In the landmark case of Furman v.


Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in /var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1043

Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in /var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1043

Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in /var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1043

In the landmark case of Furman v. Georgia (1972) the Supreme Court ordered states to suspend the use of capital punishment until sentencing guidelines were improved upon. The case originated when a mentally disturbed black man named William Furman committed a home invasion in Savannah, Georgia in 1967. Although his intent had merely been to rob, he accidentally shot the owner of the home while fleeing, resulting in his death. Furman was charged with 1st degree murder and sentenced to death after a one day trial.

The Court consolidated Furman with two other cases, Jackson v. Georgia and Branch v. Texas, and in a contentious ruling voted 5-4 that capital punishment as currently used by the states infringed on the 8th and 14th Amendments. No proper opinion was written concerning the case, merely a one paragraph summary about the death penalty's non-constitutionality. Justices Douglas, Stewart, and Brennan wrote that death penalty statutes were applied "arbitrarily" and often showed a strong racial bias against black men, particularly in the South. Such deliberate racial bias would violate the Equal Protection Clause, however, Stewart wrote that racial bias in sentencing could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Instead he argued that the arbitrary use of capital punishment was injust and immoral.

Justices Brennan and Marshall believed capital punishment was a vestige of a ruder time and did not belong in the more enlightened modern age. The latter also felt that it was too likely for innocent persons to be wrongfully executed.

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Justices Burger, Powell, Blackmun, and Rehnquist dissented. At the time 40 states as well as the Federal government allowed capital punishment, thus their colleagues' argument that it was a vestige of a ruder time did not hold water. All four justices personally disagreed with the use of capital punishment and felt it should be abolished, but that it clearly was not prohibited by the Constitution. Burger wrote that the constitutionality of capital punishment had never been doubted in all of the preceding 180 years.

    As a result of the ruling, all outstanding death sentences in the US were commuted to life in prison. Four years later, in Gregg v. Georgia, the Court re-allowed capital punishment, having been satisfied that the states had rewritten their sentencing guidelines. This included the abolition of capital punishment for rape and any other offenses that did not consist of first degree murder. The last executions in the US for non-first degree murder offenses occurred in Missouri in 1964 (rape) and Alabama in 1965 (armed robbery) both involving white offenders.

    The first person executed after Gregg v. Georgia was convicted serial killer Gary Gilmore, put to death via firing squad by the state of Utah on January 17, 1977.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I can't imagine campaigning to end the execution of rapists and then claiming the moral high ground.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >All four justices personally disagreed with the use of capital punishment and felt it should be abolished, but that it clearly was not prohibited by the Constitution.
      Based beyond belief.

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Although his intent had merely been to rob, he accidentally shot the owner of the home while fleeing
    How does that work? He dropped the gun, slipped, his foot hit the trigger and the gun was angled in such a way that the bullet killed the homeowner?

    It doesn't look like you're copypasting this shit from a book OP, why do you go to these lengths to downplay the crimes committed by the blacks involved?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      He’s been doing it literally every day for years.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The homeowner called him the N word.

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >he accidentally shot the owner of the home while fleeing
    Yeah fucking right. "Oops, I accidentally pointed my gun at the guy chasing me and pulled the trigger"

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >police look for random black guy to frame
      >"We got 'em boys, send 'em upstate to the chair"

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        no one has ever done that but
        statically speaking if we were to randomly execute blacks we would end up killing more murderers than we do now.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        A black man could rape and murder your entire family and you'd still say they're innocent and le heckin framed because that's the retarded fairy tale world you live in, where blacks aren't the leading cause of rape and murder in the country for fucking centuries now

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The Warren Court was the end of this country as we know it.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      It was the Burger court that did this. I agree, though.

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Fun fact: since the decision turned on capricious application of the death penalty, several states responded by making the death penalty mandatory.

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Kennedy v. Louisiana was by far much worse.

