There might be improstion to taking the 8th amendment out of the factor of basically killing someone for breaking the law. Yeah they might have broken the law but killing A person so brutally doesn’t seem fair. If the death penalty never existed then how much different would america even be? In supreme court they stated “The death penalty law isn’t violating the 8th amendment it is somewhat brought into decision “ . My only question is how does the death penalty not violate the 8th amendment?
Forms of punishments within the United States’ system of criminal justice can range from a simple warning all the way up to the death penalty, depending on the nature and type of crime committed. The goal of punishment in the criminal justice system is deterrence and crime prevention, however when the punishment offers no major impact on crime, is extremely costly, exhibits racial bias, and has taken the life of innocent people, (socially and physically) the death penalty is not only viewed as punishment, but as revenge and as murder. Taking a look at the death penalty from a lawyer point of view we have Michael A. Mello, author of Dead Wrong: A Death Row Lawyer Speaks Out Against Capital Punishment. He tells his story of being a professional lawyer, who “worked within the legal system to prevent the state from executing some of its citizens.” In his book he talks about his work as a lawyer and his days as a judicial clerk, working with Judge Robert Vance of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Judge Robert Vance, going against his personal views (believing that the death penalty was not a proper form of punishment) but adhering to the result
The due process model is seen to focus on the suspect whereas the crime control model focuses on the society. This paper analyzes these two models and based on the rate of crime in the society, makes recommendations as to which is the best model in criminal justice. The principle in law that one is innocent until proven guilty has created much discourse. There are those who feel that the moment that one is arrested, there is reasonable belief that they committed the crime. However, there are those who feel that just as the principle states, one is, and should be taken as a victim and the outcome could be either way: guilty or not guilty.
The death penalty also violates the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment states that every citizen has equal protection of the law. In most cases when a person commits a major crime they will get the same or close to the same sentence as someone that did the same thing but, in other cases the defendant will be judged by their skin color rather than the extent of their crime. That is why the death penalty violates the 14th amendment because when stuff like that happens and the defendant gets a death sentence there is no equal protection of the law. Lastly the death penalty
Further, the 8th amendment does not obligate the execution method be free of pain. Besides, those given capital punishment are “deprived of life”(Alito), so the meager pain they encounter is incomparable to the amount of pain he/she caused to the victim(s). In addition, there is not sufficient evidence that the use of midazolam causes induces a notable risk of severe pain that the death penalty should be outlawed. Judges agreeing with the majority opinion are John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito, and Clarence
The government aside from compassion for those effected by the convict, supports the penalty because of “cost of death vs. life in prison” according to Robert Evnen, Nebraskan for capital punishment attorney. He claims “… ‘cost studies’…” essentially reveal most murders take a life without parole which costs the government inmate finances whereas the penalty gives the offender no room for an appeal. Capital punishment puts an end to a life that deserves ending due to the choices made of ending an innocent person. In my opinion, looking at both sides as to why and why not the death penalty should be instated or abolished, I agree that it should be a constitutional law reinforced in every state, with each state continuing to define capital punishment as it chooses. Although it violates some of the constitutions laws in different ways, it saves the government
Ayala chose not to seek the death penalty in the case regarding Markeeth Lloyd, due to her beliefs that the death penalty should not primarily be a deterrent to crime. Historically, it has been shown the death penalty has been imposed on the innocent way too often, exorbitant to taxpayers and lastly, it adversely affecting both families of murder victims and families of the accused. Additionally, it has been apparent that co-victims had improved physical and psychological health and greater satisfaction with the legal system in cases where perpetrators received life sentences, rather than death sentences as well. In knowing Markeeth Lloyd killed two individuals, had a long criminal history and was a threat to society, I believe he had demonstrated to be tried for the death penalty. Although this case was highly publicized and nearly two percent of murderers actually get the death penalty, this does not mean leaving hardened criminals without stringent punishment, and I have to disagree with D.A.
Should Death Penalty be abolished? Over decades people have been arguing about whether the death penalty should be abolished or not if death is morally right or cruel and unusual penalty. Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, is a government-sanctioned practice whereby a person is put to death by the state as a punishment for crime. Is it right to see people dying even though it’s under the act of government punishment? The cost of the death penalty is ridiculous.
Taxpayers well be paying less if we remove the death penalty, LWP will require less resources that what will be provided during the death penalty. Life without parole is a more lenient punishment for people who have brutally mistreated and murder people,
Once he is dead, he will not be at my table. He will not be in my head." That was a quote from a father who had lost his daughter from a serial killer. To conclude, society wants to feel safe. "I believe the death penalty should be used sparingly for heinous, forensically supported crimes.