We're all humans, here. I do realize that you might have killed and/or raped someone else, but a life sentence in prison would be a lot worse to me. Death just ends it all right there, but prison, you won't be free until you've bitten the dust. It's cruel to kill someone when you could basically torture them with no freedoms for a lifetime.
The 8th Amendment Clearly states that all American states should not us cruel and unusual punishments. Such as a lethal shot or getting shot and killed. But if your parents spank you that is not an unusual punishment. But being on death row is. So just remember that if you ever break the laws and i'm not saying you should but just if. Remember that is what an unusual punishment is.
If the person did a bad enough crime, and has a life sentence without parole I feel that they should be either be sentenced to death or they can go to prison. Think about this a person that murdered another person and did worse would you want this person to be able to still live? I only feel this way because If you think about it what makes sense let a person do more damage or let a person die for their sins?
Firstly, if it is cruel xor unusual, it would still be okay, because it needs to be cruel *and* unusual for it to be unconstitutional. The death penalty, obviously being not unusual, is okay.
That being said, I don't not believe it is cruel, for any party involved. Sitting on death row for years may be, but putting someone to death for heinous crimes is just.. Not cruel. It may, however, be cruel to not allow the criminal to decide how he should die. I believe we should give them a list of acceptable methods and they get to chose how they go (with gun shot being only be given as an option to military). Hanging, electric chair, needle, drowning, burnt at the stake, guillotine... Among others, I think are all acceptable manners of capital punishment that are not cruel (given the criminal elects it)
If this is a legal argument, then I would point out that in the fifth amendment it says: "...Nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
In the historical context of that time 'cruel and unusual punishment' would not have included execution. This is why the 5th amendment includes the loss of life. Execution would not have been unusual. Whether or not execution is cruel is subjective. However, given the historical context and the context of the 8th amendment next to the 5th, it's pretty obvious that they didn't intend to lump execution into that category.
I do not think it is cruel because when people do bad things like (Kill,rape,etc) i think they deserve the death penalty because doing things like that is really bad. I am surprised that 18 states have banned the death penalty because that means in those states you can do bad things and not be put to death for it.
The 5th Amendment presupposes the validity of capital punishment when it states that life may not be taken without due process of law. Indeed, at the time of the founding, every felony was, by definition, a capital crime. Thus, it is absurd to say that the Constitution is opposed to capital punishment.