Gary, the dangerous infidel says:

#30 Jerk-Face writes, “When the scum-bag meets his maker he can ask for that act first-hand!”

Without knowing your religious beliefs, I can’t know if you meant that as a joke, which is its only valid use. I’m concerned that some Christians actually feel that way, though, and that’s a real problem. That attitude would seemingly make it more likely for a Christian juror to vote for a guilty verdict, secure in his faith that “the Lord” is the final arbiter of omniscient justice, and can make up for the mistaken verdict of a well-meaning earthly jury.

As an infidel, I have absolutely no faith that any force more powerful than the Supreme Court can correct the errors of a careless human jury.

Gary, the dangerous infidel says:

#33 That’s a nice little snippet you plucked out of the context which contradicts the meaning you assigned it, Jerk-Face. That aptitude would fit well with a calling to the ministry.

Greg Allen says:

If the are tortured for a few minutes before they die, it’s still torture right? Why is that so hard to understand?

I’m against the death penalty so I don’t approve of ANY method but it does seem like the old ways were actually less torturous than the new ones.

Decapitation, for instance. It’s bloody and gruesome but I doubt the victim suffered much.

The same with death by firing squad.

Mister Catshit says:

#37, J-F,

The Constitution specifically allows for capital punishment. One limitation was that it was not to be cruel or unusual.

Would you care to cite which part of the Constitution specifically allows for capitol punishment?

The beauty of the American Constitution is that we can change it to fit the changing times.

Once upon a time in the US there were people that were property of other people. They were called slaves. The Constitution allowed that practice. But it was changed.

Once upon a time only free men were allowed to vote. Yup, that one was changed too.

Once upon a time, laws allowed for people to be executed for several crimes, including rape and treason. Most of those laws have been dropped.

*

Heck, whey not change the definition of “free speech” to mean only talking?
Why not change the definition of “establishment of religion” to mean the government can support any religion as long it does not establish one?

Why not read the actual Amendment (hint, it’s the first) before suggesting something.

And why not change the definition of “unreasonable searches and seizures” to mean that if a cop thinks it’s reasonable, then it is reasonable?

That would be the Fourth Amendment. It spells it out.

If you anti-capital punishment nuts want to stop capital punishment, do it without shredding the Constitution by creating ambiguities that simply do not exist.

I just love you guys that so fervently believe in a position that you will spout anything regardless of the truth. What ambiguities? You’re the moran that doesn’t even know what the Constitution says yet claim it supports your position.

Mister Catshit says:

#18, THC,

How about Doyle Skillern of Texas. He was executed in 1985. He waited in the car while his accomplice went in the house and killed a police informer. The real shooter is now eligible for parole. Skillern has been dead for over 20 years.

Steven Hatch of Oklahoma. He participated in a home invasion. After he left the house, his accomplice killed the home owners. Again, the shooter got life while Hatch was executed. Hatch didn’t know the accomplice was going to kill them.

Then there is Carlos Deluna, also of Texas. Executed 1989 for killing a store clerk. Evidence shows he probably didn’t do it. You know, the old story about the police forced the witnesses, beat him until he signed a confession.

Ruben Cantu, executed 1993. Arrested at 17 for the crime. Since the execution, the lead witness has come forward to change his story saying he was threatened by police. The Houston Chronicle did an in-depth investigation in 2005.

Larry Griffen of Missouri was executed in 1995 for a drive-by killing. Again, police malfeasance is suspected. The actual believed killers are all in prison already on other murder charges.

Joseph O’Dell of Virginia was executed in 1997. O’Dell asked the State to conduct DNA tests on blood samples. They refused although the tests were conducted later after the execution. They didn’t support the police version of events.

Leo Jones of Florida was put to sleep in 1998 for killing a cop. This is another one of those police forcing witnesses to testify their way. The two cops in charge were later removed from the force for torturing prisoners.

