Is the Death Penalty a violation of the 8th and 14th amendments?

The fourteenth amendment states that there ought to be no cruel or unusual punishment and the 14 states that everyone has equal protection under the Law Principle. By sending someone to death when they commit a certain crime, are these rights being taking away or do they "deserve what they get" and why?

Answers:
NOPE, AN EYE FOR AN EYE!

WHAT ABOUT THE VICTIM'S RIGHT TO LIFE, LIBERTY & THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS?

LETHAL INJECTION OR FIRING SQUAD ISNT REALLY CRUEL OR UNUSUAL.

VICTIMS HAVE RIGHTS TOO!

CRUEL AND USUAL WOULD BE FEEDING THE CONVICT TO A GATOR OR SHARK, ETC.

P.S. - WHERE I COME FROM, WE CHOP OFF THE OFFENDING BODY PART!
First off it's the 8th that prevents cruel and unusual punishment. As long as you have a fair trial there are no 14th amendment issues.

As for the 8th, I understand why it was passed but too many supreme court decisions have been liberal on what is cruel or unusual.

Putting someone to death is not unusual. To look at cruelty watch the end of Braveheart then think of that drawn out over hours. Or being baked alive or boiled or strung out on a rack or nailed to a cross. Those are cruel.

Putting four bullets in someone's heart at the same time is not cruel. In fact it's very humane.

I'm sick of all this "death penalty is cruel" bullocks. If you kill the state has the right to take your life. If you steal the state has the right to take your freedom and fine you.

Personally I think a lot of our justice system is a bunch of lilly white bullocks and we could be a lot tougher on criminals. There should be three strikes and you're out. But they should be banished to an enclosed prison farm with no guards on the inside but a constant patrol around a vast permimeter. Let them fend for themselves, their ancesstors could make it in the wilderness, so can they, and it would cost a lot less.
I don't believe the penalty violates those amendments. However, I don't believe in the death penalty. I think it is a fate worse than death to keep the individual alive until they die a natural death.
I don't consider it cruel and unusual but necessary...
And murderers and child molesters are by no means "equal" to anyone
I don't know if this falls under the equal protection clause, but my problem with the death penalty is the jury selection process. The only ones who get selected to be on the jury are the people who say they can impose death penalty if prosecution can prove its case. Well, that makes the jury panel more conservative and more likely to vote for guilt and for death because the ones who have a softer heart and are less likely to find guilt or impose death penalty.
The death penalty is specifically mentioned in the constitution in reference to treason therefore the death penalty cannot be a violation of the constitution.
Here are some thoughts: 1) when you commit a crime you no longer have any rights of your own..in my opinion.
2) If there was a human euthanasia option, there would be a lot less ppl in the world
3) Abortion should be the girls decision with a signed release from the father and there would be less ppl in the world
4) If we all truly loved our neighbor as ourselves...there would be no problems and if we could manage to raise ourselves a couple of vibrations there would be no need for this question.


Ppl do get what they deserve, always and all ways never forget that.

The answer to your question is : no. It violates nothing.
Nothing cruel or unusual about the death penalty. And there is equal protection under law.

And it is not about their rights or retribution, but about what is a just punishment. For taking the lives of others, their own life is forfeit. That's it.

And if the people who wrote the 8th Amendment didn't consider the death penalty to be cruel or unusual, how can anybody interpret it to be so? The law is based on the understanding at the time, not on a new interpretation by some bleeding heart in a black dress.
when you commit a crime, you lose all your rights. At least that is how it used to be. We have since developed a new group called "Bleeding Hearts" and they don't want to see anyone hurt.....everyone has rights.....NOT
You kill...you die....pure and simple
murders, rapists, sadists, wife-beaters, drunk drivers. just throw'em on old sparky and send'em to Hell.
Joker's answer is the best and most complete so far.
Do a google search on the following names, then see how you feel about the death penalty:
Ted Bundy- (at least 42 women)
Ottis Toole- (dozens, including Adam Walsh)
John Wayne Gacy- (dozens of young boys)
Darlie Routier- (her own 2 sons)
The death penalty is a violation of God.
No, it is not a violation of the constitution. If a person commits a crime he or she must accept the consequences. An argument could be made that life in prison is considered cruel and unusual punishment. I am not advocating the death penalty.
cruel and unusual punishment is when you tie someone to an anthill or something. Executions have been around for centuries, and I doubt we'll see the end of the death penalty anytime soon. Usually, the death penalty isn't handed out frivolously, the accused is found guilty in a court of law, usually of murder etc., and hearings are held to decide the sentence, it's kind of complicated, and everything has to be 100% accurate for a death penalty to be handed down, beyond a reasonable doubt etc. There's appeals, the whole bit. By the time a person recieves and has their death sentence carried out in america, years have usually gone by, they don't just take em out back and shoot em anymore, they go to great pains to make it as fair and just as possible. But, again the death penalty isn't just handed down for personal entertainment purposes, there's vicious people out there that have no mercy whatsoever in their souls, and this particular punishment is reserved for those that commit the most heinous of crimes, and are subsequently apprehended, prosecuted, and convicted of these crimes.

I think it serves the dual purpose of being a deterrent to others in society of similar moral caliber, and to also make society safer at large by permanently guaranteeing that that particular individual never again walks the streets. Laws with no teeth aren't laws at all.
No, it's justice being served to those who need it. It's not used often enough.
I think if you have your day in court and are found guilty there is nothing wrong with the death penalty
Having too easy of a death penalty maybe cruel. Putting someone to sleep has no deterrent effect. Most violent people have thought about committing suicide, therefore, death doesn't scare them. There is no pain in under pain of death when one is put to sleep.
THOU SHALL NOT KILL

thats all
My only concern with the death penalty is the possibility that the accused/convicted is actually innocent. How many times have we heard of someone being convicted then find out later they really are innocent? If they are found guilty with absolute incontrovertible proof, then yes, give them the death penalty. If there's the SLIGHTEST chance they are innocent, don't execute them. You can free a person from a prison, but not from a grave.
They deserve the death penalty because high crime that warrants the death penalty are crimes against society as a whole; as well as the individual victim and your question does not apply to the victim. Those are the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The perpetrator gave up his rights when he committed the crime.
IT HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY BEEN RULED THAT THE DEATH PENALTY IS NOT CRUEL OR UNUSUAL AS A PUNISHMENT.

THE ONLY SUCCESSFUL CHALLENGE TO SAID PUNISHMENT IS IF JURIES APPEAR TO BE RACIST IN ITS APPLICATION.
I wish we had the death penalty in the UK for people like Myra Hindly and Ian Bradey and Fred and Rose West. Recently there was a case here in the UK where a father and MOTHER held their baby against a gas fire guard to burn him and then beat him to death. I wish I could be the one to pull the switch on those two evil bastar*s.


The Answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer does not guarantee the right.
Answer question:


More Law Questions & Answers...