Death Penalty for something other than Murder?
 

Just curious, For the people who do believe that the Death Penalty is appropriate for at least some murders, do you believe that it is ever appropriate for something that doesn't lead to someone's death? I've gone back and forth on this for a couple of years and I'm interested in the opinions of others.

In individual cases, the death penalty is well deserved and fine. As policy, it's idiotic.

I vary on how I feel with the death penalty and have gone back and forth about it's purpose for years. Putting that aside, I do believe there are crimes that are almost as sinister as murder. Some rapes cases are more painful than murder as the damage was more. For example, a person was shot by an intruder vs a women who was beaten so horribly she is in the hospital for a month for her physical injuries not to mention the psychological damage.

I believe that kidnapping, treason, and espionage also have the death penalty, or they used to.

I'm all for it in cases of extreme child abuse and child molestation too.

I agree. I am also for it in cases where there is extreme torture of the victim but the victim ends up surviving.

Example.. Dave Pelzer (The man who wrote the autobiography, A Child Called It). In a case that extreme, the mother should have been given the death penalty, in my opinion.

Ariel Castro
 

I thought I'd bump this thread because Ariel Castro is about as good an example as I can come up with.

I remember some state, or multiple states (Texas and Louisiana come to mind for some reason....) that had some bills going through and/or passing their legislatures and being enacted as law, for making specific offenses of rape potentially eligible for the DP. In one of those states, the Supreme Court struck down the law as being unconstitutional.

Texas and Louisiana wouldn't surprise me. I expect Texas and Louisiana to either be the last states to eliminate the Death Penalty, the first to impose it for Littering or both.

Texas is on the verge of being a blue state with its growing Latino population and as far as being a red state, LA has zip on Oklahoma. For the past two presedential elections, every single one of our counties was red. Our Democrat Party is completely irrelevant.

Our two parties of importance are your Tea Party Republican kooks and your Chamber of Commerce (think ALEC) Republicans.

Yes, on growing Latino population, but that given the higher percentage of non-citizens and those below voting age among Latinos it will still be a while.

As best as I can tell from uselectionatlas.org, Kerry didn't take any in 2004 either. Gore did take nine counties in 2000 though. (Note this was without Nader, as far as I can tell Oklahoma has by far the toughest rules on getting a third-party candidate on the ballot)

Which of those two parties are winning and who do the Conservative Christian groups ally with?

Do you know what the rationale was for this? It seems like it would be considered Constitutional. The reason I say this is because we are all entitled to the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These rights can be revoked though if we break the law. (Jail =/= liberty). So, how is taking life different? Honestly curious or if there is a flaw in my thought process. :)

It violates the 8th amendement against cruel and unusual punishment. The SCOTUS, in making this decision, considers both the tide of the nation (which is moving, albeit slowly, away from the death penalty), and what is customary in other Western nations to determine what is "cruel and unusual".

Was it found completely unconstitutional or just in some cases?

My sister says that 'tacky' should be a capital offense.

My Grandmother would have added "common, parevenu, and nouveaux riche" to your list one dekeguy.