Then there is Lena Baker. A black woman who was electrocuted in 1945. Her white employer had beat her then locked her inside a mill. She was convicted after a one day trial before an all white jury.

I understand and agree that there are some bad people out there. Here though, and in many other cases, we have put the stamp of the state on these making them legal homicides. As much as these men (and one woman) have been judged innocent by society, they were still guilty in the eyes of the court and the police and prosecutors that have profited upon their errors.

If it is wrong for me to kill,
then it is equally wrong for the state to kill.

Mister Catshit says:

#41, J-F,

38. “Would you care to cite which part of the Constitution specifically allows for capitol punishment?”
God, do you even know what capital crimes are? Capital crimes are, by definition, crimes that will end in capital punishment.

So you can’t cite which part of the Constitution specifically allows for Capitol Punishment? Just like in my other examples, the Constitution did not prohibit slavery nor did it endorse it. The Constitution did not prohibit women’s right to vote, that was statute law.

YOU claim there’s an ambiguity in words cruel and unusual punishment.

(ahem) where do you get this WE white man? Could you please post where I, Mister Catshit, aka Mister Fusion, aka, Joe Blow from Kokomo, has claimed there is any ambiguity in the words “cruel and unusual”?

Let’s recap, back when the Constitution was written and signed, hanging was not cruel and unusual. It was widely accepted.

Make me LAUGH !!! Just because something is accepted at a point in time does not mean it is not something else later. Most Southern farmers grew hemp. They used it to make cordage and rope in order to tie the bundles of tobacco and cotton. That does not give farmers entitlement to continue to grow hemp. Nor does it mean that only hemp may be used for cordage, nor candles for illumination, nor muskets for weapons, nor lead in toys.

Each State was responsible for its own militia. Hey, it is even noted under the Second Amendment. Would you care to show me any State militia that is controlled by that State?

If hanging is/was accepted does not make it not cruel. The problems with hanging is that the window for a clean execution was very narrow. Drop the person too far and the head could separate. Don’t drop them far enough and they the neck doesn’t break so they strangle to death. That though has nothing to do with other forms of execution. Each method has its own drawbacks which may, or may not, be cruel.

Your idea that just because one thing was accepted 225 years ago does hold up today. The very idea that Patents were allowed demonstrates that the signers thought technology would progress.

you guys argue that the plain meaning of cruel and unusual is not clear, that it means something not even remotely contemplated by those who wrote it or signed it.

(ahem, again) Where on this topic has anyone, other than you, been complaining that the meaning of “cruel and unusual” is ambiguous or unclear? To all of us it is quite clear. Where we disagree is in the application of the penalty. I think it cruel if the medical technician misses the veins and pumps the drugs straight into the condemned man’s arms. This causes extreme pain which the condemned can’t point out because the drugs paralyzed him for the half hour it took to die. I think it is cruel if they don’t use an electrical conductor and instead let the condemned actually fry before dieing. I think it is cruel to force the condemned to sit in a gas chamber while clouds of toxic fumes slowly waft towards his face.

Jerk-Face. Now you are living up to your name.

natefrog says:

Oh, and the slaves were freed by the Emancipation Proclamation.

The Thirteenth Amendment was simply a formality.

Mister Catshit says:

#44 & 45,

You’re both wrong. Right track, but minor errors.

The Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves then under Federal Army control. If the slaves were in areas not controlled by the Federal Armies, they remained slaves. These slaves were mostly in Northern Virginia and were about 300 if I remember correctly.

Don’t forget, several States that remained in the Union still allowed slavery and under the Dred Scott decision, they remained their owner’s property. Delaware, Maryland, and Kentucky were slave States. West Virginia’s admission to the Union stipulated a graduated abolition of slavery with compensation at the same time the Emancipation Proclamation was being read.

Since the Federal Government did not have the Constitutional authority to legislate their freedom, it took the 13th Amendment to legally free them.

hardedge says:

#47, iHotAir,

Good idea. Let’s start with the trolls.