Cruel And Unusual Punishment v. Price Of Criminal Actions

When the Constitutionality of the death penalty is challenged under the no cruel and unusual punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment it makes me laugh. It does that because the Fifth Amendment, with the words “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” clearly states you can take a person’s life as long as their has been due process of law. The Fifth Amendment also states that you can deprive a person of life and limb as long as you don’t try them twice for the same crime. That is what the words “twice put in jeopardy of life or limb” clearly indicate. So the Defense Attorneys want us to believe that we can constitutionally cut off someone’s hand but not inject them with drugs meant to kill them as painlessly as possible.

Would someone please explain to me how you can “deprive a person of life” without putting them to death. So if you are using the most painless method available to carry out a constitutional penalty of law how can you logically be using cruel and unusual punishment.

The Supreme Court knows this and yet they are willing to hear such an absurd case. That is scary. The court is hearing a case that should never even have made it into a lower court. I hypotheses that the only reason the federal court is really listening to this is that they are bowing to pressure from the United Nations. The UN has been known to pressure other countries and I see no reason to believe that we are not also so pressured. The ACLU is NGO that speaks as the mouthpiece of the United Nations and they voice a radical anarchist view of human rights. Anarchist believe that there is no justification for the government to take a human life.

We have six known anarchist on the supreme court but at least two are not extremist. Of those two Sandra Day O’Connor will probably be retired by the time. Evidence is that the two “moderate” anarchist will decide for the death penalty as happened in the case of Marvin Bieghler.