    >executing a rapist is unconstitutional because most of the states don't do it

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I don't understand the opposition to the death penalty. You never see these people argue against sentencing people to life in prison, yet the outcome is the same. If anything, life in prison is far worse, as it's basically execution by slow torture, waiting for the conditions of living in a prison cell to gradually degrade the inmate's health until he dies.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      With life in prison there's always the possibility - however remote - that some local "activists" try to reopen the case and make it look like a bunch of incompetent, lazy Keystone Cops railroaded an innocent suspect into confessing for a crime they (ostensibly) didn't commit.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I'm not really opposed to capital punishment morally, but my opposition is that we know wrongful convictions do happen, and the death penalty isn't a meaningfully higher deterrent than lwop to justify that risk. I also think the bizarre and exotic "humane" execution methods we use are such a fucking joke. Read up on how high the botch rate for lethal injection is. People being executed frequently have a history of intravenous drug use, so it can be hard to get a vein. If they fuck it up the meds are introduced into muscle, making death slow and painful. This is supposed to be less cruel than just hanging people? Just unbelievable.

      Also I think it's problematic because a lot of people are opposed to it morally. Not really because I agree with them, but because it means every person on death row becomes a cause, and will be remembered by many as a victim of a barbaric system, rather than for how they victimized others. They should just rot in obscurity on an lwop sentence.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >death penalty isn't a meaningfully higher deterrent than lwop to justify that risk.
        Its not just about being a deterrent, though that is the case some times. Mostly its about swift punishment, making the victims family content, saving resources and not clogging up the legal system. That being said, I cannot whole heartedly agree with it because you have shit like Ahmaud Arberies case where, because of media interference and political pressure (as well as threats to riot) the judge sent 3 people to prison for making a lawful citizens arrest.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          The "swift punishment" argument is a misconception. The average time a person spends on death row before execution is 17 years.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Which needs to be changed. Usually when the word "death penalty" comes to mind, its rather swift. Firing squad, electric chair, hanging. not 17 years of waiting for death.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              the problem is that when you start factoring wrongful terminations into the equation then it becomes cheaper to house the inmate for life than it is to pay off the civil lawsuits that families inevitably file when they find out the state murdered their innocent family member.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              It's also wrong to think it's somehow saving taxpayers money. The amount of capital murders that happen each year is a tiny drop in the bucket compared to the overall prison population. Only a few hundred people each year are convicted of death penalty eligible crimes. Also capital murder trials are more expensive to the taxpayer than keeping someone in prison for 25+ years because of all the guaranteed appeals they receive, and the trials pull out all the stops.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >Guy wrongly convicted
              >No appeals
              >Executed a week after conviction
              >Later discovered he’s innocent or there was such a breach of ethics that the trial should have been called a mistrial
              >Whoops

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                In an ideal world its significantly better than what we have now where a multitude of criminals (often violent ones) are being let out due to activism, or the state just isn't prosecuting them (like Cali), which causes other peoples lives to be ruined. Again, I do not trust the government or even the local counties to make hard decisions like that seeing as they capitulate at the slightest amount of activism/harsh criticism, but I would trust a smaller, close knit community to do so. The current judicial system is so bloated and ineffective, it may as well not be there. It also has a habit of punishing victims as compared to the actual law breakers.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Which needs to be changed. Usually when the word "death penalty" comes to mind, its rather swift. Firing squad, electric chair, hanging. not 17 years of waiting for death.

            It's also wrong to think it's somehow saving taxpayers money. The amount of capital murders that happen each year is a tiny drop in the bucket compared to the overall prison population. Only a few hundred people each year are convicted of death penalty eligible crimes. Also capital murder trials are more expensive to the taxpayer than keeping someone in prison for 25+ years because of all the guaranteed appeals they receive, and the trials pull out all the stops.

