Replies

The attendant suffering of the “botched” execution was not intentional. There was a guilty verdict with a successful execution.

Yes, this presents as the case.

The victim of the crime was found arbitrarily guilty by the perpetrator and subjected to an intentional infliction of unspeakable pain and horror before dying.

That also presents as the case. The crime, from what I have read, was particularly vicious - hence the death penalty was levied against the convicted.

Does one pay any particular attention to the cruel and unusual punishment meted out to an innocent victim or is the perpetrator paramount?

It's absolutely a factor in determining sentencing. It's irrelevant to the Constitutional protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

Execution itself is not considered cruel or unusual under the law. The means of execution may not be either. Those who call for cruel and unusual punishment are advocating the same triumph of emotive nonsense over Constitutional principles as those who advocate BLM murder of Cliven Bundy because he disgusts them with his plainspoken opinion.

It really is a distinction without a difference. Either the Constitution means what it says or it doesn't. You get to keep your guns, you get to speak your mind, your relationship with God is not the business of the State, and we don't torture people to death.

I suspect that most people who advocate torturous executions have not seen other human beings put to death. It is not a romantic thing. It is frightening, horrific and ugly. Sometimes it's necessary, but it shouldn't be gratuitous or capricious.

“Execution itself is not considered cruel or unusual under the law. The means of execution may not either. Those who call for cruel and unusual punishment are advocating the same triumph of emotive nonsense over Constitutional principles as those who advocate BLM murder of Cliven Bundy because he disgusts them with his plainspoken opinion.”

If a perpetrator repeatedly shoots and victim and then buries her alive when he finds she’s not dead, there are those who would advocate meting out the same punishment in turn to the perpetrator. Would that be cruel and unusual punishment that didn’t fit the crime?

Someone who wishes to mete out the death penalty to someone whose words are offensive has not a Constitutional bone in their body. They are just hateful idealogues whose wishes would be punished by the law if put into practice.

IMHO