Wow, that certainly is one way of looking at it. However, i don't agree that people should be executed just because they don't have the highest morals. You make a broad brushed statement here that they must be guilty of something. Mastermind might even call you a racist for that:hihi: (just messin). It's naive to believe that everyone accused of murder put themselves in a position where there character could be questioned and even if they did, is that worth a death sentence?
I'm just sick of the US Supreme Court telling the states, and our courts, to go to hell. Strong localized government...Weak centralized government...that's how it was supposed to work.
I definitely agree with that. Doesn't matter what the decision is, they overstepped their boundaries. At least Rex's best friend Piyush hammered them for it in a statement.
Ah, but if the smoke is made up out of the blue, is it really smoke, or fog? Or some kind of mist-creature, waiting to strike? My vote is that it is a mist-creature. That's who we should be executing here. /puts down bong
As much as I agree with the sentiment that States need more rights to self-determination, the Supreme Court is there to be the final authority on Constitutional issues. Constitutional issues tend to be a Federal issue, because they transcend any single state, and impact all of the States. While the punishment is not cruel to me, it could be defined as unusual, since LA is the only state taking executions for non-murders that far. Since the Constitution protects against "cruel and unusual" punishment, I think the Supreme Court was correct to hear this case, regardless of the ruling.
You're right that they should have heard the case. I was mistaken earlier, however the decision overstepped the boundaries in my opinion. IIf the argument is that no other state does it then there would never be any change of any kind in any state.
No, that's not necessarily my argument. Any state should be able to do what it chooses, apart from the actions of any other state. However, if the state is making a change that goes against the Constitution, or is in a Constitutionally gray area, then the change can be challenged, and the Supreme Court is the correct arbitrator.
I agree with you here USM, and I get what you are saying, I would just reword what you said, because the "and" generally means it has to be both cruel and unusual. The fact that you state it as only "unusual" kind of throws your argument out for that amendment. Just my opinion/interpretation of the amendment.
Yes you do, horribly, but under a perfect justice system that gets it right 100% of the time. The converse of that is, if you DIDNT RAPE a CHILD, but are found GUILTY of it because of a flawed system and discredited testimony, then you DONT DESERVE to DIE. The link I posted up top was examples of many people who were accused of this, but were later exonerated. They might have been killed under this law, and that would've made the state complicent in murder.
