Death Penalty Unconstitutional?

[Wiggin1]

Before I begin, let me say that this thread is not supposed to be about whether the death penalty is just or moral, merely whether it is allowed under the Constitution.

The Constitution gives everyone the right to a fair trial, but doesn't the death penalty make that impossible?

For example, look at the recent death sentence given to the "Boston Bomber", Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. Because the prosecution was going for the death penalty, all members of the jury had to identify as pro-death-penalty before being selected. Now my question is, doesn't that make it impossible for Tsarnaev to have a fair trial since his jury is biased towards people who are on the conservative side of the political spectrum?

And on the other side, if you allow anti-death-penalty people to serve on the jury, doesn't that make them more likely to find him not guilty even though the evidence points to him being guilty and not criminally insane just to avoid handing out a punishment they consider immoral?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Before I begin, let me say that this thread is not supposed to be about whether the death penalty is just or moral, merely whether it is allowed under the Constitution.

The Constitution gives everyone the right to a fair trial, but doesn't the death penalty make that impossible?

For example, look at the recent death sentence given to the "Boston Bomber", Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. Because the prosecution was going for the death penalty, all members of the jury had to identify as pro-death-penalty before being selected. Now my question is, doesn't that make it impossible for Tsarnaev to have a fair trial since his jury is biased towards people who are on the conservative side of the political spectrum?

And on the other side, if you allow anti-death-penalty people to serve on the jury, doesn't that make them more likely to find him not guilty even though the evidence points to him being guilty and not criminally insane just to avoid handing out a punishment they consider immoral?

Not a good example imo using Tsarnaev since in that case there was no question of his guilt, nor did he assert innocence (beyond the not-guilty plea that resulted in their being a trial in the first place.)

Also, I'm not sure you're correct in claiming jurors had to identify as pro-death penalty. More likely they answered 'yes' to 'if guilty is the verdict, would you have any moral objections to giving the death penalty?' Can be either side of that issue yet still follow the letter of the law and vote 'yea' for the death penalty.

As to whether or not the death penalty is Constitutional. In the words of Deep Thought from "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy,"

Tricky.