Pipe dream but it would be great for Obummer to have to respond to this one.

 

http://wh.gov/eucu

So we just ignore the 8th amendment? (there goes that pesky constitution again)

Before we lynch Tsarnaev, I'd like to see justice for the Ft. Hood and Benghazi incidents which are already growing stale in people's minds.

Before we lynch Tsarnaev, I'd like to see justice for the Ft. Hood and Benghazi incidents which are already growing stale in people's minds.

 

And Fast and Furious.

So we just ignore the 8th amendment? (there goes that pesky constitution again)

What part are we ignoring? The cruel part? Subjective. Certainly isn't unusual considering there are more than a dozen people in the same hospital as the suspect with the same type of injuries.

Was he found guilty already???

so lets start a petition to take away rights from serial killers, pedophiles, rapists... and gangbangers .. and the rest that are deemed to be enemy of the state, unAmerican or simply undesirable .... esp since obviously each one of us can "throw the first stone".

why is it that good citizens of this great nation of OURS are so quick in their desire to take it DOWN to the level of such countries as Russia, Saudi Arabia and the rest of the world where you only have rights if you got money and power ...

Behngazi will rise again with the advent of Ms. Clinton in the next election.....IMO.....yup, I mean the "Behngazi Gag" and disappearing act she pulled.

That petition is disgusting. He's still an American citizen, innocent until proven guilty, no matter what he's accused of.

 

He's not guilty until the jury issues a verdict, and even then, amputation is definitely cruel and unusual under the 8th.

 

I don't know what the heck is happening to this country...

That petition is disgusting. He's still an American citizen, innocent until proven guilty, no matter what he's accused of.

 

He's not guilty until the jury issues a verdict, and even then, amputation is definitely cruel and unusual under the 8th.

 

I don't know what the heck is happening to this country...

 

+1

 

Respect the Constitution.

I though he was just studying here and not a citizen?

 

That petition is disgusting. He's still an American citizen, innocent until proven guilty, no matter what he's accused of.

 

He's not guilty until the jury issues a verdict, and even then, amputation is definitely cruel and unusual under the 8th.

 

I don't know what the heck is happening to this country...

I though he was just studying here and not a citizen?

 

Dzhokhar (apprehended) became a naturalized citizen on September 11, 2012, but Tamerlan (deceased) still held a green card because a 2009 domestic violence complaint was standing in his way.

I though he was just studying here and not a citizen?

 

What's the difference when it comes to punishment under the Constitution?

What part are we ignoring? The cruel part? Subjective. Certainly isn't unusual considering there are more than a dozen people in the same hospital as the suspect with the same type of injuries.

 

Right............

 

Even a sadistic pedophile (or should I say a person accused of sadistic sexual molestation) deserves the right to a fair trial. Once convicted then I say kill em. Not torture mind you. Just end it swiftly.

That petition is disgusting. He's still an American citizen, innocent until proven guilty, no matter what he's accused of.

Yeah, pretty sure it said "if found guilty in a court of law"

He's not guilty until the jury issues a verdict, and even then, amputation is definitely cruel and unusual under the 8th.

Cruel is subjective and it certainly isn't "unusual". It was an act of "jihad" which means holy war. Therefore it was an act of war. Amputation in the course of war isn't unusual at all, google "U.S. soldier amputees". What's the other option? A nice easy death penalty like being put to sleep? Or lock him up forever on our dime with no porn, no alcohol, only solitude so he can pray? I'm sure that will disappoint him. Make him earn his 72 virgins.

Why do people here hate the constitution? This 'fine for me but not for thee' view of due process and habeus corpus is troubling.

 

It seems the grabbers aren't the only ones with a consistency problem.

Cruel is subjective and it certainly isn't "unusual". It was an act of "jihad" which means holy war. Therefore it was an act of war. Amputation in the course of war isn't unusual at all, google "U.S. soldier amputees". What's the other option? A nice easy death penalty like being put to sleep? Or lock him up forever on our dime with no porn, no alcohol, only solitude so he can pray? I'm sure that will disappoint him. Make him earn his 72 virgins.

 

Amputation as a medical necessity is a far cry from amputation as a means of punishment. If he's found guilty of a capital punishment-worthy crime, then put him to the death. But if we turn into the same type of monster he is, we're no better than him.

