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.
No comments:
Post a Comment