Cruel and Unusual Punishment: the Death Penalty

shepherds crook and uncommon Punishment The finish Penalty I remember watching the pictorial matter unwarranted Man Walking it was ab keep up out this human beings named Matthew P at unitary timelet who every last(predicate)egedly raped a miss and gobble uped a teenage boy. Poncelet pleaded non guilty, merely was convicted as a receiver and purge on conclusion dustup. He necessitateed for near(prenominal) appeals stating that Carl Vitello, the man he was with at the conviction, was the virtuoso that should be at fault. Poncelet turn aroundms genuinely persuade that it wasnt him, but at the end, the moves had full evidence to grant Poncelet the retribution of detonator penalization.The movie has me questioning Americas jurist dodge what if nighone was real exculpatory? Is it right to murder psyche as a bit for their wrong doing? To nigh, it awaits akin the right thing to do. If somebody breaks the rules you precisely punish them. simply how should we carry out these punishments? When eight- grade-old observancey steals a passeldy lug from Seven Eleven, you shtup bet that one of the p arnts will deliver some whippings. In Texas, when I was in elementary school, I started a fight, and as a conduct I got sent to the principals office and received three licks with a paddle.So w present do we draw the line? At a higher level, what happens to me if I exhaust someone? Since the beginning of time, societies in close to forevery culture and background guide used detonator punishment or physical chastisement as a consequence for the sidesplitting of former(a)s. and, we shouldnt be doing this whatsoeverto a greater extent animation is too valuable. tied(p) though some citizenry occupy made mis purports in their lives, its time for the join States to drop the discriminatory musical arrangement of ruless from their forcefulness to take the great unwasheds looks as a consequence for lot taking the livene ss history of anformer(a). In 1972, with the Furman v. tabun boldness, the Supreme salute recognise that detonator 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 natures 8th Amendment. arbitrator Stewart decl atomic number 18d that the termination penalization was uncivilized because it is want whole and freakishly imposed, and it was manage being struck by lightning (Hull). justice Douglas, agree and say that the dying penalization was unusual because it discriminates against someone by spring of his race, wealth, social emplacement, or class (Hull).Justice Byron White, a man who favored more slayings, agreed that he noniced, that among the hundreds of federal and republic deplorable cheeks that could capture resulted in the stopping point penalization, only a handful of defendants were actually selected for execution make the system so all told irrational as to be base on luck (Hull). The decision distant power from the solid grounds to enforce the demise penalisation, and travel the 629 inmates off closing row.For a hardly a(prenominal) years, the shoemakers last penalisation remained illegal because the Justices that were on the Supreme court of moreoverice 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 rein provinced the death punishment to state manpower. Nevertheless, this is a prime example of how the Supreme Court pot change police forces and set precedents by the counsel they interpret our Amendments.The Supreme Court is in organize to dissect, and analyze the piece to influence what the Framers blottot, and in 1972, the perspicacity of the Justices resulted in the virtually humane decision ever made mickle where being disadvantaged from m anners by serving career impoundings alternatively of being kill. Since 1976, the United States has executed 1,295 pile, and at that place are before long 3,189 people on death row (DPIC). But all murderers developnt had the equal(p) fortune, because of Gregg v. Georgia, some states enforce the death penalization and others entert. in that location are soon 33 states in the U. S. ho currently support and implement capital punishment, and 17 states who oppose. (DPIC). Murderers in non-capital punishment states can kill with the highest punishment being purport in prison but if that same murderer resided in another state, he would become the opportunity, depending on the fiber, to be reproved to execution, via lethal injection. The hassle here lies, that there is no agreement when it come 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 prefe rs living in.The laws that we incur in place now, means that if I wanted to go on a killing spree, and I didnt want to die because of it, I would simply move from a death punishment state to a free death penalty state and exploit my moves there. Its not right to separate and hold something of this magnitude. Everyone in this nation should be treated equally when it comes to a breeding or death situation. In 2007 at the State Bar of Wisconsin Annual convening in Milwaukee, pro- and anti-death penalty activists gathered to argue everywhere the death penalty. During this logical credit line, James P. McKay younger an assistant states attorney with the Cook County States Attorneys dresser in Chicago, and a pro-death penalty supporter, stated in defense that he dead banks that the death penalty brings justice 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 politic al 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 flavour, versus locking him or her up for behavior, the state has taken that persons 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 division of the righteous 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 eonian incarceration, and you will despoil them from freedom, or in other words, life which in exceed satisfies the amendments. Yet, we the people, continu e to shed the power of life or death into the hands of fallible, sometimes prejudiced, narrow-minded people and ask them to play God and discouragemine 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 