Why is it that out of this amendment the one part that is contested the most is the fact that cruel and unusual punishment is never really defined. During the time the Framers drafted these rights there were still implications of torture involved in the punishment of individuals for crimes committed. Heck even afterwards the idea of being placed in the stocks in the middle of the town square was still a punishment inflicted on persons who committed crimes. Although today this would be considered to be cruel because of the mental implications it was perfectly fine then. What really defines the rest of the amendment though is the fact that we are looking at the fact that punishment in any form, whether it be bail, fines, shall not be excessive. So cant we say that the cruel and unusual punishment aspect is to be referenced as excessive as well?? I believe so, and in the instance of punishment, there are far more things that can happen to a person as far as punishment that shouldn't be considered cruel but are. =(
Video
Reaction
Cruel? Unusual? Not at all in my opinion. The fact that first of all this man died the same way that he killed his victims is justice! The debate that everyone has is whether or not the fact that legal "murder" is justifiable is just plain ridiculous. The person in question who commits a murder, should in all cases receive the death penalty. There is the question of morality in that, is it right to take one life for another, but as a god fearing nation we also know that there is an "eye for an eye" motif behind it. As far as the firing squad goes, justice is served. He felt the same pain that he inflicted on his victims and is in no way cruel or unusual. In reference to others who commit murder and are sentenced to die, it should be instantaneous, directly after the court case and in no regard allowed for an appeal. Most prisoners seeking appeal on cases as of late are doing so to prolong their own lives rather than actually seek justice.
Video
Reaction
In this clip from the video which I am sorry but you have to start we can see that the necessity for bail vs. the means at which bail was going to be granted are so far different than should have been. The need for bail and the reason it is in place is to not only secure the defendant to showing up for trial but to also allow that same defendant a means at which to still support a family unit or business so as to not cause unusual punishment were the charges erroneous or whatnot. I think this entire movie, "Law Abiding Citizen" is a perfect example of how broken the judicial system is in today's society. Another is the movie "Fracture" with Anthony Hopkins, a movie in which what you can prove is all that matters. Bail should be surmountable with the crime, as well as fines for that matter. And now for something along the lines of excessive!!
No comments:
Post a Comment