US Supreme Court strikes down death penalty for child rapists

[CountArach]

The constitution of the United States does not share that opinion. Neither do the vast majority of Americans. There are instances in which the practice is allowable, defensible and consistent with most types of human ethical philosophies.

Who says it is wrong? Why should your opinion obfuscate those of our constitution and and popular opinion?

It sounds like you've got some work to do convincing everybody.

Frankly I don't care about your Constitution - I think the document is incredibly outdated and vague on many important issues (Such as gun control and being part of a militia). My country and indeed almost the entirety of Europe, South America and Central America have abolished it (link for reference). So it looks like you are the ones flying in the face of popular opinion.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Eh, we're not flying in the face of American opinion. And seeing as this is America, that is what counts.

The constitution contains protections for our important civil rights. Funny how quick you are to call that outdated. But I guess those pesky personal rights get in the way of The State asserting its will - for the good of the people, of course.

CR

[GeneralHankerchief]

If it's outdated and/or vague, there's always the possibility of amending it. That's why the Founders put it there. It is not SCOTUS's job to amend the Constitution, only see what is already there.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I've always been curious - what is the procedure for amending the American Constitution?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Frankly I don't care about your Constitution - I think the document is incredibly outdated and vague on many important issues (Such as gun control and being part of a militia). My country and indeed almost the entirety of Europe, South America and Central America have abolished it (link for reference). So it looks like you are the ones flying in the face of popular opinion.

The United States has consistently flown in the face of popular opinion. If we hadn't we never would have written the Constitution or formed a Democratic Republic in the first place.

In my opinion the U.S. Constitution is the bulwark between the United States and the rest of the world. Who doesn't like that?

as far as amending the Constituion...

2/3 majority in congress and must be ratified by the States. Presidential veto wouldn't really apply due to the 2/3 majority.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Congress has to pass the amendment, and then 3/4s of the state legislatures have to approve it. Or something like that.

The process is there, but leftists know they could never get things done the democratic way.

So they complain about 'outdatedness' in order to devise illegal changes in the way it is read.

CR

[ICantSpellDawg]

Congress has to pass the amendment, and then 3/4s of the state legislatures have to approve it. Or something like that.

The process is there, but leftists know they could never get things done the democratic way.

So they complain about 'outdatedness' in order to devise illegal changes in the way it is read.

CR

2/3rds! it isn't even that difficult. It's sheer unreasonable laziness when people use the court to bludgeon unpopular ideas. The legislative branch has become used to a paternalistic Supreme court which is sad and arguably unconstitutional in its actions.

[CountArach]

The constitution contains protections for our important civil rights. Funny how quick you are to call that outdated. But I guess those pesky personal rights get in the way of The State asserting its will - for the good of the people, of course.

Nice Strawman, really. I hate all the infringements on Civil Liberties that Governments make. I challenge you to find me one non-gun control related quote from me where I support Government control in an individual's private life.

Anyway, whatever - I just don't think that "You kill us, we kill you" is something the Government should do.

[Crazed Rabbit]

You support the government controlling what wage a person makes and numerous other regulations of private contracts for work and the like, do you not? You want the whole host of socialist programs that interfere in a person's life, like medical choices, don't you?

The death penalty is the only way to ensure that a murderer/child rapist will not strike again, and has been shown in some studies to prevent several murders for each person executed.

CR

[Duke of Gloucester]

You support the government controlling what wage a person makes and numerous other regulations of private contracts for work and the like, do you not?
CR

A minimum wage is against the US constitution? Which clause would it violate? Is there NO regulation of private contracts in the US? What about rent control? Zoning for land use? Is gambling and prostitution legal in every state?

You want the whole host of socialist programs that interfere in a person's life, like medical choices, don't you?

You will have to explain this one. I don't understand it. Are you suggesting that a social health care programme interferes with a person's medical choices? If so, you will have to explain how.