            These are all reasons why the criminal justice system has made capital punishment unjust through judicial activism, not reasons for capital punishment itself to be considered unjust. I doubt capital punishment is going to come back in full swing, but if our reason for ending capital punishment is that it takes 17 years to execute a felon duly convicted of a heinous crime, then we're giving in to what I'd consider judicial terrorism.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Ahmaud Arberies case where, because of media interference and political pressure (as well as threats to riot) the judge sent 3 people to prison for making a lawful citizens arrest

          >nooo i only lynched him with a shotgun after a supposed crime which never happened, on another person's property
          >it was hecking lawful, why are you putting me in prison, fucking israeli press!!!

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >not a single argument
            >gets the facts wrong
            Why are anti-Whites so stupid? Lazy or just low IQ

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Why are you offended by killers getting convicted and imprisoned after due process?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >meaningfully higher deterrent
        It absolutely would be, if felons were executed after sentencing.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          There's no conclusive evidence that the death penalty is a deterrent, or that it affects crime at all.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >life in prison is far worse, as it's basically execution by slow torture, waiting for the conditions of living in a prison cell to gradually degrade the inmate's health until he dies
      Usually they're not the people advocating for prison conditions that constitute a slow death by torture.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >waiting for the conditions of living in a prison cell to gradually degrade the inmate's health until he dies.
      where the fuck is this true?
      do shitlibs really think people just degrade like that?
      how do people become significantly fitter in prison if its just degrading them?
      how do they become more fit in solitary?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        His reasoning is wonky but not totally incorrect. Killing prisoners releases them from their suffering and puts them at peace where a life sentence forces them to spend decades in a deprived state with little to do but sit there thinking about what they did and coming to terms with the magnitude of their crimes over the course of the rest of their miserable life before finally meeting their maker. The whole thing about saving society money through executions is counter productive when the legal fees necessary to kill a man are insane and prisoners can be put to work and fed for pennies on the dollar

        It's also not that they necessarily physically degrade, although that whole thing about people getting jacked in prison is 90% a television meme when what happens far more regularly is that prisoners get flabby because there's fuck all to do but watch G rated television and load up on sugary junk food from the commissary, and the CO's like it more that way because fattie boomboom inmates with shit diets are less likely to be aggressive and riot. The degredation is mental *especially* in solitary confinement, in an age of smart phones its not often easy for us to appreciate just how corrosive boredom can be especially for long stretches of time. A person subjected to prison conditions for long enough institutionalizes and they end up in a helpless, childlike state where they need someone telling them what to do at all times or they get disoriented

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >little to do but sit and think
          no?
          They work out, they develop manhood, in a way prison is the place where the most gentlemen are made because it is a culture of violent thugs, and they realize respect and "honor" is the way you stay alive in that type of system. Respect the other gang, respect your own gang, respect yourself, this sort of mentality is optional but very common.
          >counter productive
          >you have been found guilty of murder beyond all doubt
          >kill him

          >is 90% a television meme
          its not, not even remotely, the vast majority do become more fit just by the nature of prison culture, and many reach peak physical condition. You can tell who is lazy and who isnt, who is self destructive and who isnt.
          >how corrosive boredom can be
          nope
          Boredom is not something which persists in people who dont have their dopamine receptors fried.

          (You) should go spend a month in the wilderness, and see how bored you are when you get back and sit in a quiet room for 12 hours.
          boredom is much more common in the average zoomutt iphoner.
          also
          >boredom
          >AHHH IM GOING INSANE
          give us a fucking break

          >institutionalized into a helpless childlike state
          this almost never happens, more people become college athlete tier than regress into babby state
          >they need to the system to function
          well no, but they become accustomed and familiar to the system, and they will feel disoriented without it, but they dont become basket cases, they either regress into criminals which happens often with blacks, or they become more 'zen like' more focused on the little things in life, which is psychologically a good thing, and they do this because in prison very little is under your direct control.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >They work out, they develop manhood, in a way prison is the place where the most gentlemen are made because it is a culture of violent thugs, and they realize respect and "honor" is the way you stay alive in that type of system. Respect the other gang, respect your own gang, respect yourself, this sort of mentality is optional but very common.
            That's television horseshit. People form gangs because they're smuggling narcotics into the prison and need to protect their assets and enforce payment obligations. Hyper aggressive thugs who are in the slammer for shit like armed robbery only constitute a small portion of the prison population, most are nonviolent offenders in there for shit like grand theft auto. Jails are unironically more violent places than prisons because people are in and out and pecking orders need to be reestablished

            > the vast majority do become more fit just by the nature of prison culture
            No the vast majority become flabby because they're sitting on their ass for 16-20 hours a day and their diets are dogshit and spending an hour playing basketball isn't going to change that

            >(You) should go spend a month in the wilderness, and see how bored you are when you get back and sit in a quiet room for 12 hours.
            wilderness survival is the ultimate expression of individual will, of course it's stimulating because you're surviving by the sweat of your own brow and every decision to be made is your own to make. That's a lot different than sitting in a GHU watching Bonanza re-runs for months on end because there's only one TV and you have to watch whatever the CO feels like watching

            >this almost never happens, more people become college athlete tier than regress into babby state
            No that's more television horseshit. College athletes have access to state of the art training facilities and world class diets and are always going to out preform some guy doing push ups in his cell and eating baloney sandwiches for lunch

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            you are literally retarded

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      state executions are security theater. The stated reason of having them to deter crime simply doesn't pan out in the criminal record, what they're really for is placating the anxieties of vindictive normies about sharing a society with crooks by showing them that the state is strong enough to kill them

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >You never see these people argue against sentencing people to life in prison
      Maybe not in America, but there are a couple of the northern European countries where they've also done away with excessively long prison sentences as well, and even something particularly heinous like premeditated murder can't get you a life sentence.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Guy wrongly convicted
      >Sentenced to life in prison
      >Release and compensate him

      >Guy wrongly convicted
      >Sentenced to death
      >Whoops

      Also there isn’t really an argument for the death penalty, there is zero indication that it “intimidates” criminals and lowers crime rates nor is it inherently more just, only serving to sate a vengeful bloodlust.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >only serving to sate a vengeful bloodlust
        Yes. Retribution is a valid reason to punish.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Not in civilized societies. Punishment's primary utility is to demonstrate the importance of laws and to preempt vigilantism, and it must be balanced by containment and (where possible) rehabilitation.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Not in civilized societies.
            Disagree. The limpwristed homosexualry of the current judicial system is failing, so I would much rather see a harder stance taken. Flogging, public executions and the works.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Which country are you in? Sweden? If so you might have an argument. Not in the US, which in general has a harsher, more punitive judicial system than other wealthy countries.

              >preempt vigilantism
              …which is accomplished by retribution because people feel that the state will achieve justice for them or their family members. If you were raped by someone as a child and then 15 years see them walking down the street next to your kid's school, would you think that the life with the possibility of parole after 15 years sentence he served, which carefully weighed incapacitation and rehabilitation and allowed him parole after years as a remorseful model prisoner, will stop vigilantism?

              In my opinion, crimes for which the death penalty is actually justified are rare but there are some which are so heinous which exceed this threshold.

              Retribution as a primary goal risks crowding out the other aspects of justice and becoming a purpose in itself. I'd agree that it does have a place in punishing the most atrocious crimes though.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Retribution as a primary goal
                Never said it should be. It's simply the justification in upgrading a sentence from life without parole to death, both of which accomplish other penological purposes equally.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                The US. States are honest to god too wimpy to deal with repeat offenders to crimes, and often times punish people defending themselves more often than the people commiting the crime. Its absurd.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >preempt vigilantism
            …which is accomplished by retribution because people feel that the state will achieve justice for them or their family members. If you were raped by someone as a child and then 15 years see them walking down the street next to your kid's school, would you think that the life with the possibility of parole after 15 years sentence he served, which carefully weighed incapacitation and rehabilitation and allowed him parole after years as a remorseful model prisoner, will stop vigilantism?

