Posted on 12/13/2016 1:17:43 AM PST by Olog-hai
In a dissenting opinion he wrote Monday, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer said the “time has come for this Court to reconsider the constitutionality of the death penalty.”
The Supreme Court refused to hear the case of a man who was sentenced to death 40 years ago in Florida. Breyer said that amounted to cruel and unusual punishment.
When Henry Sireci “was first sentenced to death, the Berlin Wall stood firmly in place. Saigon had just fallen. Few Americans knew of the personal computer or the Internet,” Breyer wrote. …
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
We did but instead strapped them to a chair and dropped the tablets into Gas Chamber to dissolve into a gas. You couldn’t make them eat it themselves so the next best thing was the knowledge they eventually had to breath, or not.
Kill babies and let murders live - nice job SCOTUS.
What a weak mind to be in such a position of authority.
Agree. In 1960 or 61 I recall they hung a man a Fort Leavenworth as my old man was in the CGSC then. This liberal idiot never should have made judge.
Just one appeal is sufficient.
There is nothing the least bit unusual about death penalty. Has been used by just about every society and culture going back to forever. And what punishment isn’t “cruel”?
Misplaced mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent and law abiding.
Remember Gorman just bit a pill and was dead in seconds.
Kool-Aid worked for Jonestown as well. The problem is getting someone to open their mouths if they don’t want to die. They have a much bigger problem not breathing.
I think the Founding Fathers might have had a comparison between hanging and drawing/quartering in mind in terms of standards of cruelty, but that’s just me.
He doesn't have those often but he has had one about Trump.
It’s time for the States to change their laws.
No death-sentenced convict should be behind bars more than a year before the sentence is done. Limit appeals to two within that year.
I understand that a few convicted decades ago have been freed and cleared because of today’s technology.
That same new technology can now quickly affirm the guilt of the convicted and save the State millions of dollars due to endless appeals and the cost of keeping a person in prison for decades.
I am pro-capital punishment, but I think medical executions are an abomination.
I would gladly pull a trigger or release a trap door. I would throw the switch, or drop the cyanide. I’m not strong enough to swing an axe with enough force to do the job reliably, but I have no objection to someone else doing it that way.
I would never use my medical skills to kill someone.
Medical executions have come about because a majority of the people don’t support swift and certain killing methods.
Because this is true, capital punishment will eventually be abolished.
Of all the traditional methods, the gas chamber was most likely to be eliminated as cruel, with the electric chair not far behind.
Both of them became prevalent because the public desired bloodless executions.
Now, the public desires bloodless executions which do not involve dread or temporary pain prior to death.
This public is on the way to banning it altogether.
It won’t be abolished. How can it, when Sharia law is on its way towards replacing the Constitution as some reason? (this is true in some enclaves already)
Of all the traditional methods, the gas chamber was most likely to be eliminated as cruel, with the electric chair not far behind.
Both of them became prevalent because the public desired bloodless executions.
Now, the public desires bloodless executions which do not involve dread or temporary pain prior to death.
This public is on the way to banning it altogether.
Just like the bloodless crimes. /s
Should have caught your bounce-back thing but troubled a real American hero friend of mine needs a heart transplant. No person seeming about to die has the vast courage or fortitude to replace his.
Consider this, that when the Constitution was written, the death penalty was perfectly acceptable. The obligation of a Supreme Court Justice is solely to decide the Constitutionality of a law or an act.
That is not what Stephen Breyer is proposing doing. He is proposing to decide an issue based on it being touchy-feely. The death penalty serves a valid purpose and it is not cruel and unusual punishment. What is cruel and unusual punishment is allowing the lawyers to play with the justice system until the accused is allowed to sit for 30 years or so on appeal after appeal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.