Nathan Nguyen

Ms. Oberg

English 11

2 October 2016

Constitutionality of the Death Penalty

The death penalty has been around for ages. It has been used for only the most

extreme cases such as mass murder or other tragic crimes. Though it wasnt such a

controversial topic in the eighteenth century, jump to present day where many states are

wondering if the death penalty is constitutional due to its cruel and unusual

punishments.Time magazine's The Death of the Death Penalty, by David Von Drehle

and procons.org, shows how the death penalty is very confusing topic in the states of

whether to abolish it or not due to manys belief of unconstitutionality.The death penalty

in my opinion is unconstitutional due to the fact that it breaks many amendments, such

as the Fifth amendment, the Eighth amendment, and the Fourteenth amendment with

its cruelty and painfulness of the action and other reasons.

The death penalty is probably one of the most questionable actions the U.S. has

committed. The reason people think the topic is unconstitutional is because the way

they perform the actions is just downright cruel. There are many ways to do the death

penalty that show this, one way being making rooms full of witnesses shifting miserably

as many unconscious men are gasping and snorting as they are strapped to a gurney (2

Drehle). Doesnt that kind of affect the constitutionality of the action since they are

committing cruel and unusual punishments? O r how they are using lethal injections,

saying that its a superior alternative to electrocution? (2 Drehle) How is it any better?
Though the process is different it doesnt change the fact that they are killing someone

because they killed someone!

Many people believe that this act breaks the amendments V(nor shall be

compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life,

liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for

public use, without just compensation), VIII(Cruel and unusual punishments), and

XIV(defining national citizenship and forbidding the states to restrict the basic rights of

citizens or other persons). Many people like Jed S. Rakoff, a US District Judge in the

Southern District of New York. Believes that it breaks the fifth amendment because it

convicts too many innocent people and that there is no time for their 1exoneration,

denies them their due process, and state sponsored human murder (Procon.org).

People also believe that it breaks the 8th amendment like William J. Brennan, a Justice

of the US Supreme Court. "Death is not only an unusually severe punishment, unusual

in its pain, in its finality, and in its enormity, but it serves no penal purpose more

effectively than a less severe punishment... The fatal constitutional infirmity in the

punishment of death is that it treats 'members of the human race as nonhumans, as

objects to be toyed with and discarded. (Procon.org). This is a very debatable topic

because of some of the methods they use and how effective they are, such as lethal

injection, if they mess up the dosage the process of killing someone with it could take

hours. Some methods are better effective than others like the firing squad where they

have a whole squad shoot one man but only one of them is shooting. Its still cruel to kill

a man to kill because he killed people, doesnt that sound more like an act of revenge

than an act of justice?

1 the action of officially absolving someone from blame; vindication

Others think the opposite, some people like William D. Richardson, PhD, Chair of the

Department of Political Science at the University of South Dakota; evidence that the

Founders inherently supported the death penalty... If a person can never be deprived of

life by the state, why is the clause 'without due process of law' necessary?... By

including a phrase that allowed for the possibility that citizens might be denied their life,

liberty, or property if certain procedural safeguards were in place (Procon.org). Saying

that the fifth amendment is not being broken due to what the Founders wrote how they

support it, they are denying that people are receiving any cruel or unusual punishment.

Saying its constitutional. Many other people agree that its constitutional and doesnt

affect the amendments. Like In Trop v. Dulles (decided Mar. 31, 1958), the US Supreme

Court Fines, imprisonment and even execution may be imposed depending upon the

enormity of the crime, but any technique outside the bounds of these traditional

penalties is constitutionally suspect (Procon.org). Saying that any method they do is

constitutional depending on what crime they shall commit. But even if the crime is huge

its just that there is no method that counts as humane anyways. Lethal injection is not

humane because you deliberately trying to stop someones heart, electrocution is just

cruel, shooting squad is just terrible thinking about that, so many ways they used to kill

people just sounds more like revenge than an act of justice.

The death penalty should be abolished because of these many reason and more.

Its an inefficient system that has since been backed up due to the sheer lack of

conductivity due to many money constraints, many inmates awaiting appeal, also how

this is system is one of the most unconstitutional due to the fact that is a cruel and

unusual punishment no matter how they conducted even if they say its more of
humane way of putting it. Saying that they are doing a lesser punishment to make it

constitutional does not mean that it is. Any method they commit is a cruel or unusual

punishment because they are literally killing human beings and denying them, acting as

though they are inhumane. Breaking the the XIV amendment which states Nor shall

any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

Works Cited

Drehle, David Von. The Death of the Death Penalty Time magazine. Web.

Procon.org Is the death penalty unconstitutional? Procon.org. Web.