            In my opinion, crimes for which the death penalty is actually justified are rare but there are some which are so heinous which exceed this threshold.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Doesn't work that way. The falsely convicted are about 100x more likely to be exonerated on death row than with a life sentence

        Not in civilized societies. Punishment's primary utility is to demonstrate the importance of laws and to preempt vigilantism, and it must be balanced by containment and (where possible) rehabilitation.

        Death penalty is the ultimate form of containment.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >The falsely convicted are about 100x more likely to be exonerated on death row than with a life sentence
          Probably because it's known they're potentially facing a wrongful death.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, and they wouldn't get that attention if they were just locked away in a cell waiting to to be executed by their own failing bodies instead of a guy with a syringe.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Except they do, thanks to groups like the Innocence Project. Death row inmates just get more attention because they're facing certain death.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah, 100 times more attention apparently. Did you watch the video?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Who cares the death penalty is the reason whites have low crime rates they snuffed out most of their genetic low IQ psychos leaving the high IQ ones like serial killers being the cancer in white societies

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >capital punishment was a vestige of a ruder time and did not belong in the more enlightened modern age
    Yes, our enlightened Nigocracy.

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >1970s
    >Guilty killers can no longer be put to death
    >innocent people who haven't even been born can be slaughtered in the womb
    Clown decade

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    LBJfag and TulsaTranny are at least two posters with distinct posting styles.

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Kennedy v. Louisiana
    >executing child rapists is unconstitutional because...well there's not really anything in the Constitution to that effect but most of the states don't do it so therefore it must be cruel and unusual punishment XD

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      8th Amendment originalism leads to absolutely insane conclusions, since in 1789 a 7 year old could be executed for stealing $50. That's not just a "ha, gotcha" historical fact—Thomas actually cites this in some of his dissenting opinions. Basing constitutional interpretation off of societies current standards is the only logically consistent way for many constitutional rights to be applied going into the future, which is why that's been the main standard the court adopted for outright banning certain punishments. If anything the founders intentionally left rights somewhat undefined so that future generations would not feel the need to rigorously adhere to exactly what they wanted.

      Of course reformists go the other way and impose their personal moral considerations, which is fundamentally opposed to the supreme court's purpose.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        the 8th Amendment was pretty clearly meant to ban old-timey punishments like the king ordering your limbs tied to horses and pulled apart slowly. "cruel and unusual punishment" has a pretty straightforward meaning (ie. literal judicial torture).

        >Of course reformists go the other way and impose their personal moral considerations
        as cf.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Deferring absolutely to original intent is questionable in most cases and leads to insane conclusions for the 8th Amendment in particular. Looking at society's standards is the middle ground and generally leads to good conclusions (when the court actually does this).

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Let's be honest and get to the truth that Furman was rule by judicial fiat. It's not as if people democratically decided one day that they were going to abolish capital punishment for rape, the Berger Court basically forced it on them. That anon can ramble about evolving social standards all he wants, but in the end it was just William O. Douglas imposing his leftist cuck "the criminal has more rights than his victim" standards on the rest of the country.

          Now maybe they'd have passed a constitutional amendment that you can't execute people for anything outside first degree murder but that wasn't exactly done here, was it?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            given the public reaction to Kennedy v. Louisiana I'd say a whole lot of people very much did believe in executing child rapists.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Now maybe they'd have passed a constitutional amendment that you can't execute people for anything outside first degree murder
            Literally the exact semantic debate that Hamilton predicted when he argued against the Bill of Rights being added. Originalism's main problem is that there's nothing to suggest that it's how the founders wanted the Constitution to be interpreted.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >Originalism's main problem is that there's nothing to suggest that it's how the founders wanted the Constitution to be interpreted.
              In some cases. The 1st Amendment is slightly vague for instance and none of the Founders really elaborated much on it. So that has been a little open to debate and led to things like the fire in a crowded theater doctrine. In other cases like the commerce clause, the original purpose and point of that was actually pretty obvious and it is not what 20th century leftist Democrats thought it was.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >commerce clause
                I mean, in the early 1800s Marshall interpreted it to include intrastate commerce, so long as it was part of a broader interstate commerce issue. I think he went so far as to say that the main restriction to the commerce clause (and other powers of Congress) is the democratic process rather than the Constitution because it grants them such expansive powers. Decisions like Wickard evolve naturally from this (to be clear, I personally disagree with them), although it's absolutely an area where interpretations swing wildly around since there were decisions which categorically restrict it to interstate transactions.

