Anybody that is willing to help a student in need

[Kimmy06]

What is the name of your state? Washington

I'm a senior in high school and I was wondering if there was anybody out there that could possibly help me with a fictional case.

Dave Miller was convicted of first-degree murder in 1994 and was sentenced to death. At the time of his death, the state of Arkansas allowed the convicted death row immated to choose either death by hanging or the electric chair. After weeks of agonizing thought, which was acknowledged by the state at the time, Mller chose death in the electric chair. As part of the normal course of the judicial system, Miller also started an appeal procress of his conviction. It is now 2005 and the appeal process has run its course. Miller's appeals have been denied and he is scheduled for execution on Nov. 30, 2005. However, the state of Arkansas no longer uses the electric chair and Miller is asked to choose between lethal injection or hanging. Miller is outraged that he once again has to contemplate his own death. Although there is a provision in Arkansas law that allows the state to choose the method of exectution if the inmate refuses, Miller is nevertheless incensed that he is asked the question and sues the state of Arkansas in Federal Court. The 8th District Court of Appeals agrees with Miller and the State of Arkansas appeals to the Supreme Court. The case is known as Miller (R) v. Arkansas (P)

So far, I can only think that Miller's side would say that his case affects the 8th amendment, but in all reality, it actually doesnt. Being hung, electrocuted, or injected is not cruel or unusual. Please help, I really dont know what else I can say for my fictional case

I am on the petitioner side...If anyone could help that would be unbelievably awesome!

 

[CALIF-LAWPRO31]

My response:

We don't get involved with doing people's school work.

IAAL

 

[Kimmy06]

: )

Well, thanks anyway for the reply : )

 

[CALIF-LAWPRO31]

Well, thanks anyway for the reply : )

My response:

You're welcome, and good luck. Be successful!

IAAL

 

[Kimmy06]

: )

Oh, I'm trying to be, I've never done anything like this before. It is kind of interesting all though

 

[justalayman]

What is the name of your state? Washington

I'm a senior in high school and I was wondering if there was anybody out there that could possibly help me with a fictional case.

Dave Miller was convicted of first-degree murder in 1994 and was sentenced to death. At the time of his death, the state of Arkansas allowed the convicted death row immated to choose either death by hanging or the electric chair.

After weeks of agonizing thought, which was acknowledged by the state at the time, Mller chose death in the electric chair. As part of the normal course of the judicial system, Miller also started an appeal procress of his conviction. It is now 2005 and the appeal process has run its course. Miller's appeals have been denied and he is scheduled for execution on Nov. 30, 2005. However, the state of Arkansas no longer uses the electric chair and Miller is asked to choose between lethal injection or hanging. Miller is outraged that he once again has to contemplate his own death. Although there is a provision in Arkansas law that allows the state to choose the method of exectution if the inmate refuses, Miller is nevertheless incensed that he is asked the question and sues the state of Arkansas in Federal Court. The 8th District Court of Appeals agrees with Miller and the State of Arkansas appeals to the Supreme Court. The case is known as Miller (R) v. Arkansas (P)

So far, I can only think that Miller's side would say that his case affects the 8th amendment, but in all reality, it actually doesnt. Being hung, electrocuted, or injected is not cruel or unusual. Please help, I really dont know what else I can say for my fictional case

I am on the petitioner side...If anyone could help that would be unbelievably awesome!

I'll give you an answer.

It was most definately crule and unusual punishment considering he was already dead:

Dave Miller was convicted of first-degree murder in 1994 and was sentenced to death. At the time of his death, the state of Arkansas allowed the convicted death row immated to choose either death by hanging or the electric chair.


Now here they want to execute him AGAIN on Nov 30'05. That is cruel and unusual.

Law 101ay attention to details and realize that any mistake can be used to your advantage in some way.

 

[Kimmy06]

Thanks : )

Wow, that's amazing, I didnt even realize that. Thank you ever so much! <3 Kimmy

 

[justalayman]

Wow, that's amazing, I didnt even realize that. Thank you ever so much! <3 Kimmy

I presume it was a typo on your part and you meant, "at the time of his sentencing"

Being hung, electrocuted, or injected is not cruel or unusual? Not if they go exactly correct but is they don"t,, ouch!!

For the injection part, research current news. I do not remember what state it is but there is currently an argument concerning this happening as we speak,,, well, type.

Actually though, I think you are missing the point. While all of the methods have been contested as cruel and unusual, I do not believe the execution itself is what was appealed as cruel and unusual but the requirement to make the decision,,,,again. Read your post again.

Although there is a provision in Arkansas law that allows the state to choose the method of exectution if the inmate refuses, Miller is nevertheless incensed that he is asked the question and sues

So I believe you should be asking the question:

Is it cruel to ask a person to determine his own method of execution? Is is cruel to ask twice? Is this a form of punsishment in itself? If so, it would be a psychological punishment and would this be cruel?

Would these be part of the execution and therefore make the execution cruel and unusual? and therefore unconstitutional?

