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

[Emsworth]

Unsound. The Constitution explicitly acknowledges capital punishment in no fewer than four cases:

- "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury." (Fifth Amendment)

- "No person shall ... be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." (Fifth Amendment)

- "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." (Fifth Amendment)

- "No State shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." (Fourteenth Amendment)

The Eighth Amendment should be interpreted consistently with the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Since the Constitution explicitly recognizes the validity of capital punishment in not one but four places, capital punishment cannot be considered cruel or unusual. Imposing a national moratorium on the death penalty was nothing but judicial activism.

[Emsworth]

But the basic finding that the inequitible application of the death penalty constitutes "unusual punishment" is sound.

At most, the Justices could have found that the death penalty was inequitably applied in the case immediately before them. They had no authority to impose a national moratorium on the death penalty, merely because the defendants before them at the time may have been treated unfairly.

[Emsworth]

There was ample evidence of inherent problems in sentencing regimes that were being used, especially in the Southern States. If a death penalty statute or its general application is violating equal protection, the statute cannot be allowed to stand, and thus must be struck down.

If I recall correctly, the Court's decision was based on the Eighth Amendment rather than the equal protection clause.

I believe that the Supreme Court did not find any evidence of racial bias against the defendant. Rather, it considered general statistics relating to the application of capital punishment in other cases. Such an approach is wholly inappropriate, in my opinion.

[Emsworth]

They struck down the Death Penalty laws in current existence. They didn't rule the Death Penalty as such unconstitutional, so your argument in your first post really goes nowhere, Emsworth. (Also, your first example doesn't even deal with the death penalty, and your second one also declares mutilation constitutional.)

How does the first example fail to deal with the death penalty? It refers to "capital" crimes.

As to the second example, yes, of course mutilation is constitutional.

[Emsworth]

Not to punishment.

A capital crime is a crime that can be punished by death. What else could it mean?

[Emsworth]

Wait a second.  How exactly is mutilation constitutional?  That's about as cruel and unusual as you're likely to find.

The Fifth Amendment's double jeopardy clause explicitly foresees cutting off someone's limbs: "No person shall ... be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." If one part of the Bill of Rights specifically acknowledges it, then another part of the Bill of Rights does not prohibit it.

Only torturous punishments should be considered "cruel and unusual."

[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."

[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.