Capital punishment a constitutional right?

OntheWindowStand, your logic is quite tortured. When life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are tangential to the state taking life then aren't these freedoms degraded? We have had this capital punishment debate in Canada for more than half a century and have watched our murder rate steadily decline in the wake of abolition. The lesson, as confirmed in other states, is that capital punishment does nothing to deter murder.

Many of your own states are now finding that the expense of the legal process associated with death penalty cases far exceeds the incarceration costs of life imprisonment. That, coupled with the astonishing rate of wrongful convictions (demonstrated when DNA testing became common) show that the criminal justice system is much too flawed to allow executions.

The DNA experience has shown how unreliable and dangerously misleading both circumstantial and eye-witness evidence can prove to be. Yet people continue to be convicted on the strength of this evidence every day.

Take a look at the gaggle of awful states that still embrace capital punishment and contrast that with the list of advanced states (the kind you might actually be willing to live in) all of which have rejected it and draw your own conclusions.

of course capital punishment is not a constitutianal right punishment and law is but not the death sentence necessarily

---------- Post added 09-01-2009 at 02:01 PM ----------

no those freedoms are not degraded as you put it . the constitution is a legal document and both the people and the governing body are held to it so if a person defys the constitution by breaking any law he is no long a citezin (not in the literal sense) and is persecuted under the laws of war since through his violation he has become a hinderance to the common will which came together to protect its own interests and formed a government

Bennyboy, you're being nonsensical. The commission of a crime doesn't affect one's citizenship nor does it invoke the laws of war. I think you're trying to say something different than what you've written. Please try again.

no i think i know exactly what im saying in the social contract Jean-Jacques Rousseau outlined and explained how a body of people or society gives up a certain amount of freedom in order to protect their individual wills which pool to become the general will. the general will has enormous power especially in todays democratic society's and it dictates the social and criminal norms . in all case a person is deemed as criminal not because he has offended an objective moral standard but rather because he has become somewhat if a cancer to the society . so since his interest conflict with that of the general will his individual will can no longer be considered important and he is given punishment in order to change his interests but in the case that that his interests cannot be modified or that they are simply to destructive he is generally killed (or given a life sentence ) in which he has no say in

---------- Post added 09-01-2009 at 02:27 PM ----------

tell me whats wrong with that

---------- Post added 09-01-2009 at 02:29 PM ----------

although i do admit that i misspoke by mentioning the laws of war

RDRDRD1,

The constitution provides for the right of state action, that the state has the right to dictate laws as they see fit as long as it does not interfere with Federal statutes and congressional authority.

Ironically, the death penalty is in fact a de-facto constitutional right (given to state jurisdiction) because of the fact that nothing is provided for against it aside from the provision for state rights to rule themselves within the federal framework. The best example close to this was slavery, where there was no mention of slavery in the finite body of the constitution even though it was carried out for more than 80 years after ratification. It was state action (the state's ability to choose) that determined the individual frameworks for each state. So although there is no specific mentioning of the death penalty in the constitution, it is under other considerations entirely constitutional.

Also, considering this, crime does indeed affect ones citizenship. Criminals in California for example cannot vote because they have a criminal record and forfeit their rights to the elective process. And voting after all is the trademark of American citizenship.

Bbbennyboy34,

A person is deemed a "criminal" because they lose the "rational" status predicated on them by legal precedence? not because they are seen as a type of "cancer" to society. That would be totalitarian. What defines a rational man is a cornerstone in the American legal tradition, and reflects in almost all cases dealing with murder and so on. For example, it is mandatory by federal statute to not only have a psychological examination for any person found or arraigned for murder, but also have the opportunity to be judged as not culpable under normal law because they are not "rational"?. such as a plea of insanity in any degree of murder.

Is this a legal argument or an ethical argument.

Under the federalism system of the united states each state has the legal right to establish death penalty law.

The ethics or logic of "killing is wrong; so we are going to kill you" is more questionable.

A)in order to understand this we must understand why a man who breaks a law is deemed irrational after all there are some crimes that are completley sensical and rational even though they may not be prudent (fraud) but the reason that the criminal is an irrational being is because in hurting the state that he agreed to through some form of a social contract . and in hurting the state he is hurting the general will which is in essence himself
now
there is nothing irrational about hurting others but to hurt ones self is a ridicoulous act there fore he is deemed irrational
B) if what defined a criminal is his irrationality then what powere could the state possibly have over him after all casinos are irrational but they most certainly legal rather it is when that irrationality affecty the common will of the people that it is deemed , maybe not as a cancer but certainly a threat

No one has made the case to demonstrate that criminal conduct is irrational. The law certainly doesn't treat criminal acts as irrational. simply as prohibited. To the contrary, the accused is deemed to be rational and to intend the logical and foreseeable consequences of his acts. Even insanity doesn't excuse criminal conduct, merely that extreme degree of insanity that prevents the accused from understanding the wrongfulness of his act.

no the law does treat criminals as irrational

A) as demonstrated with the case of criminals not being allowed to vote
b)as i just described which involves the social contract

Sorry Benny but you're flat out wrong. In many jurisdictions criminals are allowed to vote. Irrationality doesn't even enter into that debate. If you learn the basics of criminal law you will discover that the court is concerned with two things, actus reus and mens rea. Did the accused commit the prohibited act and did he do that knowingly or can he be deemed to have had that mental intent. Rationality is not an issue available to the prosecution or the defence. Furthermore, rationality is a trait common to all humans and yet criminal law varies enormously from one part of the world to the next. Capital punishment will attach to proscribed conduct in some lands that would not be punished at all in other countries. Some countries stone adulterers while other societies merely yawn. Human rationality does not enter into that distinction.

You're Canadian. Do you think our inmates don't vote? Do you think criminals having served their sentences are prohibited from voting in your country?

As for the 'social contract' that too has no place in a criminal courtroom.

Your claims are simply at odds with reality.

fair enough
im not trying to prove the irrational status of criminals to you i just got argumentative

I support eye for an eye punishment.

I support a toe for a finger punishment. Seriously. If I lost a finger to some person in a drunken knife fight, you bet I want at least a little toe in restitution.

Absolutely no, too many are innocently being judged.

Another scenario is to frame an innocent person, thus be sure of that persons demise. Ie family members would most likely wanting to heir billion of $$$, then be more likely to accuse the billionare for this and that.