Whistleblower hotline: (213) 785-6098

Friday, December 15, 2006

California's Lethal Injection Declared Unconstitutional

But of course! Why not? Makes perfect sense, doesn't it?
Clearly the Founding Fathers, who used the rope method, would consider it cruel and unusual to put murderers to sleep with a shot.
The only method left is to subject them to "easy listening" music until they envy the dead.

Read the latest sign of the collapse of Western Civilization here: http://www.nbc4.tv/news/10548112/detail.html?treets=la&tml=la_break&ts=T&tmi=la_break_1_04140112152006


Blogger joseph mailander said:

Some states used the rope method for the "crimes" of stealing slaves, sodomy, and other things we wouldn't think of punishing harshly today, if at all. Jefferson always tried to roll punishment back, and the very phrase "cruel and unusual" is revolutionary and enlightened. Making people suffer in death is not enlightened. Your founders' intent argument is a red herring.

December 15, 2006 3:17 PM  

Blogger Walter Moore said:

You're never going to pass the Con Law final like that, young man.

As for slavery, the constitution was AMENDED to prohibit it. The constitution has not been amended to ban the death pealty. Judges did not simply decide that the constitution, as previously worded, suddenly prohibited slavery.

As for sodomy, the constitution does not address it one way or the other.

You have confused a legal argument, namely, whether the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment forbids states from using lethal injection, a method much gentler than those commonly used for centuries, with a policy argument, namely, whether we should put murderers to death.

I've seen the same kind of "reasoning" in the abortion debate: people fail to separate the purely legal question (does the Constitution prohibit states from allowing abortions?) with the policy question (should states allow abortions?).

December 15, 2006 4:01 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

The constitution might not have been amended to prohibit the death penalty, but it SHOULD be.

December 15, 2006 4:28 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Friends its a death penalty, a verdict taken by the court and jury who actually are never present on the scene of the crime, yet depending on their "so called" owledge, experience and the "so called" available facts the final verdict is given.

"Death Penalty" in itself is a cruel verdict, how cruel can the law or constitution can get more in this matter?

December 15, 2006 5:40 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Is this thread going "EURO" ? We in this state voted to overturn ACTIVIST JUDGES like Rose Bird. leave it to the "NINTH CIRCUS" to overturn a democratic process. it is time to take this case to the Supreme Court so that the ninth circus can be slapped again


December 15, 2006 6:13 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Nice to read more of that cogent Moore logic.

Walter, I think you said in a prior thread that you would be scouting possible greener pastures this month. Oh well, guess I'll have to get used to the grammatically challenged Zuma Dogg.

December 15, 2006 6:14 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

I consider myself a liberal - except on capital punishment. How did the murderer's victim(s) suffer - was that not cruel and unusual? On this one, I go with an 'eye for an eye'.

December 15, 2006 7:56 PM  

Blogger Walter Moore said:

I have no problem with someone arguing for or against the death penalty, or for or against amending the constitution. Reasonable minds can differ on that.

I just want us all to be precise and logical in discussing it, and not muddle discussions of what the law is, on the one hand, with what it should be, on the other.

Also, if there were some kind of great pizza with no calories, that would be nice.

Merry Christmas and happy New Year, y'all. I'm beginning my scouting mission to France. Au revoir.

December 16, 2006 8:25 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

>>Merry Christmas and happy New Year, y'all. I'm beginning my scouting mission to France. Au revoir.

France?? Now there's a place with more problems than Los Angeles.

December 16, 2006 3:11 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Viva le Charlie le Tuna!

December 17, 2006 1:38 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home