Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
58)."
It is interesting to note that this decision by the Supreme Court concerning the death penalty and individuals under the age of 18 would be consistent with the public opinion today that would find outrageous taking the life of a teenager. In this matter, the Court takes away the right of the state to decide the punishment, saying that the language of the Eighth Amendment as decided by the Court in the case cited above applies to young people who have erred in a horribly bad way, but should not be subjected to death.
Conclusion
It is the Supreme Court that is the final interpretation of the Constitution. To date, it holds that death by lethal injection is not contrary to the language of the Eighth Amendment, and that it rests with the states to impose or not to impose the death penalty. However, the court makes a distinction as to young offenders, whose crimes as adults might result in the imposition of the death by lethal injection penalty. This suggests that the Supreme Court holds out the punishment of adolescents as cruel and unusual when considering a punishment by death, lethal injection or otherwise. It does not hold out the same level of repulsion when considering women faced with the death penalty (O'Shea, 1999). The Supreme Court has not acted against executing women as it has with adolescents.
There are many arguments, pros and con, surrounding the death penalty, and as far as the history of penalties goes, perhaps death by lethal injection is the most humane way in which to institutionally destroy a human being. Finally, just because the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the states as concerns the death penalty and lethal injections, does mean that the individual justices all concur or do not have thoughts above and beyond the legalese.
The calculated killing of...
The vilest murder does not, in my view, release the state from constitutional restraint on the destruction of human dignity (O'Shea, 1999, p. 1)."
U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Brennan
As a society we might find death by lethal injection legal, but that does not mean that we find it morally comprehensible.
References
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5011221625
Adelman, S.E. (2005, August). Supreme Court Bans Death Penalty for Under-18 Offenders. Corrections Today, 67, 58+. Retrieved March 17, 2008, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5011221625
Bedau, H.A. & Cassell, P.G. (Eds.). (2004). Debating the Death Penalty: Should America Have Capital Punishment? The Experts on Both Sides Make Their Best Case. New York: Oxford University Press. Retrieved March 17, 2008, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=103178745
Brennan, J.J. (2004). The Supreme Court's Excessive Deference to Legislative Bodies under Eighth Amendment Sentencing Review. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 94(3), 551+. Retrieved March 17, 2008, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5006159038
Cornell University Law School (2008), United States Constitution, 2008, found online at: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentviii, retrieved 16 March 2008
Justice Learning (2008), found online at: http://www.justicelearning.org/justice_timeline/Amendments.aspx?id=8,retrieved 17 March 2008 http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24431885
O'Shea, K.A. (1999). Women and the Death Penalty in the United States, 1900-1998. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. Retrieved March 17, 2008, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24431885
Regardless of how heinous the murderer's crime is, the constitution stipulates that "cruel and unusual" punishment is illegal, and because the constitution is written with an assumption of equality, this suggests that the standard applies to everyone. Furthermore, Saunders and other pro-lethal injection lobbyists' opinion that lethal injection is not cruel due to the amount of anesthetic given are directly encountered by physical evidence, such as the burn marks
This has sparked many debates in social and political arenas in regards to personhood, self-determination and human autonomy. Any time a person wants to intentionally end his or her life, it is considered suicide. Suicide, in itself is now legal (Manning, 1998), but proponents of euthanasia argue that suicide may not be an option for the terminally ill, the hospitalized or physically disabled. These people may not have the strength
Right to Die For the last few decades, the issue of a person's right to choose the time and method of his or her own death has been one of passionate debate in the United States, with emotions running high on both sides of the controversy as the meanings of liberty and freedom of choice, the morality of taking one's own life, the ethics of people involved in such actions, and
Euthanasia Should Be Illegal Euthanasia is the act of putting to death painlessly or allowing death, as by withholding extreme medical measures, a person or animal suffering from an incurable, often painful, disease or condition (Euthanasia, Infoplease.com). Today, medical advances have made it possible to prolong life in patients with no hope of recovery, and the term negative euthanasia has arisen to classify the practice of withholding or withdrawing extraordinary
Assisted suicide is a suicide committed by someone with assistance from someone other than themselves, many times a Physician. Assisted suicide is typically delivered by lethal injection. The drugs are setup and provided to the patient and the patient has the choice as to when they deliver them by pressing a button themselves. This is a controversial topic that has both proponents and opponents for various the reasons. The most
The trial court was concerned with the State's lack of a written protocol specifying the chemicals and doses, the lack of consistency in its administration, the total discretion give to Dr. Doe I, and the lack of oversight over the doctor. The trial court fashioned a remedy that required the Department of Corrections to prepare a written protocol requiring the participation of a board-certified anesthesiologist, at least 5 grams