I disagree with all three points (I think, I just scanned it) and am a supporter of the Death Penelty. I also think it should be used more simply because there are "lifers" in prison that I do not think our tax dollars should be supporting.
I'm also one of those sickos who believes that it wouldn't be a bad thing to give people on death row a choice of the death penelty or being used in experiments with the agreement that once they were completed (if they survived, generally speaking the intent of such experiments would not be to kill even if it was the usual side effect) they could go free. Unlike some science fiction I'd believe in honoring the deal.
I will also point out that the foundation of OUR law when it came to things like Cruel and Unusual punishment was to avoid things like the Inquisition where people would sit around and develop increasingly depraved ways to "punish" or "interrogate" people. Basically some local goverment with a sadistic judge (remember how things worked back then) couldn't decide to run people through his personal flaying machine, not matter what they were convicted of.
It should be noted however that pain was accepted as a form of punishment by the founding fathers who wrote those laws. According to the intended interpetation things like Flogging, The stocks, and even fairly painful methods of execution were all perfectly fine. These are the same guys who ran around boiling British Crown Loyalists in tar, covering them in feathers, and leaving the dead bodies hanging (in many cases) as an object lesson about supporting Britan.
Things like "pressing" were also allowed, that being when you crush someone by placing a board over them and add increasing numbers of stones to the top of it. One of the victims of the Salem Witch trials was killed this way apparently.
So basically, it becomes difficult to argue the intended foundation of OUR system of law and justice in such cases. Sure we've changed since then, and yes there is a body of precedent. But face it, we've gone soft since then. The guys who founded this country would NOT have tolerated half the stuff we put up with, and interpeted the Constitution very differantly in a lot of areas. The founding fathers, their agents, and the immediate successors through early US goverment that were closer to the constitution (and the guys who drafted it being around to personally answer questions) left behind numerous examples of how it was supposed to be interpeted "in the street".
I think going back to SOME of those methods in SOME cases would not be a bad thing, but overall I'm personally glad we changed.
However as a supporter of the death penelty I find it kind of annoying when people talk about the early days of the country and "foundations" like these guys were a bunch of ultra liberal hippies. They were not.
and ummm... as far as family vendettas and such, keep in mind that duelling was originally allowed by the founding fathers, but we got rid of it. Even after changes to the law it was still practiced. While I believe it was technically illegal Alexander Hamilton Vs. Aaraon Burr (I think that was the name of the guy) is a famous example for obvious reasons.
This means that the guys who wrote the constitution not only supported the right to keep and bear arms (one of many reasons, I've explained others in other posts), but also were working under the assumption that many disagreements would be resolved this way. Again it's something to consider when thinking about our legal system. A lot of the kinds of things we see coming to court today were probably considered moot points because the arguement would be resolved by someone being "Called out" before it could go to court. Slander, Libel, things like that... swords or pistols at dawn.
>>>----Therumancer--->
I'm also one of those sickos who believes that it wouldn't be a bad thing to give people on death row a choice of the death penelty or being used in experiments with the agreement that once they were completed (if they survived, generally speaking the intent of such experiments would not be to kill even if it was the usual side effect) they could go free. Unlike some science fiction I'd believe in honoring the deal.
I will also point out that the foundation of OUR law when it came to things like Cruel and Unusual punishment was to avoid things like the Inquisition where people would sit around and develop increasingly depraved ways to "punish" or "interrogate" people. Basically some local goverment with a sadistic judge (remember how things worked back then) couldn't decide to run people through his personal flaying machine, not matter what they were convicted of.
It should be noted however that pain was accepted as a form of punishment by the founding fathers who wrote those laws. According to the intended interpetation things like Flogging, The stocks, and even fairly painful methods of execution were all perfectly fine. These are the same guys who ran around boiling British Crown Loyalists in tar, covering them in feathers, and leaving the dead bodies hanging (in many cases) as an object lesson about supporting Britan.
Things like "pressing" were also allowed, that being when you crush someone by placing a board over them and add increasing numbers of stones to the top of it. One of the victims of the Salem Witch trials was killed this way apparently.
So basically, it becomes difficult to argue the intended foundation of OUR system of law and justice in such cases. Sure we've changed since then, and yes there is a body of precedent. But face it, we've gone soft since then. The guys who founded this country would NOT have tolerated half the stuff we put up with, and interpeted the Constitution very differantly in a lot of areas. The founding fathers, their agents, and the immediate successors through early US goverment that were closer to the constitution (and the guys who drafted it being around to personally answer questions) left behind numerous examples of how it was supposed to be interpeted "in the street".
I think going back to SOME of those methods in SOME cases would not be a bad thing, but overall I'm personally glad we changed.
However as a supporter of the death penelty I find it kind of annoying when people talk about the early days of the country and "foundations" like these guys were a bunch of ultra liberal hippies. They were not.
and ummm... as far as family vendettas and such, keep in mind that duelling was originally allowed by the founding fathers, but we got rid of it. Even after changes to the law it was still practiced. While I believe it was technically illegal Alexander Hamilton Vs. Aaraon Burr (I think that was the name of the guy) is a famous example for obvious reasons.
This means that the guys who wrote the constitution not only supported the right to keep and bear arms (one of many reasons, I've explained others in other posts), but also were working under the assumption that many disagreements would be resolved this way. Again it's something to consider when thinking about our legal system. A lot of the kinds of things we see coming to court today were probably considered moot points because the arguement would be resolved by someone being "Called out" before it could go to court. Slander, Libel, things like that... swords or pistols at dawn.
>>>----Therumancer--->
