Why Don't Supreme Court Justices Ever Change Their Minds in Favor of the Death Penalt

[Timshel]

http://www.theatlantic.com/national...s-in-em-favor-em-of-the-death-penalty/282100/

If you spend any time at all studying the death penalty in America today you eventually come across an immutable truth: No one who digs deeply into these grim cases ever seems to evolve from being a staunch opponent of capital punishment into being a fervent supporter of the practice. The movement, over the past 40 years anyway, has almost always been in the opposite direction: The closer one gets to capital punishment, the more dubious it appears to be.


This has been particularly true of Supreme Court justices since the death penalty was resurrected in America in 1976: The closer these esteemed jurists have gotten to "the machinery of death," the more flawed convictions and death sentences they were forced to review, the more racial inequality they saw in its application—and the more likely they were to recoil from the arbitrary imposition of capital punishment in those states that still practiced it.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

The death penalty is an atrocity, an evil and a scar on the face of the American people, a barbaric practice that we should all oppose and seek the abolition of as soon as possible, using all means necessary.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

The death penalty is an atrocity, an evil and a scar on the face of the American people, a barbaric practice that we should all oppose and seek the abolition of as soon as possible, using all means necessary.

You should set yourself on fire, to protest this, right in front of the Capital building.

 

[NOVA]

The death penalty is an atrocity, an evil and a scar on the face of the American people, a barbaric practice that we should all oppose and seek the abolition of as soon as possible, using all means necessary.

1,188 people were executed in the US from 1977 through 2009, primarily by means of lethal injection. Most death penalty cases involve the execution of murderers although capital punishment can also be applied for treason, espionage, and other crimes.

Proponents of the death penalty say it is an important tool for preserving law and order, deters crime, and costs less than life imprisonment. They argue that retribution or "an eye for an eye" honors the victim, helps console grieving families, and ensures that the perpetrators of heinous crimes never have an opportunity to cause future tragedy.

Opponents of capital punishment say it has no deterrent effect on crime, wrongly gives governments the power to take human life, and perpetuates social injustices by disproportionately targeting people of color (racist) and people who cannot afford good attorneys (classist). They say lifetime jail sentences are a more severe and less expensive punishment than death.
http://deathpenalty.procon.org/


1188 in 32 years is hardly an epidemic...

It is the ultimate punishment and as such it
must be used with the utmost care and
consideration of evidence and nature of the
crime, along with the character and life
of the perp......to murder a totally innocent victim
and have that innocent pay the ultimate price
is one the most horrific crimes to commit.

There is one fact that is undeniable.....
some animals just need killin'.....those the have no regard for the lives of others and that have been nothing but a scourge on society that show no hope of redemption...


Liberals always come up with this issue......until they look at themselves.....https://www.google.com/search?q=kil...NFrOtsAS924CIDw&ved=0CCkQsAQ&biw=1356&bih=599

 

[Damocles]

It is stupid really. We know we aren't perfect, to have the state kill an innocent is repugnant. Best to just keep them in the freezer until the time they die naturally. Less expensive too. It's enough to have to live in a prison the rest of your life, the idea that it is "more" just to free them from the responsibility of their decisions through a simple and painless death is also disgusting.

If they are later found to be innocent we haven't already whacked an innocent, if they are guilty they still die in prison.

 

[NOVA]

[h=2]Why Don't Supreme Court Justices Ever Change Their Minds in Favor of the Death Penalty[/h]

Considering your question on the Supreme Court...whose job is to rule on the constitutionality
of actions......

A. Amendment V (ratified 1791):

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
============
the Fifth Amendment can be read as evidence that the Founders inherently supported the death penalty... If a person can never be deprived of life by the state, why is the clause 'without due process of law' necessary?... By including a phrase that allowed for the possibility that citizens might be denied their life, liberty, or property if certain procedural safeguards were in place--'due process'--they implied that individual life might be taken by the state under the right circumstances."

 

[SmarterthanYou]

It is stupid really. We know we aren't perfect, to have the state kill an innocent is repugnant. Best to just keep them in the freezer until the time they die naturally. Less expensive too. It's enough to have to live in a prison the rest of your life, the idea that it is "more" just to free them from the responsibility of their decisions through a simple and painless death is also disgusting.

If they are later found to be innocent we haven't already whacked an innocent, if they are guilty they still die in prison.

then there is always the American way as envisioned by the founders, that it was preferable to let 10 guilty men go free than to have one unjustly imprisoned.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

pretty soon we'll probably be able to do brain scans to tell if people are lying. I am not morally opposed to the death penalty. I don't like killing innocent people though. But I am afraid if we get rid of it, when technology improves in the future we wont be able to go back.

plus it's good for capital cases to get people to plead down to life

a lot of the false executions were before DNA evidence, or based solely on one witnesses testimony, weak cases. Just raise the bar, make the case need to have video proof, dna evidence, etc. Then execute the scum.

 

[Timshel]

pretty soon we'll probably be able to do brain scans to tell if people are lying. I am not morally opposed to the death penalty. I don't like killing innocent people though. But I am afraid if we get rid of it, when technology improves in the future we wont be able to go back.

plus it's good for capital cases to get people to plead down to life

a lot of the false executions were before DNA evidence, or based solely on one witnesses testimony, weak cases. Just raise the bar, make the case need to have video proof, dna evidence, etc. Then execute the scum.

Yeah, fuck anyone's right to be free from self incrimination or illegal searches. Fuck the 4th and 5th amendments if they get in the way of killing people. The only way this is consistent with your 2nd amendment is in your support of death.

And you claim Snowden as a hero? Do you know anything about how he beat the lie detectors?

Almost no one is convicted based on footage of the actual murder. And DNA evidence is not always foolproof either.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

i searched my name and I noticed hasa diga dingleberry used my name, but I only got this much:

Yeah, fuck anyone's right to be free from self incrimination or illegal searches. Fuck the 4th and 5th amendments if they get in the way of killing people. The only way this is consistent with your...

i don't know where I mentioned anything at all about searches or self incrimination?

 

[evince]

I would be for capital punishment if it were not for the capital.


Its cheaper to house them for life than to snuff them.

then you also don't end up killing innocents

 

[iolo]

http://www.theatlantic.com/national...s-in-em-favor-em-of-the-death-penalty/282100/

If you spend any time at all studying the death penalty in America today you eventually come across an immutable truth: No one who digs deeply into these grim cases ever seems to evolve from being a staunch opponent of capital punishment into being a fervent supporter of the practice. The movement, over the past 40 years anyway, has almost always been in the opposite direction: The closer one gets to capital punishment, the more dubious it appears to be.


This has been particularly true of Supreme Court justices since the death penalty was resurrected in America in 1976: The closer these esteemed jurists have gotten to "the machinery of death," the more flawed convictions and death sentences they were forced to review, the more racial inequality they saw in its application—and the more likely they were to recoil from the arbitrary imposition of capital punishment in those states that still practiced it.

Yes - anyone who has ever looked into the matter knows that not only is it an affront to justice (those who are killed are often discovered later not to be guilty) but it reduces us all to the level of the most squalid murderer, taking life out of silly emotionalism and in total contradiction to the alleged Christianity of our various countries, let alone human decency.