Do you disagree or agree with yesterday's Supreme Court ruling?

A ruling by the Supreme Court ruled that the execution of a child rapist is cruel and unusual punishment. Also indirectly the supreme court ruled that no one not convicted of 1st degree murder can ever be sentenced to the death cost. Do you agree with this ruling or no?
Killing someone is ALWAYS cruel and unusual punishment. Take transcribe, we're the only civilized country in the world that still puts people to passing. cruel no , unusual probably.

I agree with the decision but I would not need much convincing to renovate my mind
I think they're flat wrong.

The Constitution flat out ban ANY "cruel and unusual punishment", and there is nothing in the Constitution to suggest that the significance of "cruel and unusual" depends upon the crime for which something might be imposed. The measure of "cruel and unusual" is an absolute, and is not dependent on the crime or the person convicted.

The Constitution also prohibits anyone individual "deprived of life... without due process of law". It therefore really obviously foresees the Death Penalty, which means it is NOT by definition "cruel and unusual".

They clearly overstepped.

Again.

* For those of you totally opposed to the Death Penalty, the Constitution does not REQUIRE that we own it. It does allow it, though. The decision belongs to the Legislature that makes something a crime, and if they agree with you, at hand will be no Capital offenses. I could abide that, but what is dangerous to both of us is a SC that sets limits on the Legislature greater than that which is imposed by the Constitution, without individual given the authority to do so by the Constitution. If they are themselves not limited by the Constitution, and can read it how they will, then we do not have a Constitution at adjectives, and next year they can uphold a penalty of Life Imprisonment for voting the wrong way. If the edges reach them not, then there are no margins.
I have no choice but to agree. Forget that it's child rape for a moment -- raping someone is not the same as butchery them. We haven't put someone to death who didn't kill someone in decades. Where's the "eye for an eye"? (It comes contained by prison -- other prisoners don't like child rapists.) And why limit it to just children? Why wouldn't adjectives rapists be punished in the same way? And after when do you draw the line? That guy stole my car, so we should give him the stool. I think that'd be a bit excessive. So what if he beats the crap out of me but there's no sexual assault? Where does it end?

Second, I'd be pretty upset to sentence all these people to death if we don't enjoy solid, scientific evidence that they committed the crime. Do you know how many people are within jail that didn't commit the crimes they're in for? I don't want that on my conscience.
I agree next to the ruling. The government should not be in the business of putting people to destruction. I don't understand why Americans, who are primarily Christians, are so eager to punish and take revenge. I disagree anyone who would rape a child doesn't deserve to live. Despite what liberal idiots read out not every life is valuable. Some people are simply a detriment to society.
No, I think the court got it right. I don't agree with the extermination penalty.
Strongly Disagree. Disagree
I don't agree with the death penalty irregardless.

Firstly, if he get killed he gets off natural. Let him rot in jail and get tormented by others for doing what he did. Secondly, for the state to condone murdered and after kill people as a punishment seems backwards. "An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind"