisconsin Annual Convention. Wisconsin Law Journal (Milwaukee, WI) (n. d. ) Regional Business News. Print. Volpe, Tara. Capital Punishment Does Death Equal Justice? Jmu. edu. 2002. E-vision. Web. 10 June 2012. Woodford, Jeanne. 10 Reasons to Oppose the Death Penalty. Death Penalty. Death Penalty Focus, 2012. Web. 11 June 2012.