The Debate Over Capital Punishment

The Eight Amendment entails that every penalty inflicted by the government be in proportion with the crime entrusted by the defendant. Penalties that are unreasonably inconsiderate will be turned over on petition. For instance, punishments that have been turned over for being irrational are two Georgia (Coker v. Georgia, and Eberheart v. Georgia) decrees that ordered the death penalty for rape and kidnapping. According to the Supreme Court, the Eighth Amendment prohibits some penalties completely, and prohibits some other penalties that are extreme when evaluated to the offense, or to the capability of the performer. The U.S. Supreme Court interpretation of the

The Eighth Amendment protects the right of prisoners before they are tried and after they are convicted. It also bars excessive fines and “cruel and unusual” punishments. In 1641, the Massachusetts Body of Liberties standards allowed the death penalty for blasphemy and had physical punishments such as cutting off ears and branding with a hot iron. But now the death penalty is no longer allowed in some states because its defined as “evolving standards of decency” and most are extremely cruel and the cost is expensive. The Eighth Amendment prohibits mentally ill persons to “cruel and unusual” punishments. The Supreme Court case in 2005 of Roper v. Simmons is about Christopher Simmons and he was sentenced to death in 1993, when he was only 17.

The Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects us to not be putted into cruel and unusual punishments, but when it comes to the death penalty, things become more complicated. In my personal opinion, I believe the absolute interpretation of the 8th Amendment and that the death penalty undoubtedly violates the 8th Amendment. Looking at the case of “Furman v. Georgia (1972)”, the Court invalidated death penalty laws in the end because the justices considered the punishment of the death penalty was too cruel and unusual to the Furman’ sin, accidentally killing people, and disproportionately using the death penalty would result in more serious problems to the poor and minorities. This decision fully reflected the reliability of

Why is the death penalty used as a means of punishment for crime? Is this just a way to solve the nations growing problem of overcrowded prisons, or is justice really being served? Why do some view the taking of a life morally correct? These questions are discussed and debated upon in every state and national legislature throughout the country. Advantages and disadvantages for the death penalty exist, and many members of the United States, and individual State governments, have differing opinions. Yet it seems that the stronger arguments, and evidence such as cost effectiveness, should lead the common citizen to the opposition of Capital Punishment.

The first point to evaluate when looking at the Eighth Amendment is its the rich history. In the 1700’s, years before the Bill of Rights was created, judges would issue unfair punishments to those convicted if the judge favored the plaintiff or prosecutor. Furthermore, there was one man, Titus Oates, that would lie to the judge about his crimes; he would, in turn, blame the crime on other people. He was responsible for killing thirty-five people and managed to avoid punishment through his lies. Oates not only lied but exaggerated causing those that had been wrongly accused to suffer horribly cruel punishment. “His testimony was responsible for the execution of some 35 persons, but, as the frenzy subsided, inconsistencies were discovered in his story.” (Editors 1). These inconsistencies ultimately lead to Oates’s execution. Another example of legal injustice that

The Eighth Amendment was tested through many Supreme Court and there were some very significant ones such as the Miller v. Alabama. The no cruel or unusual aspect of the Eighth Amendment gives protection of undeserving or unreasonable punishment to a citizen that commits a crime. As Supreme Court cases regarding the Eighth Amendment open and closed the meaning of no cruel or unusual punishment changed; the sentencing of death is not considered cruel and/or unusual to a suspect that is mentally insane this aspect of the Eighth Amendment is important to the wrongfully accused people that are sentenced something for a crime that they did not commit. A significant

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.

(231) As far as capital punishment is concerned, the Eighth Amendment has been used to declare the death penalty invalid in numerous cases. Mandatory death penalties have repeatedly been found to violate the Eighth Amendment, and were first found to be unconstitutional in the cases of Roberts vs. Louisiana and Woodson vs. North Carolina. Arbitrary death sentences with no established criteria for application also violate the Eighth Amendment, as was ruled in the case of Furman vs. Georgia. In Furman vs. Georgia three cases had been brought to the Supreme Court concerning the death penalty and the racial biases present in the selection process.

The eighth amendment helps letting americans not have to go through unusual and cruel punishments. “It is not just criminal sentences themselves that are subject to the cruel and unusual test; the Eighth Amendment’s cruel and unusual provision has been used to challenge prison conditions such as extremely unsanitary cells, overcrowding, insufficient medical care and deliberate failure by officials to protect inmates from one another,” (“Eighth Amendment,” Annenberg Classroom). This site explains and breaks down the eighth amendment. It becomes apparent that this amendment helps protect the people from usual and cruel punishments. There are specific examples to a cruel and unusual punishments. “Cruel and unusual punishment includes torture, deliberately degrading punishment, or punishment that is too severe for the crime committed,” (Dictionary.com). This is a basic understanding for how we can make sure to stay away from these types of punishments. One of the biggest oppositions or conflicts with the eighth amendment there is is the death penalty. The question that comes from it is whether or not the death penalty can be considered a cruel and unusual punishment. “Eighth

Is the death penalty “cruel and unusual” and in violation of the 8th Amendment? We should us it sparely but I do not think it’s cruel and unusual nor is it violating the 8th amendment. We need to make sure the crime fits the punishment. In mid-1993, the Death Penalty Information Center received a request from Rep. Don Edwards, then Chair of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights, to prepare a report on the problem of innocent people on death row. At that time, crime bills were being introduced which involved an expansion of the federal death penalty and a curtailing of the capital appeal process. There also had been a series of highly publicized releases of people from death row in which it had belatedly been discovered

The Eighth Amendment of the Bill of Rights prevents the government from excessively punishing and fining. It’s also used to prevent inhumane and severe punishments to the convicted. Basically, they can’t cut off your fingers if you steal something; and if you’re given the death penalty, it’s one of a few ‘humane’ methods, things and nothing ‘unique.’ This could prevent severe, horrific abuse in many cases.

According to Sarah Mourer, the author of the article “Forgetting Furman: Arbitrary Death Penalty Sentencing Schemes Across The Nation,” Since 1976 The U.S. Supreme Court has read the Eight Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as demanding that arbitrariness be minimized when the state seeks to impose the penalty of death. But unfortunately arbitrariness has been part of the death penalty decision-making. The main problem is the information overload, because capital jury has to process an unlimited amount of evidence relating to aggravating and mitigating the current death penalty jurisprudence tends to enhance and embrace arbitrariness instead of minimize it. (Mourer, N.P.).

In drafting the Constitution, the founding fathers exerted a great deal of energy in creating a document which would not only endure, but simultaneously not constrain future generations in the application of laws and freedoms. Careful consideration was given to the words chosen to express sentiments regarding freedoms and rights they longed for and they were attuned to the fact changes would be possible or in many instances needed. Great difficulty was encountered in the 8th Amendment, which provides that cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted. Although not a primary consideration for this paper, traditional practices of traditional and capital punishments were considered and history of executions in the territory, and current writings on the death penalty were also carefully measured (Reuters, 2014).

Those that find themselves on either side of the death penalty debate fall within two camps. On one side those that are pro death penalty argue on the bases of justice and law, versus those that are in the anti-death penalty opponent who argue based on the law and morality (Fletcher, 1995). In either case the commonality between these two opposing views is not so much the law itself, but more of its interpretation, meaning the anti-death penalty faction suggest that the states taking of a persons life is in violation of cruel and unseal punishment statues of the Constitution as well as the tenant of the declaration of independence which the government is obligated to guarantee the unalienable rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness particularly in regards of “life” part of this famous passage.

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).