                I do agree with you though, generally speaking, but people take originalism far beyond anything the founders would have envisioned or wanted. The 8th Amendment is particularly weird because it would be almost completely obsolete with a strictly originalist interpretation, which I don't think the founders would want, but at the same time expanding it broadly is very blatantly at odds with its original purpose. I think originalists go too far in that they entirely dismiss the concept of proportionality, which doesn't make too much sense. There's absolutely some element of proportionality when dealing with fines (Would fining Purdue Pharmaceutical $10 billion for the opioid epidemic be "excessive"? I don't think so. Would fining someone $10 billion for speeding be excessive? Yeah) and even if not specifically stated the concept of proportionality is somewhat implicit in every punishment.

                Also, the 9th Amendment makes it pretty clear that the founders did not want people to argue the technical point that other amendments only grant limited protections. Limiting the 8th Amendment so massively certainly goes against that spirit.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                of course Marshall also ridiculed the idea that Congress had unlimited power granted by the commerce clause. it was hard to dispute that the point was mainly to ensure the free movement of people and goods between the states, not whatever FDR thought it was (no it was absolutely not intended to allow national regulation of manufacturing industry, nor vice activities or other such non-economic crimes). Ron Paul famously opposed a proposed Federal ban on partial birth abortion because he said there was no constitutional authority for that in the commerce clause or anywhere else.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                what allowed 20th century progressives to use the commerce and general welfare clauses for government power grabs came about because of this:

                >during the Gilded Age, some states passed laws mandating an 8 hour workday, banning child labor, curbing the abuses of railroad rates, etc.
                >this was fine, they were perfectly entitled to do so
                >so instead the railroads which were, how do I put this, as corrupt and meglomaniacal as Big Tech is today went and shopped it to Federal judges they owned
                >these judges ruled that states could not regulate railroad rebates or whatever because the railroads ran over state lines thus under the commerce clause only Congress could regulate them
                >eventually power-grabbing progressives jumped on this and went "Ok fine then Congress can regulate X and Y under the commerce clause"

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                The point still stands that regulating intrastate activities is a necessary part of regulating interstate commerce. Obviously it's not unlimited, but if an industry's practices has massive effects on the country's economy it would be absurd not to grant Congress the authority to regulate it. Applying it to non-economic activities is batshit insane though and the fact that United States v. Lopez was only a 5-4 decision keeps me up at night.

                It will also be funny to watch the seething if federal abortion guarantees are ever passed and then struck down by the conservative majority (even though they're arguably constitutional under current precedent).

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >It will also be funny to watch the seething if federal abortion guarantees are ever passed and then struck down by the conservative majority (even though they're arguably constitutional under current precedent)

                "The right to murder one's own baby shall not be infringed" does not appear in the Bill of Rights anywhere that I remember.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                The fourth amendment guarantees the right to privacy and to protect people from nagging busy bodies who want to redefine euthanasia as murder as a pretext for controlling them

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                i didn't know they had Internet in the afterlife, William O. Douglas

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yes it's 2022 and any remotely educated person understands the Christcuck's bad faith efforts to control people and wring every last dollar out of their parishioners, that's why they keep getting BTFO when it's put to a vote

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            btw I do agree that capital punishment for rape of an adult victim is definitely excessive and stupid. having said that, it's also not hard to dispute that rape convictions were not being meted out in a "justice is blind" manner but that they were being used by Southern states exclusively for black on white rapes, the Martinsville Seven being the most famous and prominent such case. in my state the last execution for non-homicidal rape was in 1794.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          18th century ideas of cruelty were different. They forbade drawing and quartering, but not branding, flogging, and ear-cropping.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >since in 1789 a 7 year old could be executed for stealing $50.
        I have never heard of a single instance where this happened. You can find lists of executions in the United States since colonial times and I never recall seeing anything like that in there.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          I don't know if it happened but it was theoretically possible and originalists use it as an argument. This is directly from Thomas's dissenting opinion in Graham v. Florida:
          >In addition, the penal statute adopted by the First Congress demonstrates that proportionality in sentencing was not considered a constitutional command.[Footnote 1] See id., at 980–981 (noting that the statute prescribed capital punishment for offenses ranging from “ ‘run[ning] away with … goods or merchandise to the value of fifty dollars,’ ” to “murder on the high seas” (quoting 1 Stat. 114))
          >As the Court has noted in the past, however, the evidence is clear that, at the time of the Founding, “the common law set a rebuttable presumption of incapacity to commit any felony at the age of 14, and theoretically permitted [even] capital punishment to be imposed on a person as young as age 7.” Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U. S. 361, 368 (1989) (citing 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *23–*24; 1 M. Hale, Pleas of the Crown 24–29 (1800))

          And from Stevens's concurrence, just because I find it hilariously snide:
          >While Justice Thomas would apparently not rule out a death sentence for a $50 theft by a 7-year-old, see post, at 4, 10, n. 3, the Court wisely rejects his static approach to the law. Standards of decency have evolved since 1980. They will never stop doing so.

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >accidentally shot the owner of the home while fleeing

    God its mimd boggling how cucked white people are, a black tries to kill an innocent person then you cry about hos muh human rights

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I've never heard an ideological opponent of the death penalty argue that executing Streicher in the Nuremberg trials was wrong.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Usually court cases don't deal with murder of millions

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Streicher didn't murder anybody or have the authority to order anyone to murder people.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Shout fire in a crowded movie theater
          >get punished
          >OMG WHAT HAPPENED TO FREE SPEECH ITS NOT LIKE I ACTUALLY LIT THE FIRE WTF GUYS?!

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            He was part of a conspiracy to do it and his writings encouraged it

            See this is what I'm talking about. Death penalty opponents are only against the death penalty because you see conventional murderers like the guy in the OP who "accidentally" shot the owner of the house he was robbing as circumstantial victims of capitalism/racism/whatever and victims themselves of a system that compelled them to be that way. Ideological criminals, on the other hand, you want hung from the rafters.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              You're referencing one of the most extraordinary events in history, something that's a lot different from the sort of prosecutions that pass through your average criminal court, and hardly the sort of situation that should be normalized as anything but an exceptional case owing to extraordinary circumstances

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yes anon i treat someone accidentally killing a person in a botched robbery differently from a conspiracy to murder tens of millions of people

                >The worst reaction I’ve ever gotten to a blog post was when I wrote about the death of Osama bin Laden. I’ve written all sorts of stuff about race and gender and politics and whatever, but that was the worst.

                >I didn’t come out and say I was happy he was dead. But some people interpreted it that way, and there followed a bunch of comments and emails and Facebook messages about how could I possibly be happy about the death of another human being, even if he was a bad person? Everyone, even Osama, is a human being, and we should never rejoice in the death of a fellow man. One commenter came out and said:

                >I’m surprised at your reaction. As far as people I casually stalk on the internet (ie, LJ and Facebook), you are the first out of the “intelligent, reasoned and thoughtful” group to be uncomplicatedly happy about this development and not to be, say, disgusted at the reactions of the other 90% or so.

                >This commenter was right. Of the “intelligent, reasoned, and thoughtful” people I knew, the overwhelming emotion was conspicuous disgust that other people could be happy about his death. I hastily backtracked and said I wasn’t happy per se, just surprised and relieved that all of this was finally behind us.

                >And I genuinely believed that day that I had found some unexpected good in people – that everyone I knew was so humane and compassionate that they were unable to rejoice even in the death of someone who hated them and everything they stood for.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Then a few years later, Margaret Thatcher died. And on my Facebook wall – made of these same “intelligent, reasoned, and thoughtful” people – the most common response was to quote some portion of the song “Ding Dong, The Witch Is Dead”. Another popular response was to link the videos of British people spontaneously throwing parties in the street, with comments like “I wish I was there so I could join in”. From this exact same group of people, not a single expression of disgust or a “c’mon, guys, we’re all human beings here.”

                >I gently pointed this out at the time, and mostly got a bunch of “yeah, so what?”, combined with links to an article claiming that “the demand for respectful silence in the wake of a public figure’s death is not just misguided but dangerous”.

                >And that was when something clicked for me.

                >You can talk all you want about Islamophobia, but my friend’s “intelligent, reasoned, and thoughtful people” can’t get together enough energy to really hate Osama, let alone Muslims in general. We understand that what he did was bad, but it didn’t anger us personally. When he died, we were able to very rationally apply our better nature and our Far Mode beliefs about how it’s never right to be happy about anyone else’s death.

                >On the other hand, that same group absolutely loathed Thatcher. Most of us (though not all) can agree, if the question is posed explicitly, that Osama was a worse person than Thatcher. But in terms of actual gut feeling? Osama provokes a snap judgment of “flawed human being”, Thatcher a snap judgment of “scum”.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Then a few years later, Margaret Thatcher died. And on my Facebook wall – made of these same “intelligent, reasoned, and thoughtful” people – the most common response was to quote some portion of the song “Ding Dong, The Witch Is Dead”. Another popular response was to link the videos of British people spontaneously throwing parties in the street, with comments like “I wish I was there so I could join in”. From this exact same group of people, not a single expression of disgust or a “c’mon, guys, we’re all human beings here.”

                >I gently pointed this out at the time, and mostly got a bunch of “yeah, so what?”, combined with links to an article claiming that “the demand for respectful silence in the wake of a public figure’s death is not just misguided but dangerous”.

                >And that was when something clicked for me.

                >You can talk all you want about Islamophobia, but my friend’s “intelligent, reasoned, and thoughtful people” can’t get together enough energy to really hate Osama, let alone Muslims in general. We understand that what he did was bad, but it didn’t anger us personally. When he died, we were able to very rationally apply our better nature and our Far Mode beliefs about how it’s never right to be happy about anyone else’s death.

                >On the other hand, that same group absolutely loathed Thatcher. Most of us (though not all) can agree, if the question is posed explicitly, that Osama was a worse person than Thatcher. But in terms of actual gut feeling? Osama provokes a snap judgment of “flawed human being”, Thatcher a snap judgment of “scum”.

                Not reading all this cope
                tl;dr

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Yes anon i treat someone accidentally killing a person in a botched robbery differently from a conspiracy to murder tens of millions of people

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          He was part of a conspiracy to do it and his writings encouraged it

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      oy vey

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Blacks need to to stop playing defense for their retards and criminals

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Who is?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        presumably he's talking about high profile activists like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson

  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Although his intent had merely been to rob, he accidentally shot the owner of the home while fleeing, resulting in his death. Furman was charged with 1st degree murder
    How is this 1st degree

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Although his intent had merely been to rob, he accidentally shot the owner of the home while fleeing
    >accidentally
    lmao a case of "he was a gud boy, he dindu nuffin"
    >Furman was charged with 1st degree murder and sentenced to death
    Good, justice was served.

  17. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    you should actually kill the family members of someone who gets the death penalty.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Are you a time traveler from 500s Germany?

  18. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    you should actually kill the family members of someone who gets the death penalty.

    This isn't different from what happens in pre-state societies. It's why they have homicide rates higher than most state societies.

  19. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >accidentally

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *