Tsarnaev guilty

[Saz]

It is legal, no doubt about that. But I don't think that's grounds to say it is objectively constitutional given that The Supreme Court has ruled it unconstitutional once, while it has never ruled it definitively unconstitutional as it exists today. I can't say it's objectively unconstitutional either though. However, as I noted, the standard here is to prove that a capital punishment scheme meets the prevailing standard, and since that hasn't been done by any state since 1995 (while it has failed in multiple states since then), I think the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the argument that capital punishment as applied today is firmly unconstitutional, and the only reason it has not been objectively proved so it because of the courts unwillingness to address the issue.

[exploited]

Or more likely the entire idea of objectivity is bunk, and can only be used to provide a veneer of legitimacy.

[Saz]

[eynon81]

[Saz]

I just don't see how this holds water, especially given what we already have established about how our justice system works. We don't punish rapists by raping them. We don't torture torturers. Why such cruel and barbaric acts seem to be acceptable with regard to murder is beyond me. In fact, we CANNOT rape or torture murderers because it would violate the 8th amendment, despite the fact that such actions are considered lesser offenses than taking a life.

[eynon81]

[fstarcstar]

I wonder what the little boy who was killed would say

[Saz]

[The Comrade]

nothing because his pharynx rotted away a long time ago

[eynon81]

those last 3 posts were terrible.