A Question of Logic

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yeah, but what do speculations on the future have to do with logical inferences concerning the present justice system?

Speculations about the future and the present have a bearing on the relevance of past rulings on capital punishment. If the American death penalty is deemed to be cruel or unusual right now, it ceases to be legal.

Mainly, though, I was just trying to give a full answer to your question. I was also trying to address the unspoken point that if the government does it, then it must be legal, which I thought might be where the discussion was heading.

 

[lilithu]

Well, if that's the case then I don't understand why any other factors are being introduced, beyond;

1. Execution is a legal punishment in the USA, and

2. The Fifth Amendment restricts the practice of execution as punishment until due process of law has been satisfied.

Everything else is surely irrelevant?

Actually, if the ONLY point were that execution is legal, introducing the Fifth Amendment is irrelevant, since it's quite obvious that execution is legal, and the Fifth Amendment does not speak specifically to execution; it speaks to due process.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Actually, if the ONLY point were that execution is legal, introducing the Fifth Amendment is irrelevant, since it's quite obvious that execution is legal, and the Fifth Amendment does not speak specifically to execution; it speaks to due process.

Thing is... the fifth amendment is part of what makes it quite obvious that execution is legal.

This is a necessary condition in order that the fifth amendment might restrict it in instances where due process is denied.

 

[lilithu]

The Fifth can be used to support the position that your constitution allows for the death penalty, if that is an already established and legal punishment. Which is what I've been saying all along.

"Allows for" meaning does the Constitution not prohibit it, yes. But that was already apparent WITHOUT the Fifth Amendment by the very fact that the death penalty exists. There was no reason to bring up the Fifth Amendment other than to suggest that the Constitution actually supports it. It does not.

 

[No0ne]

It's called self justisfycation of one's action's, if your point of view dose not macth or coinside with the point of view and perception of the goverment or power's at be, then by there point of view your action's would be deemed as, illegal.

Nation's create law's in a act of self presavation of there own point of view of how life should be lived and how it should not be lived, and for those that do not share or wish to coinside or obay there point of view and perception of such only have a few option's, jail and death or exile.

(mainly action's that take away from another person in anyway shape or form resulte in a reaction of jail/fine/death depending on what was take from another person hence time/money/belonging's/body/-->( taking Happyness which would be inflecting pain mentaly or physicaly)

So such action's of taking somthing from another person that is not deemed belonging to you by the nation or the mass public of that nation would result in a confilct in points of view and perception of such, of how life should be lived, which in turn would create an reaction resulting in a deemed equal payment of what was taken from another...

Hence the reason why the death execution's exist, for some time's the only way a person can equaly repay a life taken is with there own life... This were the first thought's that led to the creation of the justifycation of a death execution.(hence the logical thought behide why there is a death execution)

Yet the reason why they are less and less of them, is because of public in the resent year's have spoken widely to end such death executions, or what tend's to qualify you for one...

And its legal if they say it's legal, for they have self deemed them self's with the power over right and wrong, life and death, man has a habbit to try to play god...over this existence

 

[lilithu]

Thing is... the fifth amendment is part of what makes it quite obvious that execution is legal.

Was there some doubt that execution is legal in some states of the U.S.? What death penalty opponents are saying is that it should not be legal. I don't know any that are saying it's illegal.

 

[Yerda]

Was there some doubt that execution is legal in some states of the U.S.? What death penalty opponents are saying is that it should not be legal. I don't know any that are saying it's illegal.

On she soldiers...

This might help a wee bit in clearing the issue. From the wikipedia article, Due Process:


The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution reads:
“ No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law .... ”

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution reads:
“ No State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ... ”

The point I would make is that these statements are functionally the same (to me at least). Does the Fourteenth Amendment grant or protect the right of the state to execute criminals, and are the states without the death penalty violating a constitutional right?

 

[lilithu]

On she soldiers...

This might help a wee bit in clearing the issue. From the wikipedia article, Due Process:


The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution reads:
“ No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law .... ”

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution reads:
“ No State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ... ”

The point I would make is that these statements are functionally the same (to me at least). Does the Fourteenth Amendment grant or protect the right of the state to execute criminals, and are the states without the death penalty violating a constitutional right?

Neither the Fifth nor the Fourteenth are granting nor denying the ability of govts to impose the death penalty. The Fifth is saying that the Federal govt cannot impose any kind of punishment without first providing due process. And the Fourteenth expands that restriction to the state level.

As Willamena said several pages back, Constitutional rights are granted to people, not to govt. We're talking about a Constitutional right of the people to due process, not a Constitutional right of the state to impose the death penalty. The latter does not make sense Constitutionally.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Neither the Fifth nor the Fourteenth are granting nor denying the ability of govts to impose the death penalty. The Fifth is saying that the Federal govt cannot impose any kind of punishment without first providing due process. And the Fourteenth expands that restriction to the state level.

As Willamena said several pages back, Constitutional rights are granted to people, not to govt. We're talking about a Constitutional right of the people to due process, not a Constitutional right of the state to impose the death penalty. The latter does not make sense Constitutionally.

Declaring something to be constitutional or unconstitutional doesn't have to have the word "right" attached to it.

It can accurately be said that those who wrote the bill of rights must not have thought the death penalty was such a bad idea, considering they took it for granted that it's one of several conclusions that may potentially be arrived at as long as there is due process.

 

[lilithu]

Declaring something to be constitutional or unconstitutional doesn't have to have the word "right" attached to it.

I didn't say it did. I was responding to Jaiket's post in which he referred to the possibility of states denying a "constitutional right" by denying the death penalty.

 

[Yerda]

Heya, Lil.

Neither the Fifth nor the Fourteenth are granting nor denying the ability of govts to impose the death penalty. The Fifth is saying that the Federal govt cannot impose any kind of punishment without first providing due process. And the Fourteenth expands that restriction to the state level.

As Willamena said several pages back, Constitutional rights are granted to people, not to govt. We're talking about a Constitutional right of the people to due process, not a Constitutional right of the state to impose the death penalty. The latter does not make sense Constitutionally.

Please excuse my clumsy articulation. As you probably know I'm pretty ignorant of the matter at hand.

What I was trying to communicate is this: if the Fifth Amendment can be cited as a constitutional justification of the death penalty, then it would seem that jurisdictions that have banned that sentence would be in violation of the constitution according to the Fourteenth Amendment. I see from the point you made, previously made by Willamena, that I haven't fully grasped the nature of this debate.

I'm now not at all sure if what I mentioned is relevant to the topic. I wandered into the wiki (Due Process - see link in previous thread) article while reading some of the pertinent information on the subject and thought it may clear the waters a little.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What I was trying to communicate is this: if the Fifth Amendment can be cited as a constitutional justification of the death penalty, then it would seem that jurisdictions that have banned that sentence would be in violation of the constitution according to the Fourteenth Amendment.

I'm not sure why that would be. Even if a right were bestowed by either one (which, IMO, is not the case), a right usually is something that a person has the option to exercise or not; it doesn't automatically imply a responsibility to exercise that right.