Death penalty ruled 'cruel and unusual' - Furman v. Georgia, 1972

[A18]

Uh, you are an idiot. Go figure out what 'murder' means and maybe then I'll point you to the four parts of the Constitution that explicitly contemplate the usage of the death penalty.

[Redefeatbush04]

Uh, you are an idiot. Go figure out what 'murder' means and maybe then I'll point you to the four parts of the Constitution that explicitly contemplate the usage of the death penalty.

Murder has two relevant definitions, according to the dictionary at my desk:

1. "the premeditated killing of one human being by another"
2. "to put an end to; destroy"

point away

[A18]

Your dictionary is trash. Murder is the unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

[Emsworth]

Murder has two relevant definitions, according to the dictionary at my desk:

1. "the premeditated killing of one human being by another"
2. "to put an end to; destroy"

This definition is not legally valid. For example, under this definition, killing someone else in self-defense is "murder."

[Redefeatbush04]

Murder has two relevant definitions, according to the dictionary at my desk:

1. "the premeditated killing of one human being by another"
2. "to put an end to; destroy"

This definition is not legally valid. For example, under this definition, killing someone else in self-defense is "murder."

but only if you have premeditated your self-defense

[dazzleman]

Under the law, all killing is 'homicide.'

However, only certain types of killings are 'murder.'  Homicide can be justified under the law.

I am a death penalty supporter.  Putting a person to death whom you are sure has committed a heinous crime is not murder, it is justifiable homicide, under our laws and constititution.  I believe it should continue.

[Emsworth]

but only if you have premeditated your self-defense

"Premeditation" is the act of deciding to do something before doing it. If someone is about to kill you, but then you decide to kill him in self-defense, then the killing is "premeditated."

Thus, according to your dictionary's definition, killing someone in self-defense is murder.

[Vasall des Midas]

This is because the legal term, premeditated, has been rendered meaningless by a succession of hanging judges.
To medieval and early modern observers, most current "murders" would not be murders but second-degree manslaughters, precisely because they're not actually premeditated - they weren't planned out in detail.
Of course it hardly mattered back then because manslaughter was a capital crime too - just that the punishment was beheading, followed by a Christian burial, rather than some horrid torture-to-death followed by a shallow unmarked grave somewhere on the edge of town. Murder convictions were extremely rare.

[Redefeatbush04]

Under the law, all killing is 'homicide.'

However, only certain types of killings are 'murder.'  Homicide can be justified under the law.

I am a death penalty supporter.  Putting a person to death whom you are sure has committed a heinous crime is not murder, it is justifiable homicide, under our laws and constititution.  I believe it should continue.

Perhaps homicide was the term I was looking for. I don't see why we all must fuss over the proper terms. It is the conveyed message that truly matters.

[A18]

The Constitution explicitly contemplates the usage of the death penalty three times in the Fifth Amendment, and once in the Fourteenth.

[Vasall des Midas]

The Constitution explicitly contemplates the usage of the death penalty three times in the Fifth Amendment, and once in the Fourteenth.

Yes, Em has already pointed that out.

[A18]

I thought that was a different thread.

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

Furman wasn't about the death penalty per se, only about an existing arbitrary death penalty laws. Four years later, Gregg decision found the new ones constitutional.