• Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    85
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    Regardless of the method of execution, imagine knowing the exact date and time of your death and knowing nothing you could do would stop it. That is torture, plain and simple. It should be in violation of the eighth amendment.

    • Chozo@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      68
      ·
      2 months ago

      Consider Japan, who does it differently. Death row inmates in Japan are not told their execution dates, as they had issues with people committing suicide before they could be executed. So now they only find out with just a few hours of notice when they’re going to be executed. You could be sitting in your cell, ten years into your sentence, enjoying an otherwise ordinary, quiet day in prison, only to be told that it’s time to die, whether you’re ready for it or not, the equipment and staff are already prepared and there’s no time left to argue your case.

      Honestly, I don’t know which one is “better”. They’re both cruel in their own ways.

    • PineRune@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      It’s been ruled that a punishment needs to be BOTH cruel AND unusual, to qualify as a violation. One or the other is fine, as long as it’s not both. Scalping someone for petty theft would be okay as long as most-everyone convicted got scalped.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        In this specific case, I wouldn’t call it usual and it certainly is cruel.

        I would also argue that, since it is not applied evenly in any way and that only a minority of people get the death penalty, even though some people who don’t get it have committed worse crimes, it is always unusual. Usual is prison for some length of time, possibly life.

        I would also add that SCOTUS found it both cruel and unusual at one point.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furman_v._Georgia

        Then it was reinstated in Gregg v. Georgia because SCOTUS claimed that some states met some arbitrary criteria they didn’t actually meet.