 

[john123456]

For the injection part, research current news. I do not remember what state it is but there is currently an argument concerning this happening as we speak

http://law.fordham.edu/ihtml/itndetails.ihtml?id=268&pad=pad

 

[Kimmy06]

I think that was the teachers mistake. Earlier today he stated "Pay attention to the details, small details will get you far, its easy to look past everything" I think he was playing a trick on us and I thank you for pointing that out. You're awesome!

 

[Kimmy06]

So this is what I found

I researched the eigth amendment and this is what I found "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted." On the find law website it states "punishments of torture [such as drawing and quartering, emboweling alive, beheading, public dissecting, and burning alive]. and all others in the same line of unnecessary cruelty, are forbidden by that amendment to the consitution." No where does it state that the death penalty is a cruel and unusual punishment. If Dave Miller has committed a first degree murder in which he was sentenced to death, there should not be a problem with his execution by contemplating his own death again. The reason why is, if he was already in line to be executed, it is not like he was going to escape his death. It is going to happen whether he likes it or not. Its not cruel and unusual because he is already dead.

 

[justalayman]

Well you have joined the great debate.

The right to lifers claim it is murder to kill the prisoner.

The eye for an eye group figure the convict should experience something as horrendous as they committed

and there are an inumerable number of variants in between.


If you notice, the constitution does not "specify" or "define" many things it refers to. The right to freedom from unreasonable searches, for example. The supreme court is who defines "unreasonable"

The same in this situation. The scotus gets to define "cruel and unusual". Let's hope Genghis Khan never gets appointed to the scotus That is why a decision today can be changed down the line. That is why what president gets to nominate scotus justices has such an impact on society.

If the bench was full of ultra conservatives when Roe v. Wade was argued, abortion could concievably still be illegal today. Inversely, an ultra liberal court may allow marijuana to be legalized someday.

What is considered cruel has changed over history. Some of the punishments of past times were terribly cruel by todays standards but were acceptable or even cheered in the past.

So, is killing somebody, in itself cruel. The scotus has said no. Now at what point is something cruel? If it is me being executed, anything would be cruel. To the mother of the raped and murdered daughter, there is nothing cruel. It is such a personal decision but the courts are charged with determining it as society as a whole views it.

Now to your case. If this were a person with ocd, or depression, I might consider it to be cruel.Because of their state of mind, it would be excessively injurious to them although that is not the intention of allowing them to make the decision. If it were some bad a** guy that doesn't care what happens in life, it obviously is not. The scotus is charged with setting a standard that is applied to all. A tough job in my mind.

You made the statement of "it's not like he is going to escape his death" but is reminding him of it to the extent that he is asked to make the determination of method cruel? A person who is going to be executed, I doubt, ever really forgets this, but is it cruel to poke him with a stick to remind him of it and, as I stated before, is this considered part of the execution process and possibly making it a cruel punishment as a whole?

Well if you can answer this to the satisfaction of your entire audience, you must have nobody listening to you. There will never be a national consensus, merely acquiesence, at best.

Good luck

 

[john123456]

Well you have joined the great debate.

The right to lifers claim it is murder to kill the prisoner.

The eye for an eye group figure the convict should experience something as horrendous as they committed

and there are an inumerable number of variants in between.


If you notice, the constitution does not "specify" or "define" many things it refers to. The right to freedom from unreasonable searches, for example. The supreme court is who defines "unreasonable"

The same in this situation. The scotus gets to define "cruel and unusual". Let's hope Genghis Khan never gets appointed to the scotus That is why a decision today can be changed down the line. That is why what president gets to nominate scotus justices has such an impact on society.

If the bench was full of ultra conservatives when Roe v. Wade was argued, abortion could concievably still be illegal today. Inversely, an ultra liberal court may allow marijuana to be legalized someday.

What is considered cruel has changed over history. Some of the punishments of past times were terribly cruel by todays standards but were acceptable or even cheered in the past.

So, is killing somebody, in itself cruel. The scotus has said no. Now at what point is something cruel? If it is me being executed, anything would be cruel. To the mother of the raped and murdered daughter, there is nothing cruel. It is such a personal decision but the courts are charged with determining it as society as a whole views it.

Now to your case. If this were a person with ocd, or depression, I might consider it to be cruel.Because of their state of mind, it would be excessively injurious to them although that is not the intention of allowing them to make the decision. If it were some bad a** guy that doesn't care what happens in life, it obviously is not. The scotus is charged with setting a standard that is applied to all. A tough job in my mind.

You made the statement of "it's not like he is going to escape his death" but is reminding him of it to the extent that he is asked to make the determination of method cruel? A person who is going to be executed, I doubt, ever really forgets this, but is it cruel to poke him with a stick to remind him of it and, as I stated before, is this considered part of the execution process and possibly making it a cruel punishment as a whole?

Well if you can answer this to the satisfaction of your entire audience, you must have nobody listening to you. There will never be a national consensus, merely acquiesence, at best.

Good luck

So, is killing somebody, in itself cruel?

You answered your own question.

 

[Kimmy06]

Thanks

Thank you ever so much for all of your help!

 

[rmet4nzkx]

see case 3
http://shs.sno.wednet.edu/tgionet/classdocs/ASUPREMECOURTHEARINGjobs.pdf