Especially cruel crimes

Last week I saw on TV someone who killed his mother smashing her head by hitting it repeatedly with a sledgehammer. I think that even if the principle of an eye for an eye is not applied generally, making a federal law that mandates its application when a crime reaches such level of cruelty is an idea that needs consideration.  

"cruel and unusual" 7

An analogy to that is when someone says that he has a long list to do using the word "long" instead of the word "big" to project serializing or sequencing for the purpose of emphasizing himself being a single executor even if most of those tasks can be overlapped and carried out concurrently except that the amendment  projects serializing or sequencing in order to suggest the status of being new for those processes.   

"cruel and unusual" 6

Using "cut processes" in the last part of the post below the previous was unnecessary and probably wrong. Instead one could have expressed that part stating:

Using a single process to represent the whole suggests an intention to separate the processes and that here seems to serve a purpose if it was a separation in time. That suggests creation more than application because it suggests, through the sequencing, the status of being new .    

"cruel and unusual" 5

Even if the part about punishments in the eighth amendment had came in a separate amendment of its own, that would still have not made me any close to understand it to mean forcing the overriding of clear rules of justice like those mandated by the an eye for an eye principle.

I think that if the framers had such intention, they would have put more effort to state that in order to counteract the deeply rooted  sense of obligation to justice inside human beings. On the other hand as much as deeply rooted that sense of obligation to justice is, as much as it could make it hard to imagine such understanding is probable or even possible on correct grounds.  

To me it is hard to imagine it being further away from telling the government you cannot execute a killer. Instead, I see it telling the government you cannot, for example, execute someone who had failed to pay his taxes. But for the blood of another human being, how does it even occur to some here that it is imposing such a restriction on justice?

But I never really liked all the talk I see here about "love" while skipping over the question of justice.That could be behind a confusing here in seeing an intention to override justice in what is not only lacked such intention but was probably in itself intended to secure avoiding injustice and take it as being the ultimate objective in itself.  

 

"cruel and unusual" 4

First, one may notice how making a penalty imply dealing with new matter which imply facing the matter and thinking about it for the first time and that fits with how the amendment stated things in the sequence of  "bail", "fines"  then "punishments". Then one may also notice how unlike the later two words, "bail" was in the singular form. Combining the two notes above and considering the fact that there is one bail for an accused person regardless of the number of fines or punishments in question, the view per completed process rather than individual persons as a group with cut processes would seem more evident and that support the claim that the amendment is about the making of rules and not applying them (in the sense pointed out in the post below).   

"cruel and unusual" 3

So, as much as, for example, a book about the making of cars can still talk about or refer to driving them as a consequence to the ways of manufacturing them and despite that the ultimate purpose being driving them may still be described as being just about the making of cars not driving them, it appears that the eighth amendment was about the making of penalties not applying them. Therefore it does not apply on what is directly mandated by the eye for an eye principle because that comes naturally and doesn't need to be made.      

"cruel and unusual" 2

Whether people deviated from the eye for an eye principle or not, the fact remains it comes naurally from the most basic level of sensing justice inside a human being. With that in mind, one may also express the last point in the post below saying that combining and preceeding the "cruel and unusual punishment" with two things requiring a making process ("bail" and "fines") suggests strongly that it was not meant to apply on what is mandated by the eye for an eye principle because it comes naturally and requires no making.

That of course is in addition to how the use of the word "punishment" here may by itself suggest something that involve a creation process. That is because of how much that word can be used to refer to the creation of a reaction to the crime. For example googling "punishment vs. penalty" brought the Phrase " death penalty and capital punishment".

Moreover, those who oppose the death penalty on the "cruel and unusual" ground are not only opposing the equality in the process of making the injury between the dead victim and the criminal as mandated by the eye for an eye principle but also the end result of that process   

"cruel and unusual"

In case the mess of guns was not enough by itself it was combined with the mess of punishment. Starting from the constitution, the death penalty in general was not only debated but was decided for a while to be a "cruel and unusual" punishment. Are you kidding me? If you want to abolish the death penalty because of the possibility of executing an innocent person then that  is a different question. But to think that the "cruel and unusual" phrase in the constitution was intended to apply on the death penalty for a killer makes guys holding such a view here sound as if they came from a different galaxy. Not only for the question of  executing a killer but I don't think that phrase was intended to apply on the eye for an eye type of punishment in general. Unlike what some seem to take that phrase, the purpose behind it could have been to establish a line not to be crossed for punishment to actions were the just punishment is not clear rather than to replace justice. Notice how that understanding  is supported by grouping that phrase with actions related to fines and bails each of which has no clear direct just measure.