 

He's an American citizen for crying out loud!

Last I checked this wasn't Hammurabi's law we had. I'm disturbed by the sentiment that we should cut off the leg of this man in the public square tomorrow. Screw the trial. That whole judicial process just opens itself up to potential acquittal. We can't have that. Just jump those unnecessary steps. Why, we could be JUST like Saudi or Iran. Wouldn't that be swell?

 

Until it is you or your family they are stringing up in the town square.

 

I will pass. It's bad enough we have court tv to act as judge jury and executioner.

 

We are lost.

Im not saying the guy is not guilty but they have failed to produce a video of either one dropping the bag and I highly doubt they will

I support the whole bill of rights.

 

This petition is petty and an emotional knee jerk reaction. The kind of thing we all hate every time it happens to our rights. I won't support denying his.

Cruel is subjective and it certainly isn't "unusual".

 

Well if it isn't unusual then it must be usual. If it is usual to amputate peoples legs as punishment for a crime in the US, you should have no problem citing an example of this usual punishment. However I know you cannot, because you are talking from your behind. Again.

 

It was an act of "jihad" which means holy war. Therefore it was an act of war. Amputation in the course of war isn't unusual at all, google "U.S. soldier amputees". What's the other option? A nice easy death penalty like being put to sleep? Or lock him up forever on our dime with no porn, no alcohol, only solitude so he can pray? I'm sure that will disappoint him. Make him earn his 72 virgins.

 

Ah, a digression to irrelevancies. It is one thing to say "I wish we could just do x, y and z", it is another thing to try and pretend like x, y, and z are in line with the Constitution. You would make a great politician with the garbage you have been saying.

Get what info we need out of him, put him on trial, if found guilty... Death

I know it's Saturday but sh*t, a few of you need to learn be a bit less lazy and actually read before you comment. No where does it say anything about punishing the suspect prior to having his day in court.

 

If you want to take issue with the punishment itself, so be it. I don't have a problem with it even with consideration of the 8th, because what is the threshold for usual vs unusual? The death penalty is actually kind of rare as a punishment and was actually outlawed by the Supreme Court at one time because of the 8th but now it is back. So for all you citing constitutional rights, bone up a little bit because it's obvious there is some leeway with the interpretation of the 8th. This isn't a knee jerk reaction at all. I've thought a good deal about crime and punishment and perhaps if we tilted the scales of justice a bit more towards the eye for an eye perps would think twice before committing some crimes. Because as it stands right now, punishment isn't much of a deterrent - at least not in its current form. I personally believe that lethal injection is a cake walk of a way out for some of these pieces of trash. So you kill multiple people, or torture someone, or rape children, etc and you just go night, night after 20 more years of appeals all on the tax payers dime. IMHO... fack that.

I know it's Saturday but sh*t, a few of you need to learn be a bit less lazy and actually read before you comment. No where does it say anything about punishing the suspect prior to having his day in court.

 

If you want to take issue with the punishment itself, so be it. I don't have a problem with it even with consideration of the 8th, because what is the threshold for usual vs unusual?

 

A good place to start would be both the actual laws, and case law. The Supreme Court has ruled on the 8th Amendment multiple times, and other federal courts have ruled on it a bunch.

 

So maybe the three-pronged approach to determining whether it is cruel and unusual as prescribed in People v. Almodovar. Garnett v. Coyle states that you cannot treat prisoners in a way to cause unnecessary pain contrary to current standards of decency. Do you still want to ramble on about how cutting off someones legs is constitutional?

 

The death penalty is actually kind of rare as a punishment and was actually outlawed by the Supreme Court at one time because of the 8th but now it is back. So for all you citing constitutional rights, bone up a little bit because it's obvious there is some leeway with the interpretation of the 8th.

 

So at one time capital punishment was deemed unconstitutional, but you think cutting off someones legs wouldn't be? You make me laugh.

 

This isn't a knee jerk reaction at all.

 

Well it might not be knee jerk, but it certainly is one of emotion and not logic.

