Nope. I don't see anything cruel or unusual about executing a person who is convicted of an aggravated first-degree murder. The method may be, but not the actual practice. The only reason I give any credence to anti-death penalty arguments are that (1) proportionally more blacks and Hispanics get the death penalty than whites even when convicted for the same crimes; and (2) due to mandatory appeals, the death penalty actually costs more than life in prison. Consequently, I think that the actual practical application of the death penalty is unjust and inefficient. Some have even argued that state-sanctioned killing in the form of the death penalty would increase, not decrease, homicides. People are more willing to kill because the perceived ability to justify a death for reasons of justice, equity, or preservation of society. I'm not sure how true that is, but the argument is worth considering.

The Constitution expressly contemplates the existence of a valid death penalty. For example, it provides that neither the federal government nor any state shall deprive anyone of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. See the 5th and 14th amendments. So, stated another way, the federal government or a state may deprive someone of life WITH due process of law.

Silly disingenuous liberals construe the Constitution to prohibit what its text permits. How stupid. And we have the crime rate we do as a consequence.

Beg to differ from most respondents. I think we can agree that killing people is a cruel thing to do. You may *want* to be cruel to them after whatever it was they did, sure, but it's cruel.

As for unusual, sure it is. Don't know of another civilised country that slaughters its own citizens with the abandon that the US does. In fact hardly any of them have the death penalty at all, and those that do just about never use it. So yes, it's certainly very unusual.

So it's clearly a cruel and unusual punishment!

You lose most of your rights when you go to jail, and Death Penalty just states that they will be exacuted, to tell them alone that they will die on a certain date, might infringe on that Amendment, but they state it in court with multiple witnesses, so it isn't. That Amendment was to prevent torture on citizens, whether arrested or not.

Unfortunately, that line has been used in multiple challenges with the Supreme Court. They always reject it, unless it is for a "more humane" way of killing someone. Like they struck down the gas chamber for the electric chair and then those for lethal injection.

not at all. killing many people you, getting the same punishment that INNOCENT people got is not cruel nor unusual.

at all

want to talk about un constitutional, look at all the laws obama has been passing

Yes, YOUR NAME is mentioned in The Constitution and things YOU think are cruel are forbidden.

So we'll start hiding the fact that they've even been sentenced to death. Then one random day BLAM!! Bullet to the head. problem solved

nope. It's up to the States.But liberals support abortion that suck babies out in pieces and think that's cool.

no, sometimes it is a perfectly appropriate punishment