The death penalty is the only way to ensure that a murderer/child rapist will not strike again,

It is certainly a way to ensure zero recidivism but there are others, but is this the aim of the justice system. To ensure that no murderer or rapist re-offends you have to kill them all and this does not happen. The death penalty in the US is a good way of reducing re-offending rates for poor people and those from ethnic minorities but less good when it comes to rich white folks. They tend not to be executed. A more important question is whether the justice system is intended simply to prevent the convicted person from committing a similar crime in the future. Kill all convicts if that is the case.

and has been shown in some studies to prevent several murders for each person executed.

Name three.

[seireikhaan]

Is it unusual to sentence a person who stole a candy bar to 25 years of jail? Oui, monsieur. Proportionality is a form of the "usual/unusual" part of the amendment, in my opinion.

[PBI]

My understanding is that the public support for the death penalty drops dramatically when there is the alternative of "life without parole". Seems to me this option has all the benefits of the death penalty without the disadvantages (no possibility of re-offending, but no innocent people executed). Personally I'm hoping that this method will quietly replace the death penalty, leaving the latter penalty as something which will remains on the statute books but is never used in practice. Certainly if this is an option I cannot see any reason for continuing to impose the death penalty besides pure revenge.

I must say, I struggle to see how society can be willing to condone the cold-blooded killing of a prisoner who is at our mercy, a pretty despicable kind of act in my view, yet still claim to have the moral authority to decide who deserves to live or die.

[Ice]

Frankly I don't care about your Constitution - I think the document is incredibly outdated and vague on many important issues (Such as gun control and being part of a militia). My country and indeed almost the entirety of Europe, South America and Central America have abolished it (link for reference). So it looks like you are the ones flying in the face of popular opinion.

That's really nice, but that document is the highest law of the land here in the United States. If it needs changed, the house and senate to need to propose an amendment and 3/4 of the states need to ratify it or vice versa.

[Redleg]

Frankly I don't care about your Constitution - I think the document is incredibly outdated and vague on many important issues (Such as gun control and being part of a militia). My country and indeed almost the entirety of Europe, South America and Central America have abolished it (link for reference). So it looks like you are the ones flying in the face of popular opinion.

Your thinking is incrediably wrong - the United States Constitution is a living docuement. I wonder if you understand what that means?

Now as for the death penalty as mentioned before it was declared unconstitutional not to long ago, and then reviewed and re-instated. Now you might not agree with that process, but to call it an outdated docuement seems to be a major fallacy on your part.

Nice Strawman, really. I hate all the infringements on Civil Liberties that Governments make. I challenge you to find me one non-gun control related quote from me where I support Government control in an individual's private life.

Anyway, whatever - I just don't think that "You kill us, we kill you" is something the Government should do.

Unfortunately for you your arguement in itself is a bad arguement. If you support governmental control on guns - you have alrealdy infringed upon the civil liberties of an individual.

You can claim you support gun control and claim you hate all infringements on Civil Liberties. Especially since you voice support of an infringement on an individuals civil liberty.

[LittleGrizzly]

If you guys see weapon control as a infrigement on your civil libertys where does it end ? are there weapons which you can ban without infringing on civil liberties or is any weapon ban a civl liberty infringement ?

[Redleg]

If you guys see weapon control as a infrigement on your civil libertys where does it end ? are there weapons which you can ban without infringing on civil liberties or is any weapon ban a civl liberty infringement ?

Unfortunately for you - the 2nd Amendment made the private ownership of weapons a civil liberty in the United States. So to answer your question the private ownership of weapons is indeed a civil liberty. My position is not that one can not infring upon that civil liberty - only that if one speaks in absolutes about hating all infringements on civil liberty, one can not in the same breath speak of gun control by the government being acceptable. Its an inconsistent statement in itself.

If you have ever read my postion on gun control you will find that I support the position that certain weapons should not be in the hands of the public, but in order to restrict those weapons the 2nd Amendment must be amended through the constitutional process not the courts. Restrictions are indeed needed and have been supported by several interpetations by the Supreme Court, some will not be.

