I get the impulse, I often feel like we should tie up all these WEF murderers and inject them with MRNA shot after shot until they flat line. But, it goes beyond any individual punishment, while people need to be held to account for their actions to the very end, that doesn't mean we can't find some measure of forgiveness, even under the death penalty. Further, its worth considering the implications of suspending the 8th amendment just because we find it convenient; protecting the rights of those we hate the most is a heavy but necessary responsibility for a society that seeks to protect the rights of all, the majority doesn't usually find themselves in needs of rights because they tend to hold the power.
Discussion
The 8th amendment doesn't restrict the death penalty, which was the remedy for all serious crimes when the 8th was ratified and remained so for decades
True, the 8th Amendment restricts "cruel and unusual punishment." But if society progressed enough to consider the death penalty cruel and unusual then might that make it unconstitutional? According to those who go by the "living Constitution," not the originalists?
I am not one.
If you would ascertain the meaning of legal documents in popular opinion rather than legal history, any US Amendment (or statute) might well outlaw or make mandatory any act.
The US Constitution references procedures for dealing with capital crimes, so it would be strange to inadvertently outlaw such procedures.
If memory serves me right, the Omnipotent Court-- I mean the Supreme Court--banned the death penalty in the past, unconstitutionally in my opinion, and this article even mentions the possibility of them doing that if it weren't for the current 6-3 conservative majority on the court.
I don't believe in the "living Constitution" either, but many in America do and accept the Supreme Court as our permanently-sitting, unelected constitutional convention...
Any court, even SCOTUS, operates in the long run by force of persuasion. Nonsensical decisions are sooner or later forgotten.
I think its possible, and I might consider such it preferable, but for it to be done right it would have to come as an advancement in common law. So if not having the death penalty was established throughout the land on say, a state by state basis, and it enjoyed widespread public support in those areas, and the logic and moral frameworks were robust enough to withstand criticisms, then it would be so.
As it stands, this isn't the case, many consider the death penalty to be right, and they have formidable arguments in its favor. I don't agree, I am not a fan of the death penalty, but I am against imposing a ban without establishing it as common law first.
I certainly agree that even the most heinous of criminals should be forgiven, but that that doesn't necessarily free them from the consequences of their actions. Does loving our enemies mean that we should not execute them either, even if it is in retribution for murder? The Bible does say that vengeance belongs to God...
I am opposed to executions by the state, in part because I oppose the State's existence, but I haven't ruled out justice being administered by private means in a voluntarist society (perhaps my views are still too primitive to rule out any death penalty 😄).
I definitely agree that forgiving someone doesn't absolve them of the consequences of their actions, under a system that has a death penalty, then that sentence would still apply. I don't know if we should have a death penalty or not (philosophically), under our current circumstances I think that should be up to the states, with the federal government ensuring that where it does happen it is done with respect to the convictees rights. Its hard to speculate how this applies in a stateless society.