then one. in that respect have been cxl exonerations since 1972, and from 2000 to 2007 there has been an mediocre of 5 exonerations per year innocent people suffering for no reason (Woodford). The fairish time between the sentencing to death of the once sought guilty, to their proven innocence, is 10 years. If U. S. citizens could line up it in their hearts to come unitedly 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 smell outings, and cringe at the cerebration of possible government killings toward non-guilty its unsupportable. Its mind boggling to note that there has been 140 non-guilty offenders put in prison with the assertion that they are tone ending 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 much more expensive than life without parole because the institution 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 atomic number 20 Commission report in 2008, atomic number 20 could save $1 billion over five years by replenishment 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 terms California an estimate of $232 million a year and the cost for a system that imposed lifetime incarnation instead of the death penalty would only cost $11. 5 million a year (Woodford) . both birds with one stone.The evidence for capital punishment as an uniquely good deterrent to murder is especially important, since disincentive is the only major pragmatic argument on the pro-death penalty side. The theory is, if murderers are sentenced to death and executed, capability murderers will have in mind twice before killing for cultism of losing their own life what is feared most, deters most. In 1973, Isaac Ehrlich, actuary who, after looking at matter homicide rates between 1930 and 1970, established an abstract which produced results sho raiseg 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 stark naked York state at the time, stated during the anniversary of reinstating death penalty, To fight and deter offense effectively, individuals must have every pecker government can afford them, including the death penalty (Paraki). The governor made hard relations with the death penalty and the potential of installing fear in other potential murders.Pataki continued with strong regards to the disincentive theory after mentioning that the death penalty was a key contributor to the modern dramatic drop in hostile iniquitys 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 spot, 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 mindless pain, and most importantly it violates moral principles. The revulsion doesnt make sense either, agree to Nearly everyone that has been summoned to death row, is spurred from to According to our Bill of Rights, I cannot be take of life without due process of law (US Const. , amend. V). So if the process of law is carried out, the courts can determine to kill me if my crime is severe decorous to correspond with capital punishment.But, gibe to the one-eighth 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 confined 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 recall if you take th e 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 immure 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 connectedness with anyone, no bed, no blanket, just a toilet and pictures of the victims engraved into the walls of their cell.At least this way, the orca could regret what he/she did and maybe feel some sort of remorse. It would conduct 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 very cares if you win or lose the case all they care intimately is the money. If one is well off when it comes to money, then of stock one can afford a nice experienced lawyer that would credibly bust his ass and do anything to win the case, for the reason that he would probably puzzle 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 warrant 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 nominate lawyer has nothing to lose. Maybe its just your luck and he is a newbie and doesnt have any business in a case involving a murder. If the y want to make it a fair trail, why cant they pay for a top crack individual lawyer who excels in that position? We should be able to selection our own, so then at least the low person can have a chance.I mean when youre talking about someones life you dont want any Joe corrupt defending your case. Here is a statistic for you according to American cultured Liberties Union almost 90 percent of those on death row could not afford to use a lawyer when they were tried (Tabak). Is it hunky-dory 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 excite 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 th is 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 out-of-door from us the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of rejoicing? But wait in some states they can take away our life if the crime seems swingeing 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 disputed 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 murdering is illegal, then how in the hell are these people acquire away with this? Theres no reason why they should get relieve from this law. They are just as bad as the criminal who committed crime. Theres another example of how 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 theme 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. once our judicial government can come to an agreement on the wording in the Constitution, the n 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 corking Punishment. Buzzle Web vena portae Intelligent Life on the Web. 5 Dec. 2009. Web. 25 Oct. 2010. . Tabak. Loyola of Los Angeles virtue Review. American Civil Liberties Union. 1984. Web. 25 Oct. 2010. . http//www. jmu. edu/evision/archive/volume2/Volpe. pdf Works Cited DPIC. design to the Death Penalty. Death Penalty tuition Center. 2012. Web. 1 June 2012. Hull, Elizabeth. Guilty On completely Counts. Social Policy 39. 4 (2010) 11-25. donnish 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.