Justice Brennen thought the death penalty was "cruel and unusual in all cases, a denial of the executed person's humanity, and uniquely degrading to human dignity" (The American Heritage History of the Bill of Rights, p. 93.). Historically speaking when the Eighth Amendment was written Capitol Punishment was a fact of American life and continued to be so. The Supreme Court handed down on July 2, 1976 in G... ... middle of paper ... ... approach does not justify eliminating the practice. Doctors make fatal mistakes and so do politicians but these mistakes do not argue for doing away with the practice of medicine or government.
In the end, it is wrong for the taxpayer’s of this nation to financially support the offender of the crime until they are finally put to death. The death penalty should be abolished because of the problems associated with how the State administers the punishment. Specifically, it violates an individual’s 8th Amendment right. Stated in "Problems Associated with Lethal Injection," an article posted on the National Coalition Against the Death Penalty (NCADP) website, the Coalition comments on a problem faced with lethal injection, which boldly reveals, "Recently, concerns have surfaced regarding Pavulon [a drug used in lethal injections], which could paralyze inmates to the point where they are unable to communicate any pain they are feeling from the following dose of potassium chloride. Painful, lengthy executions constitute violations of the 8th Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment” (“is the death”, 2008).
Another example of a Supreme Court case dealing with the eighth amendment was the Supreme Court case Roper v Simmons in 2005 ( DeNunzio, 369). In this case, the Court considered whether it was merciless and bizarre to execute a convicted felon for a criminal offense committed as a minor. The Supreme Court ruled against the execution in 5-4 decision. They rationalized that it was wrong to execute someone for a crime they committed when they were minor because the mind of a minor had not yet completely and fully developed. This is another case in which the Supreme Court found that the penalization of someone was inhumane and unjust.
Does this mean that we should throw out the death penalty because people, who did not really deserve to die, were killed? No, we have changed the laws, and no one gets the death penalty unless they deserve to die. Capital punishment should stay around. Yes, there are some maldistributions on the way it is opposed on a person, but those maldistributions are imposed on guilty people. Capital punishment is feared by potential murderers because once it is ordered on them they are not coming back.
Katende stated that the role of the court should not decide cases according to public opinion, but to what the constitution states. Katende said that the process of execution causes disruption mentally and psychologically to the condemned inmate. (" 'Death Penalty Unconstitutional '.") William J. Brennan, JD, Justice of the US Supreme Court, in the July 2, 1976 dissenting opinion in Gregg v. Georgia, stated: "Death is not only an unusually severe punishment, unusual in its pain, in its finality, and in its enormity, but it serves no penal purpose more effectively than a less severe punishment... The fatal constitutional infirmity in the punishment of death is that it treats 'members of the human race as nonhumans, as objects to be toyed with and discarded.
The people of this country have come to the realization that capital punishment should be removed from our state 's legislature because it is does not prevent crime, it does not bring those who died back to life, and can easily be replaced with life without parole. The death penalty, stemming from both its brutal past and ineffective present, is a controversial and complex topic that all over the United States is becoming more clear that it is not an acceptable punishment due to the brutal methods, and lack of precise rules. A large factor in the support for capital punishment is the claim that the death penalty prevents crimes from occurring, which is false. Data presented Doctor Michael Radelet, who has a PhD in sociology, in the essay “How does Detterence Work?” He stated “We expect that some of the would-be Texas murderers who think about sanctions would recognize this new law and take their friend or loved one to New Mexico to kill them, thus risking “only” LWOP. Obviously, this idea is absurd.
Retardation and Capital Punishment One can agree (or not) with the recent ruling by the Supreme Court that the death penalty should not apply to retarded citizens because it violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment," and still be troubled by the twisted road the court took to reach its destination. Reading the history of the Eighth Amendment shows that it proceeded from concerns over the methods the state could use to take the life of a convicted criminal -- not the intelligence level of the criminal. When the Constitution was adopted, the British penalty for high treason was to have the convicted person "hanged by the neck and then cut down alive, then he was disemboweled while yet living. His head was cut off and his body divided into four parts for disposition by the King"(Norton). Among punishments for other crimes, English law provided for cutting off the ears, flogging, cutting off hands, castrating, standing in the pillory, slitting of the nose and branding on the cheek.
That’s why it would take a long and complex process to find out whether that person had not committed such crime. Therefore, innocent people could be put to death for doing no such crimes. The courts have declared that if a sentence is inhuman, outrageous, or shocking to society, it would be considered cruel and unusual. For example, cutting body parts off, breaking on the wheel, crucifixion, and so on. The Founding Fathers intention for the Eighth Amendment was to give the government into the hands of people and take it away from arbitrary rulers and judges, who might expose any amount of excessive bail or cruel and unusual punishment that they wished.... ... middle of paper ... ... Court case McClesky v. Kemp not only violated the Eighth, but also violated the 14th Amendment.
Legal challenges peaked in 1972 with the 5-4 Supreme Court decision in Furman v. Georgia. This decision effectively ended capital punishment in every state because it characterized its laws as “arbitrary and capricious” and the practice of the death penalty as “cruel and unusual” punishment, a direct violation of the Eight Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It also stated that the capital punishment laws violated the Fourteenth Amendment which protects the due process rights guaranteed to U.S. citizens. Nevertheless, the moratorium on the death penalty ended four years later... ... middle of paper ... ...s supposed to deter. An example of this includes “suicide-by-execution syndrome,” in which people who wanted to take their own life were too scared to do so and instead they killed someone else so that the government would kill them as punishment.
Capital punishment a form of "cruel and unusual" punishment, not always punishing the right person, justified by political and emotional rhetoric, and it is not cost effective and should be abolished. Nothing is more "cruel and unusual" than an over zealous government and breaking the laws of God. A death sentence ends everything without rehabilitation. The American justice system is supposed to rehabilitate, and we can't justify murdering murderers and call it rehabilitation. A man sentenced to death from that day forward has nothing to look forward to except a death from unnatural causes by a revengeful government.