For instance one can own a fully automatic weapon if one files for the required license and permits.

This is where people out side of the United States fail to understand the situation, and often mistakenly can the constitution outdated.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Now, one can certainly make an argument about proportionality. But as has been said, a punishment is either cruel and unusual or not cruel and unusual. Having a sliding scale invalidates the law, since it implies that we can torture people who do really bad things.

But a punishment that may be fit for one crime may not be fit for another - it would be disproportionate. That would be the reason one would not have capital punishment for most crimes.

The thing is though, that is to be decided by legislatures. That's why it's called representative democracy.

CR

[ICantSpellDawg]

Torture is illegal - not unconstitutional.

[Conradus]

Unfortunately for you - the 2nd Amendment made the private ownership of weapons a civil liberty in the United States. So to answer your question the private ownership of weapons is indeed a civil liberty. My position is not that one can not infring upon that civil liberty - only that if one speaks in absolutes about hating all infringements on civil liberty, one can not in the same breath speak of gun control by the government being acceptable. Its an inconsistent statement in itself.

To an American, it isn't inconsistent to anyone who lives in a country where gun ownership isn't a civil liberty.

[LittleGrizzly]

Unfortunately for you - the 2nd Amendment made the private ownership of weapons a civil liberty in the United States. So to answer your question the private ownership of weapons is indeed a civil liberty.

Well i understand why it is a civil liberty in USA but what i was actually looking for was whether you viewed it as a civil liberty, because i personally do not see owning weapons as a civil liberty so do not have a problem with stating that i am for civil libertys and for gun control, similar to the way people or libertarian and against abortion....

Abortion and gun control in one paragraph, i feel that all im missing is some obscure reference to the nazis...

[Redleg]

Unfortunately for you - the 2nd Amendment made the private ownership of weapons a civil liberty in the United States. So to answer your question the private ownership of weapons is indeed a civil liberty.

Well i understand why it is a civil liberty in USA but what i was actually looking for was whether you viewed it as a civil liberty, because i personally do not see owning weapons as a civil liberty so do not have a problem with stating that i am for civil libertys and for gun control, similar to the way people or libertarian and against abortion....

Then you have your answer, you might not see it as a civil liberty because of where you live, but what you have to address in any comment to an American in regards to Civil Liberties is the Bill of RIghts, the first 10 amendments to the constitution. Just like the Supreme Court often reviews the death penalty statues of the states - Amendment 8 addresses what types of punishment can be given by the states.

Crazed Rabbit is correct that the state legislatures must decided what punishment can be allocated to a specific crime. What the Supreme Court is allowed to do is rule on wether that law is constitutional or not based upon a review. They can not make law from the bench, but they can send something back to the states and congress to be redone to fall within the constitution.

This is what the Supreme Court has actually done from what I can determine with this ruling - now some would say they are making law from the bench - I don't see it that way, they have determined a state law is unconstitutional.

To an American, it isn't inconsistent to anyone who lives in a country where gun ownership isn't a civil liberty.

When the individual was speaking in absolutes - then he is being inconsistent regardless of where he comes from.

Have fun with that one.....

[Conradus]

When the individual was speaking in absolutes - then he is being inconsistent regardless of where he comes from.

Have fun with that one.....

Well I'm trying...

But that's accepting that civil liberties are universal and that gun ownership is one of those universal civil liberties. And considering that most civilized nations do not think of it as such, I'm hardly convinced it is one.

[Redleg]

Well I'm trying...

Keep trying....

But that's accepting that civil liberties are universal and that gun ownership is one of those universal civil liberties. And considering that most civilized nations do not think of it as such, I'm hardly convinced it is one.

Good try but that does not address the absolute statement that the individual made. He stated all civil liberties, which normally means all, regardless of where he comes from.

Now if he had said any infringement on civil liberties, I would give him the benefit of doubt that his definition could very well be different then an American prespective.

However has stated he stated all infringements on civil liberties by governments. So I find the defense of his position very weak because of his absolute position.