Difference Between Cruel And Unusual Punishment

Throughout the history of man there has always existed a sort of rule pertaining to retribution for just and unjust acts. For the just came rewards, and for the unjust came punishments. This has been a law as old as time. One philosophy about the treatment of the unjust is most controversial in modern time and throughout our history; which is is the ethical decision of a death penalty. This controversial issue of punishment by death has been going on for centuries. It dates back to as early as 399 B.C.E., to when Socrates was forced to drink hemlock for his “corruption of the youth” and “impiety”.

The moral and ethical debate on the sentencing and enforcement of capital punishment has long baffled the citizens and governing powers of the United States. Throughout time, the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, and the vast majority beliefs of Americans, have been in a constant state of perplexity. Before the 1960s, the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution were interpreted as permitting the death penalty. However, in the early 1960s, it was suggested that the death penalty was a "cruel and unusual" punishment and therefore unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment. Many argue that capital punishment is an absolute necessity, in order to deter crime, and to ‘make things right’ following a heinous crime of murder. Despite the belief that capital punishment may seem to be the only tangible, permanent solution to ending future capital offenses, the United States should remove this cruel and unnecessary form of punishment from our current judicial systems.

As far back as one can look into human civilization, justice for a murder victim has always been by taking the life of the killer. In today’s society capital punishment is needed to defend it from further harm, bring justice and/or vengeance to the victims of the loved ones, and encourage psychological deterrence. As of today, there are thirty-two states which offer the only just punishment for a crime without parallel and eighteen states having abolished the death penalty.

In this paper I shall argue that capital punishment is immoral. In Furman v. Georgia we find a landmark case in which the legality of capital punishment is exposed. Judges Stewart, White, and Douglas found the death penalty to be immoral given the arbitrary forces involved. ("Furman v. Georgia") They believed this was causing a higher number of minorities specifically blacks to be subjected to

The Death Penalty started in the eighteenth Century B.C. when it was established into the Code of King Hammurabi in Babylon, which codified the the Death Penalty for 25 different crimes.The Eighth Amendment states that the Death Penalty is considered a “cruel and unusual punishment,” which means that the Death Penalty is unfair to the persons getting the Penalty, but is also unconstitutional because it’s a punishment that ends the lives of people. So really you are killing the person that killed another or more, and you are just adding to the death toll. I oppose the Death Penalty because it could put innocent lives to death and costs way too much the country could afford to use.

If you had the choice would you rather die from being crushed by an elephant or by what the persians called “Scaphism”? You could have rats dig through your flesh into your chest or be boiled alive (Eldridge 2017). It all sounds pretty tempting am I right? The eighth amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits the federal government from imposing cruel and unusual punishment for federal crimes. What is cruel and unusual punishment? What are the differences between old medieval, Roman, Egyptian and, nowadays cruel and unusual punishments?

Judge Arthur Alarcon and Prof. Paula Mitchell of California have recently done a study on capital punishment and the cost that it has had on the state of California. Their findings may shock some, California has spent $4 billion in the past thirty years to up keep the death penalty, and the average capital trial cost $1 million more than non-capital trials (Alarcon & Mitchell, 2011). Capital punishment is a legal process where the punishment for a crime is death. This is a concept that has been around for a long time. One of the earliest written documents that support capital punishment is Hammurabi’s Code with the theory of “an eye for an eye” (Mark, 2011). The topic of capital punishment has become a very controversial one in the past couple decades. Many people are against it, saying that it is a “cruel and unusual punishment” and those for it fight say what a great deterrence it can be. While capital punishment may have had a purpose in the past, in our modern society I believe it should be an obsolete practice.

The use of capital punishment in the U.S. is a growing concern for most American citizens. According to statistics, seventy percent of Americans are in support of the death penalty, while only thirty percent are against it. These statistics show that few people are against capital punishment (“Fact” 1). With the use of the death penalty growing the controversy is becoming more heated. With only twelve states left not enforcing it the resistance is becoming futile (“Fact” 4). Many debates have been made and even clauses have been invoked, such as, the “Cruel and Unusual Clause” that was invoked by the Supreme Court in 1962 (Meltsner 179). The use of death as a punishment has been viewed as “cruel

Capital punishment is defined as the legally authorized killing of someone as punishment for a crime. There are many arguments that are for and against the death penalty. Majority of these arguments contain broad categories ranging from morality to attorney quality. Although most would support that capital punishment is the closest penalty for murder it is still used unequally across the prison populations. Capital punishment is a practice that the judicial system should abolish for the future generations.

Capital punishment, the state imposed penalty of death, continues to be one of the most controversial issues in contemporary American public policy. Since the earliest days of its employment in the colonial era until today, citizens have struggles with the issue of when and under what circumstances the taking of a human life by the state can be morally or legally justified. For some opponents of the death penalty, the simple answer is that the taking of a human life is always morally and ethically wrong, even when conducted under the auspices of state authority as a legal punishment. In contrast, proponents of capital punishment have contended with equal fervor that the death penalty is morally justified as a form of retributive justice,

In the past two decades, over half of the death penalty trials have contained constitutional errors, and five percent of those people were exonerated during retrial proving the faults of the current system. As Leahy stated, “ We have cast iron scientific proof that a significant number of people sentenced to death in America in the late twentieth century have been absolutely, undeniably innocent.” This goes to show that one out of three cases that are successful is simply not good enough. Cases in which DNA testing has proven inmates innocence shows that the system is not perfect, and when it comes to a person’s life, there is no room for constitutional violations. There is another problem in death penalty trials, the lawyers. In too many cases defendants have been assigned lawyers who were later disbarred, suspended or are fresh out of law school with little to no experience. Finding quality lawyers who can handle a death penalty trial appropriately to do it pro bono, or for little pay is hard. This is why Leahy came up with the “Innocence Protection Act” to provide funding in order to give defendants accurate representation in death penalty trials

This Amendment also protects from cruel and unusual punishment, what outlined the rules and regulations for jails and prisons and even the death penalty. American's can see the change in what is believed as "cruel" and "unusual" over time, as the death penalty less than a hundred years ago allowed hangings, and stoning, where as now it has to be humane and justified.

The death penalty has been present, in one way or another, for virtually as long as human civilization has existed. The reasons why are apparent; it is intrinsically logical to human beings that a person who takes the life of another should also be killed. This philosophy is exemplified in the famous Biblical passage, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." However, in light of recent research into ethics, criminology and the justice system, the time has come for us to re-examine our ageless paradigm of revenge.

In 1879, the United States Supreme Court ruled, by a vote of 9-0, that execution by firing squad was not cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution. This began a long debate on whether or not a government reserves the right to punish those who have taken a life by taking their lives. There are many reasons as to why someone would be against capital punishment: it is not our right as humans to play God, it is against the constitution, the threat of capital punishment is not a valid deterrent, it is morally corrupt to take a life. All of these points are valid, and they represent the mindset of millions of Americans; however, capital punishment is a valuable asset to be reserved for only “the most heinous murders and the most brutal and conscienceless murderers” (Alice).