Eighth amendment Death Penalty Receives Another Blow, This Time In Pennsylvania In this article, "Death Penalty Receives Another Blow, This Time In Pennsylvania" by Sam Wright from Above The Law, Mr. Wright discusses the controversy over death penalty and the difference between states deciding the standards of it. According to the article, two states, Connecticut and Pennsylvania both assigned a death penalty to two men who committed equally serious crimes. The problem arouses when the two men applied a relief to the courts; Connecticut accepted it and Pennsylvania didn 't. It gets even worse, when people dig deeper and find out the racial discrimination that went on behind the scenes. "African American defendants were sentenced to death at a significantly higher rate than similarly situated members of the racial groups." Continuing, about a third of African Americans who received death penalty in Philadelphia "would have not received the death penalty were they not African American." In response to the public 's outrage, Governor Wolf hastily granted reprieves "from all planned executions." The eighth amendment, which prevents cruel and unusual punishment, gained its popularity over the issue of death penalty. Due to Constitution 's broad spectrum of interpretations, whether …show more content…
I believe that death penalty is considered to be a cruel and unusual punishment. In my opinion, a life is priceless and shouldn 't be taken away without their willingness. All men are created equal- no man was made better than the other and therefore should not bring death on their life. On the other hand, I think that there are more reasons why people would support the death penalty. For example, it is for the public good and safety to put people to sleep if they are a serial murderer, so that they do not hurt any more people. Adding on, popular terrorists have caused many problems and deaths, that nothing could be paid to make the families of the lost ones feel better. The eighth
However, both Atkins and Jones claimed the other shot Nesbitt, rather than themselves. Atkins was convicted of capital murder and related crimes by a Virginia jury and sentenced to death. Affirming, the Virginia Supreme Court relied on Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U. S. 302, in rejecting Atkins' contention that he could not be sentenced to death because he is mentally retarded ("FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.", 2017) The Constitutional principles this case is based on the Eight Amendment which says, Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
The most important issue that must be addressed in this case is the principle of the “evolving standards of decency” and the uses of a national consensus. The “evolving standards of decency” were developed by Trop v. Dulles and have been implemented in one way or another in all of the precedents dealing with “cruel and unusual” punishment. It is important to treat these principles as an important aspect of “cruel and unusual” punishment jurisprudence, therefore turning from these set of principles would be foolish and a disregard for every precedent. However, it is important to acknowledge that each case satisfies the standards by using a different method; some use the presence or lack of state legislature as a judgment of consensus while others look at foreign countries.
I believe that the death penalty does break the Eighth Amendment. The death penalty, in my eyes, is always a cruel and unusual penalty. With that, I believe that the Fourteenth Amendment was broken in this sentencing too. This is because, if the victim was an African-American, then the sentencing would have been different. Same as if the offender was white and the victim was black or white.
The 8th amendment states that “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted”. Justice Samuel and four other justices conclude that the lethal injection does not cause harm and does not violate the 8th amendment according to this article. “ Testimony from both sides supports the District Court’s conclusion that midazolam(medicine) can render a person insensate to pain” says Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. Justice
The Eighth Amendment prohibits inflicting cruel and unusual punishment on citizens. The judicial branch must ensure that the rights and privileges granted to American people by the Constitution are provided equally regardless of their race, sex, or sexual identification (Edmondson, 2017). John Doe after serving two years of a five-year sentence for manufacturing methamphetamines, escapes from prison by hiding in the back of a milk truck. When the milk truck makes its first stop, inmate Doe climbs out of the milk truck and walks away without anyone’s assistance. Inmate Doe manages to find a new set of clothes, catches a ride with a stranger, and shows up at a friend’s home.
