Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: SCOTUS thinks Fl. death penalty is unconsitution but lets a guy fry anyway - nize

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838

    SCOTUS thinks Fl. death penalty is unconsitution but lets a guy fry anyway - nize

    http://mimesislaw.com/fault-lines/an...al-murder/6009

    Guy was executed a few days before SCOTUS issued out ruling .. so they knew that the outcome of another case would be and that the executions would be stopped ... but let the state kill the guy anyway.

    There was no deadline for them to deny the guy's appeal ... clearly he would be alive today if the court did nothing in his appeal.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    3,277
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    http://mimesislaw.com/fault-lines/an...al-murder/6009

    Guy was executed a few days before SCOTUS issued out ruling .. so they knew that the outcome of another case would be and that the executions would be stopped ... but let the state kill the guy anyway.

    There was no deadline for them to deny the guy's appeal ... clearly he would be alive today if the court did nothing in his appeal.
    Would sentencing someone to death, violate the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Constitutions VIII amendment?
    I think yes!

    My .02
    Regards
    CCJ
    Last edited by countryclubjoe; 01-22-2016 at 06:41 PM.
    " I detest hypocrites and their Hypocrisy" I support Liberty for each, for all, and forever".
    Ask yourself, Do you own Yourself?

  3. #3
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792
    Quote Originally Posted by countryclubjoe View Post
    Would sentencing someone to death, violate the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Constitutions VIII amendment?
    I think yes!
    Only if you ignore obvious, original intent. And ignoring, obvious, original intent is a very bad precedent to set if we want to have our Constitutionally enumerated RKBA respected despite significant changes in firearm (and other weapon) technology.

    The black letter language of the 5th amendment, adopted concurrently with the "cruel and unusual" prohibition in Amendment 8, clearly contemplates and permits capital punishment. To wit:


    No person shall be held to answer for a capital....crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, ... nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; .... , nor be deprived of life, ...., without due process of law; ....

    Unless the framers were so dense as to write one amendment in the bill of rights that clearly permits capital punishment (phrased 3 different ways) with proper due process while writing an outright prohibition on capital punishment in another amendment in that same bill of rights, we must conclude that original intent of the 8th amendment does not prohibit capital punishment.

    Looked at in historic context, it is obvious that the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments was directed not at mere capital punishment, but at deliberately tortuous acts such as drawing and quartering in which a live person was cut across the mid-section and then pulled to pieces by 4 draft horses (or some machine) tied to each of the four limbs, the iron maiden, and other methods intended to inflict maximum pain.

    Interestingly, this article at the Federalist Blog argues that the term has nothing to do with actual punishments imposed or how much pain they inflict, but is instead intended to prohibit extra-judicial penalties. Not sure I fully agree with that, but I present it for consideration.

    To be clear, there are fine reasons a person may oppose capital punishment including personal "religious" beliefs (whether of a formal church, or simply personal morals), concerns about the state wielding such power, or the risk of imposing an irreversible penalty on an innocent man. I think, however, that it is clear there is not US federal Constitutional prohibition on capital punishment. Which, of course, has zero bearing on whether 5 SCOTUS justices will declare that the US federal Constitution prohibits capital punishment.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    3,277
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    http://mimesislaw.com/fault-lines/an...al-murder/6009

    Guy was executed a few days before SCOTUS issued out ruling .. so they knew that the outcome of another case would be and that the executions would be stopped ... but let the state kill the guy anyway.

    There was no deadline for them to deny the guy's appeal ... clearly he would be alive today if the court did nothing in his appeal.

    ABSTENTION- The doctrine under which the U.S. Supreme Court and other federal courts choose not to rule on state cases, even when empowered to do so, so as to allow the issue to be decided on the basis of state law.

    Regards

    CCJ
    " I detest hypocrites and their Hypocrisy" I support Liberty for each, for all, and forever".
    Ask yourself, Do you own Yourself?

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    3,277
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    Only if you ignore obvious, original intent. And ignoring, obvious, original intent is a very bad precedent to set if we want to have our Constitutionally enumerated RKBA respected despite significant changes in firearm (and other weapon) technology.

    The black letter language of the 5th amendment, adopted concurrently with the "cruel and unusual" prohibition in Amendment 8, clearly contemplates and permits capital punishment. To wit:


    No person shall be held to answer for a capital....crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, ... nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; .... , nor be deprived of life, ...., without due process of law; ....

    Unless the framers were so dense as to write one amendment in the bill of rights that clearly permits capital punishment (phrased 3 different ways) with proper due process while writing an outright prohibition on capital punishment in another amendment in that same bill of rights, we must conclude that original intent of the 8th amendment does not prohibit capital punishment.

    Looked at in historic context, it is obvious that the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments was directed not at mere capital punishment, but at deliberately tortuous acts such as drawing and quartering in which a live person was cut across the mid-section and then pulled to pieces by 4 draft horses (or some machine) tied to each of the four limbs, the iron maiden, and other methods intended to inflict maximum pain.

    Interestingly, this article at the Federalist Blog argues that the term has nothing to do with actual punishments imposed or how much pain they inflict, but is instead intended to prohibit extra-judicial penalties. Not sure I fully agree with that, but I present it for consideration.

    To be clear, there are fine reasons a person may oppose capital punishment including personal "religious" beliefs (whether of a formal church, or simply personal morals), concerns about the state wielding such power, or the risk of imposing an irreversible penalty on an innocent man. I think, however, that it is clear there is not US federal Constitutional prohibition on capital punishment. Which, of course, has zero bearing on whether 5 SCOTUS justices will declare that the US federal Constitution prohibits capital punishment.

    Charles
    Hello Sir, very well said. However many of the provisions of the Constitution are not self-defining and hence have been the objects of considerable judicial interpretation and construction. Various criminal procedural protections found in Amendments Four through Eight immediately spring to mind. What, after all, makes a particular search or seizure "unreasonable"? What is sufficient to establish "probable Cause"? What constitutes ' due process of law" What is a " speedy " trial? What is an "excessive" fine or bail? What is "cruel and unusual punishment"? These constitutional provisions resemble empty vessels into which the United States Supreme Court has had to pour meaning. Hence we have many Constitutional Interpretations.

    I enjoy reading your post Charles!

    Regards
    CCJ
    " I detest hypocrites and their Hypocrisy" I support Liberty for each, for all, and forever".
    Ask yourself, Do you own Yourself?

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by countryclubjoe View Post
    ABSTENTION- The doctrine under which the U.S. Supreme Court and other federal courts choose not to rule on state cases, even when empowered to do so, so as to allow the issue to be decided on the basis of state law.

    Regards

    CCJ
    SCOTUS was under no pressure to refuse the guy's motion ... if they waited a few days (and they knew that the executions would stop) he'd be alive.

    I guess SCOTUS has no morals at all .. duly noted.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by countryclubjoe View Post
    Would sentencing someone to death, violate the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Constitutions VIII amendment?
    I think yes!

    My .02
    Regards
    CCJ
    No, death is very common. So the death penalty is not anywhere near unusual.

    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    3,277
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    No, death is very common. So the death penalty is not anywhere near unusual.

    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    No its not unusual, however if he was not sentenced to death by a jury of his peers, not only would that be unconstitutional, I would argue that the act is unlawful..

    My .02

    Regards
    CCJ
    " I detest hypocrites and their Hypocrisy" I support Liberty for each, for all, and forever".
    Ask yourself, Do you own Yourself?

  9. #9
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    How can one make an argument for original intent and yet make one for "elastic clause" too.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •