Jimmy Carter wants the Supreme Court to issue a moratorium on death penalty
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 19, 2024, 02:11:38 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Jimmy Carter wants the Supreme Court to issue a moratorium on death penalty
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Jimmy Carter wants the Supreme Court to issue a moratorium on death penalty  (Read 3203 times)
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,172
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: November 12, 2013, 03:31:21 AM »

Former US president Jimmy Carter has called for a new nationwide moratorium on the death penalty, arguing that it is applied so unfairly across the 32 states that still have the death sentence that it amounts to a form of cruel and unusual punishment prohibited under the US constitution.

In an interview with the Guardian, Carter calls on the US supreme court to reintroduce the ban on capital punishment that it imposed between 1972 and 1976. The death penalty today, he said, was every bit as arbitrary as it was when the nine justices suspended it on grounds of inconsistency in the case of Furman v Georgia 41 years ago.

“It’s time for the supreme court to look at the totality of the death penalty once again,” Carter said. “My preference would be for the court to rule that it is cruel and unusual punishment, which would make it prohibitive under the US constitution.”

Carter’s appeal for a new moratorium falls at a time of mounting unease about the huge disparities in the use of capital punishment in America. Recent research has shown that most of the 1,352 executions that have taken place since the supreme court allowed them to recommence in 1976 have emanated from just 2% of the counties in the nation.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/11/jimmy-carter-supreme-court-death-penalty
Logged
They put it to a vote and they just kept lying
20RP12
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,149
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -7.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: November 12, 2013, 06:26:26 AM »

Damn why can't Jimmy Carter be President now
Logged
Joe Republic
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,028
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: November 12, 2013, 06:20:36 PM »

Damn why can't Jimmy Carter be President now

Nothing stopping him from running in 2016.  Wink
Logged
Atlas Has Shrugged
ChairmanSanchez
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,043
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.29, S: -5.04


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: November 12, 2013, 06:21:53 PM »

Damn why can't Jimmy Carter be President now

Nothing stopping him from running in 2016.  Wink
George HW Bush 2016!
Logged
Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas
Ray Goldfield
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,559


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: November 12, 2013, 06:55:28 PM »

I want a moratorium on Jimmy Carter.
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: November 12, 2013, 08:44:52 PM »

Thankfully the 5th amendment implicitly approves of the concept of executing hoodlums.
Logged
Holmes
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,707
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -5.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: November 12, 2013, 10:51:02 PM »

Thankfully the 5th amendment implicitly approves of the concept of executing hoodlums.

Hoodlums? What are you, 70 years old?
Logged
RogueBeaver
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,058
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: November 12, 2013, 10:51:46 PM »

Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,570


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: November 12, 2013, 11:13:23 PM »


One last hurrah for the Greatest Generation:

Jimmy Carter /  John Glenn vs. George HW Bush / Bob Dole
Logged
barfbag
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,611
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.26, S: -0.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: November 12, 2013, 11:15:50 PM »

Wasn't Carter in favor of the death penalty as governor of Georgia?
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,190
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: November 12, 2013, 11:48:22 PM »

Thankfully the 5th amendment implicitly approves of the concept of executing hoodlums.

8th Amendment, genius.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,220


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: November 12, 2013, 11:56:21 PM »

Thankfully the 5th amendment implicitly approves of the concept of executing hoodlums.

8th Amendment, genius.

I think, based on this quote, that he is referring to the fact that the Fifth Amendment openly contemplates 'depriv[ation] of life, liberty, or property'. Interpreting that to somehow mean that the Constitution guarantees capital punishment is of course ridiculous, but, well, it's krazen.
Logged
barfbag
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,611
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.26, S: -0.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: November 13, 2013, 12:09:51 AM »

Thankfully the 5th amendment implicitly approves of the concept of executing hoodlums.

8th Amendment, genius.

Krazen's comment should be in the comedy goldmine.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,570


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: November 13, 2013, 12:39:02 AM »

Thankfully the 5th amendment implicitly approves of the concept of executing hoodlums.

8th Amendment, genius.

I think, based on this quote, that he is referring to the fact that the Fifth Amendment openly contemplates 'depriv[ation] of life, liberty, or property'. Interpreting that to somehow mean that the Constitution guarantees capital punishment is of course ridiculous, but, well, it's krazen.

How about Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3? It clearly states that you may remove 2/5ths of someone's body. Tongue
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: November 13, 2013, 12:48:08 AM »
« Edited: November 13, 2013, 01:27:16 PM by True Federalist »

Thankfully the 5th amendment implicitly approves of the concept of executing hoodlums.

8th Amendment, genius.

I think, based on this quote, that he is referring to the fact that the Fifth Amendment openly contemplates 'depriv[ation] of life, liberty, or property'. Interpreting that to somehow mean that the Constitution guarantees capital punishment is of course ridiculous, but, well, it's krazen.

It doesn't guarantee it, but the wording of the the Fifth does make it fairly clear that the death penalty per se does not fall within the scope the Eighth's bar on cruel or unusual punishment.  Certain methods of applying the penalty could be cruel and if it is applied inconsistently, the death penalty could be considered unusual. (Unusual punishments are also a violation of due process, and hence barred under the Fourteenth Amendment.)

I think SCOTUS has largely gotten death penalty jurisprudence correct, save for two large flaws. The first is that it should be up to Congress and not SCOTUS to determine when a punishment is too cruel.  When it come to punishment, cruel is a subjective opinion and thus should be determined by legislatures, while unusual is something than be objectively determined and thus within the scope of judicial determination.  The second is that when considering unusualness, the fact that a punishment is only used by a few or even by only one state for a given crime does not make it unusual.  What makes a punishment unusual in the constitutional sense is if it is unevenly applied to those found guilty of the same crime in the same jurisdiction.

So, could the application of the death penalty in this country run foul of the standard developed under Furman and Gregg?  Maybe, but the determination would need to be made separately for each jurisdiction that still has the death penalty.  I don't see how, save by completely abandoning precedent, SCOTUS could possibly impose a second nationwide moratorium.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,890
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: November 13, 2013, 12:48:45 AM »

Jimmy Carter is a massive FF.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: November 13, 2013, 12:50:41 AM »

How about Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3? It clearly states that you may remove 2/5ths of someone's body. Tongue

Certainly some posters have had 2/5 of their brain removed. Wink
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: November 13, 2013, 09:26:50 AM »
« Edited: November 13, 2013, 07:21:55 PM by Badger »

It doesn't guarantee it, but the wording of the the Fifth does make it fairly clear that the death penalty per se does not fall within the scope the Eighth's bar on cruel or unusual punishment.  Certain methods of applying the penalty could be cruel and if it is applied inconsistently, the death penalty could be considered unusual. (Unusual punishments are also a violation of due process, and hence barred under the Fourteenth Amendment.)


The 8th amendment does not bar cruel or unusual punishment. It bars cruel and unusual punishment.



The 5th amendment states:

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;




The great founders would certainly not have written standards to govern capital crimes, and specifically referenced capital crimes separately from all other infamous crimes, unless of course the concept of capital crimes was entirely consistent with the 8th amendment written at the same time. Any other logic would be grossly irrational.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: November 13, 2013, 09:56:07 AM »

It doesn't guarantee it, but the wording of the the Fifth does make it fairly clear that the death penalty per se does not fall within the scope the Eighth's bar on cruel or unusual punishment.  Certain methods of applying the penalty could be cruel and if it is applied inconsistently, the death penalty could be considered unusual. (Unusual punishments are also a violation of due process, and hence barred under the Fourteenth Amendment.)


Ah, yes, the liberal fiction constitution.

The 8th amendment does not bar cruel or unusual punishment. It bars cruel and unusual punishment.

It's posts like this that convince me you must be trolling.  You can't seriously be asserting that it would okay for punishment to be cruel so long as it was usual or that a judge should be free to hand out whatever unusual punishment strikes his fancy so long as it isn't cruel, can you?
Logged
Grumpier Than Uncle Joe
GM3PRP
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,076
Greece
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: November 13, 2013, 10:18:27 AM »


Isn't he like in a home using a bed pan or something?
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: November 13, 2013, 11:54:20 AM »

It doesn't guarantee it, but the wording of the the Fifth does make it fairly clear that the death penalty per se does not fall within the scope the Eighth's bar on cruel or unusual punishment.  Certain methods of applying the penalty could be cruel and if it is applied inconsistently, the death penalty could be considered unusual. (Unusual punishments are also a violation of due process, and hence barred under the Fourteenth Amendment.)


Ah, yes, the liberal fiction constitution.

The 8th amendment does not bar cruel or unusual punishment. It bars cruel and unusual punishment.

It's posts like this that convince me you must be trolling.  You can't seriously be asserting that it would okay for punishment to be cruel so long as it was usual or that a judge should be free to hand out whatever unusual punishment strikes his fancy so long as it isn't cruel, can you?


Judges are not permitted to exceed the rule of law, so they cannot hand out unusual punishments, or cruel punishments, beyond the scope of the law. As far as the US Constitution is concerned, the 8th amendment plain text is quite clear, and the definition of the word 'AND' is also quite clear. I suspect that's why you wrote your own 8th amendment. I prefer to adhere to the original version.
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,508
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: November 13, 2013, 11:55:34 AM »

Logged
Silent Hunter
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,300
United Kingdom


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: November 13, 2013, 12:57:31 PM »

Wasn't Carter in favor of the death penalty as governor of Georgia?

Doesn't mean he can't be against it now.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: November 13, 2013, 01:26:11 PM »
« Edited: November 13, 2013, 08:31:47 PM by True Federalist »

It doesn't guarantee it, but the wording of the the Fifth does make it fairly clear that the death penalty per se does not fall within the scope the Eighth's bar on cruel or unusual punishment.  Certain methods of applying the penalty could be cruel and if it is applied inconsistently, the death penalty could be considered unusual. (Unusual punishments are also a violation of due process, and hence barred under the Fourteenth Amendment.)

Ah, yes, the liberal fiction constitution.

The 8th amendment does not bar cruel or unusual punishment. It bars cruel and unusual punishment.

It's posts like this that convince me you must be trolling.  You can't seriously be asserting that it would okay for punishment to be cruel so long as it was usual or that a judge should be free to hand out whatever unusual punishment strikes his fancy so long as it isn't cruel, can you?

Judges are not permitted to exceed the rule of law, so they cannot hand out unusual punishments, or cruel punishments, beyond the scope of the law. As far as the US Constitution is concerned, the 8th amendment plain text is quite clear, and the definition of the word 'AND' is also quite clear. I suspect that's why you wrote your own 8th amendment. I prefer to adhere to the original version.

The phrase "cruel and unusual punishment" is a direct lift from the English Bill of Rights and while it is no better defined there than it is in our Constitution, it was intended as a limit on the discretion of judges to set punishments.  While we have largely adopted a system of civil law under which the punishments for various crimes are delineated by explicitly written out laws, one must never forget that our system originated in a system of common law where judges had far more discretion in handing out punishments than would ever be allowed today.  That discretion is what the English Bill of Rights and our own Federal Bill of Rights limited.

Without such a limit, it would be perfectly permissible for Congress to pass a law that made something a crime and then left it completely up to the judges to decide what was an equitable sentence.  The original English Bill of Rights addressed this point because Royal judges had abused their discretion to apply harsher punishments to the King's opponents than had been usual.  We've grown so accustomed to the law generally not being applied in a politically unfair manner, we tend to forget what prompted this clause in the first place.

But beyond the history lesson, you have overlooked that we're actually pretty much in agreement that the Eighth was not intended to limit the legislative branch in deciding what punishments are appropriate for a particular crime.  But acknowledging that fact wouldn't serve your pathetic need to troll about liberals, would it?
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,220


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: November 13, 2013, 05:53:10 PM »
« Edited: November 13, 2013, 05:55:04 PM by asexual trans victimologist »

I wonder why krazen 'prefer[s] to adhere to the original version', exactly, other than the simple fact that it's original, which isn't an actual reason. (It's a valid legal argument but why does he prefer that the relevant law be the way that he believes that it currently is rather than the almost-but-not-quite-identical way that Ernest believes that it currently is and krazen believes that Ernest in his capacity as 'a liberal' is trying to change it to? That is, whence his apparent attachment to cruel but usual punishments and/or unusual but non-cruel punishments?)
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.061 seconds with 12 queries.