And this everyday citizen agrees with you – but I’ll bet that there’s a challenge to a death sentence within a year, on the basis of cruel and unusual.

I wouldn’t mind being wrong. Sometimes being wrong is a _good_ thing!

When a woman says she is looking for a tall and handsome man, she means both. A good looking dwarf or an ugly nine footer is not going to work.

“Cruel and unusual punishment” is clearly setting two standards both of which must be met. In the opinion of this everyday citizen, there is nothing cruel or unusual about the death sentence.

I understand that the method of carrying out the death sentence has been under plenty of scrutiny, but in the history of the United States, the death sentence is not an “unusual” punishment.

Now this line of reasoning means that “cruel” punishment is permitted, so long as it is not unusual. I agree. If the majority support the death penalty, then it is not “cruel.”

When we were a young country, people sometimes died from whippings delivered as a punishment. We now believe that to be “cruel” and we have banned it, which also makes it unusual.

And PS, LaShawn…glad you’re back on politics…I don’t do the music stuff unless you want to get into classical! Your site has always been good for discussion because you keep such a close eye on it and keep the trolls at bay.

No, theoretically not. But then neither are international laws. That, however, hasn’t stopped the Supreme Court from basing some of their decisions on the laws of other nations. They’re getting more and more off-base (putting it mildly) every year.

“The Supreme Court didn’t make a mistake. Military law and civil law ARE two different jurisdictions. Military cases are never cited in and do not set precedent for civil cases. If anthing, the military law is unconstitutional; it’s not the other way around.”

However, LaShawn noted in the post that:

“Both the majority and minority expressly stated that Congress had not enacted a law permitting death for child rape.”

The Supreme Court was incorrect. Congress did authorize a law permitting death for child rape. Based on their erroneous statement to the contrary, it is safe to assume that they did not consider the law Congress had passed.

This is a flawed decision, because the Supreme Court did not thoroughly review the existing law.

The Supreme Court may decide to strike down the existing law. That is another matter entirely. It has nothing to do with precedent. Furthermore, the court is considering a punishment under criminal law. We do not have the death penalty in civil law. However, I am sure you meant to say “civilian” law as opposed to “military” law.

*They had to add the ‘until dead’ part because one jackass managed to survive *three* botched hangings, and they pretty much had to let him go because he’d paid the price for his crimes – he’d been hung.

The only problem I foresee with killing these jerks off is if there is the possibility of innocence. But if not, then yeah, go for it.

And I say this as a conservatively-inclined, evangelical Anglican of the Province of SEA (as hidebound as you can be)

Whether or not you agree with the decision, the case certainly should be reopened if a mistake of this magnitude has been made.