Okay, so this pisses me off. The Supreme Court actually issued a repreive for Carlton Turner Jr. Apparently after all this time death by lethal injection is unconstitutional. Let's think about this...Carlton Turner Jr. "was condemned for the 1998 slayings of his parents in suburban Dallas. He was 19 when authorities said he shot Carlton Turner Sr., 43, and Tonya Turner, 40, several times in the head. He then bought new clothes and jewelry and continued living in the family's Irving home as their bodies decomposed." Is that constitutional? He should die for what he did. Who cares how he dies, he should just die. Actually, why don't they shoot him in the head several times and leave his body to decompose. Is that constitutional?
I really believe that if you receive the death penalty then you should be put to death in the same manner that you took someone else's life. I understand that this is just an opinion and not everyone agrees with this, but come on...lethal injection UNCONSTITUTIONAL? These people are the scum of the earth. People who are sentenced to death didn't commit minor crimes, they did something heinous. And what they did to deserve the death penalty was most certainly unconstitutional. So, I don't understand...why are we paying for them to sit in jail for years on end so the court has time to debate whether or not the mode of death to carry out the death penalty is constitutional? Please explain!
1 comment:
Well, actually, there is an argument that says the death penalty is not a deterrant, and its existance does not affect the rates of crime.
That being said, I would assert the Founding Fathers did not have execution in mind when they copied those words into the 8th ammendment from English Bill of Rights from 1689. Back then, they only had a few ways to kill people. Hangings and beheadings were the quickest and, possibly, most reliable. Some would interpret it to mean the punishment should fit the crime. Others would interpret it to mean electrocuting a man for 4 hours until he finally dies is akin to torturing someone to death.
Why do they rub an alcohol swab on the inmate's arm before putting the needle in? If an inmate's metabolism is so jacked-up from genetics or drug abuse, and it takes 5 doses of lethal injection and 3 hours to kill him, is that cruel? I say that is a special circumstance. This is the hangup that the Supreme Court is looking at. And, given our justice system, it's fair to hold off these kind of executions until they make a decision (only the states that use the 3-drug cocktail method are holding out).
The absurdity comes if they decide this type of excecution is cruel. It was developed to be one of the least cruel of all capital punishments.
I'm pro capital punishment. I, personally, don't know why we don't hang or behead anymore (use a long drop and do both at the same time).
Post a Comment