 

I've thought a good deal about crime and punishment and perhaps if we tilted the scales of justice a bit more towards the eye for an eye perps would think twice before committing some crimes. Because as it stands right now, punishment isn't much of a deterrent - at least not in its current form. I personally believe that lethal injection is a cake walk of a way out for some of these pieces of trash. So you kill multiple people, or torture someone, or rape children, etc and you just go night, night after 20 more years of appeals all on the tax payers dime. IMHO... fack that.

 

We can all argue there are flaws in the system, but if your solution is an eye for an eye punishment system, you'd fit right in, in Saudi Arabia and Iran.

I know it's Saturday but sh*t, a few of you need to learn be a bit less lazy and actually read before you comment. No where does it say anything about punishing the suspect prior to having his day in court.

 

If you want to take issue with the punishment itself, so be it. I don't have a problem with it even with consideration of the 8th, because what is the threshold for usual vs unusual? The death penalty is actually kind of rare as a punishment and was actually outlawed by the Supreme Court at one time because of the 8th but now it is back. So for all you citing constitutional rights, bone up a little bit because it's obvious there is some leeway with the interpretation of the 8th.

 

If you'd have us 'bone up' on Con Law in order to address your posting you should afford us the same courtesy. As it stands, you're just making stuff up.

 

So here's how SCOTUS has defined cruel (J. Brennan writing for the majority in a 1972 case):

 

A punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity, especially torture.

A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion.

A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society.

A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary.

 

 

What's obviously implicit in this and prior rulings, though not directly addressed in Brennan's 4-part test, is that "Unusual" doesn't mean rarely used. It's a legal term which, for the purposes of constitutional analysis, means lacking precedent;, not established by "long usage"; and innovation.

 

Being "unusual" in and of itself does NOT make the punishment unconstitutional. Rather, it has to be both "unusual" and fail to 4-pronged cruelty test.

 

Amputation certainly lacks precedent and long usage as a punishment in our society. So it is "unusual".

I would also fail the third test, without doubt. I'd say it would 1 and 4 just as undoubtedly. As for #2, someone somewhere might be able to a cogent argument against its arbitrariness, but so what, it's already plainly unconstitutional on the other 3 cruelty tests, plus it's unusual.

 

So, no thanks. Preserving the amazing document that is our Bill of Rights far outweighs your or anyone else's desire for retribution*.

 

*I'm a big proponent of being armed for self-defense. I know that I wouldn't hesitate if the need arose. But revenge? That's not justice. Not by a long stretch.

Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” Romans 12:17-19

And if the Bible's not your cup of tea, no matter. The importance of justice in "Man's Law" is the more convincing argument anyway.

 

The text of the video I posted above:

 

 

Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

 

Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

 

Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

 

More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?

This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down (and you're just the man to do it!), do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?

Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

So basically you're going to argue my point that there has been wiggle room in how the 8th has been interpreted in the past by throwing a bunch of cases at me that show that during different eras in this countries history the citizens (by poll) and the courts have had different interpretations of just what constitutes cruel and unusual?

 

Any punishment not in existence or common usage lacks precedence so in my opinion that is patently ridiculous to assume there is no better way to punish. As for the 4 pronged approach to cruelty:

 

A punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity, especially torture.

Degrading? Not IMO. Not sure if they are listing torture as being degrading to human dignity but I don't consider it torture. I consider it punishment - the goal being punishment not torture for any other sake. You could argue locking someone in a cell for 24 hours a day or allowing prisoners to get anally raped and all the other sh*t that goes on in prisons to be torture but we overlook it.

 

A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion.

Arbitrary? Not quite, it's the same thing he inflicted on others.

 

A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society.

Can't speak to this, haven't taken a poll.

 

A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary.

Completely ridiculous test, we could blanket so many modern day punishments with this test.

 

Bottom line: We have different opinions. I don't see a problem with much harsher punishments if they are applied in a just manner. But if you want to live and die by the SCs current interpretation of the BoRs that's great. Enjoy not carrying in NJ! But maybe, if we are lucky, they will change that one day too...

Is it so hard to act like a civilized person? The author of that petition is as much of a savage as the people who dream of carrying out attacks. We should strive to be better.

 

Not even to mention the selective interpretation of the Constitution, which seems to enrage everyone here when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. Pretty hypocritical to ignore the other amendments in pursuit of your pathetic view of justice.