Topic: In the 1970’s, many schools operating in Dade County used corporal punishment as a form of punishment for misbehavior. A male student attending a Dade County Junior High School was forcibly restrained and paddled after failing to allegedly adhere to school policies. The student claimed that the paddling of students as a means of maintaining school discipline constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, violating the Eighth Amendment; Issues: (1) Was it unconstitutional for the school to administer corporal punishment under the Eighth Amendment? (2) Did the school’s principal and vice principal violate the student’s Eighth Amendment by restraining him during punishment? (3) Under the Fourteenth Amendment, was the principal required
But are we in the future to be prevented from inflicting these punishments because they are cruel? If a more lenient mode of correcting vice and deterring others from the commission of it would be invented, it would be very prudent in the Legislature to adopt it; but until we have some security that this will be done, we ought not to be restrained from making necessary laws by any declaration of this kind’ “ (Bomboy). In other words, Livermore was arguing that all citizens who commit horrible crime do deserve severe punishments for the crimes that they commit, and until the government figures out a way to place restrictions and guidelines on the penalties that we believe are morally proper to give, then they cannot hold back from reprimanding those citizens. Consequently, The Founding Fathers created the Eighth Amendment to be intended for further generations to interpret the meaning of “cruel” and “unusual” over time (Donnell). The amendment was then ratified in 1791 nevertheless, the Eighth Amendment and the death penalty is still highly debated today because the differences in interpretations
The Eighth Amendment was created to prohibit cruel punishments that the colonists would receive from the British. The British brought colonists over to an unfair trial and then received punishment that sometimes would be death. The writers of the wanted to make sure that the colonists received the fair trial and fair punishment they deserve. The Eight Amendment was ratified in December 5, 1791 as a part of the Bill of Rights. The Eighth Amendment has not been changed since the ratification in 1791.
Our class should study amendment number eight. The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution states, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” This amendment prohibits the federal government from imposing unduly harsh penalties on criminal defendants, either as the price for obtaining pretrial release or as punishment for crime after conviction. (Constitutioncenter.org) states that, "The Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause clearly prohibits cruel methods of punishment. " This means that if the federal government tried to bring back the rack, or thumbscrews, or gibbets as types of punishment, such efforts would violate the Eighth Amendment This amendment still
The eighth amendment is a protection for American citizens against “cruel and unusual punishment” and “excessive bail”. Roper v Simmons also violates the fourteenth amendment which addresses rights and citizenship, this became another hurdle in the case. The fourteenth amendment states “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” , in Roper v Simmons the Missouri Supreme Court was close to depriving Christopher Simmons of his life. Since Roper V Simmons states have reevaluated their minimum age for death penalty, 30 states do not even have a death penalty or capital punishment anymore. Cornell Law has also argued that because of Simmons’s age he was mentally incompetent, at the age at 17 Simmons is not eligible to “drink, serve on juries or even see certain movies…” , this was very intimidating and scary to Simmons’s prosecutor.
We should choose the death penalty because I see it as taking a precaution to stop someone from taking any more innocent lives. Executing the murderers is the only way justice can be given to the person who was murdered and their families. If people knew that they would be killed themselves for murdering someone they would not do it because they would not want to
It’s Not working out. By:Taija Jones. The 8th amendment says “Excessive bail shall not be required, Nor excessive fines imposed, Nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted” . With that being said if the 8th amendment applies for cruel punishments of death penalties then why is it still happening.
Rough Draft Is the death penalty an effective and justified punishment? This is a topic many Americans have discussed for a long time, and has caused much controversy. Both sides have their pros and cons, and they will be discussed. The first point that many people have about capital punishment is that it’s unconstitutional.
Killing another seems very unjustifiable, which might be the case but when someone takes another 's life and sent to prison, death row or capital punishment is needed to put that person were they belong. People like that deserve to die because of their mistake of killing another and it deters other people to not kill others, showing them what would happen. In the case of Capital Punishment, Hunting for Sport, or George and Lennie, killing is a justifiable act. In the case of capital punishment killing is justified and needs to be done. For example, “Some crimes are so inherently evil they demand strict penalties up to and including death”(McClatchy).
I tend to lean more towards the death penalty because it seems like the just thing to do. I know we all make mistakes but it 's crazy to me to let someone live who has killed an innocent person, and most people can 't just kill a person because they wanted to, I feel like you have to be pretty crazy to do such a thing. At the same time though as people we are not perfect and we make mistakes, we have sent hundreds of people to death row and they were not guilty. That shows we are not perfect, but to me if I know the person is guilty and there is no doubt about it