The death penaltys cruel and unusual punishment

Main Objection:You are focused on the reality of the system, when we need to focus on the intentions and principles of the punishment itself if we are going to label it as cruel. (NOTE: I believe we can agree that the current principles of the death penalty in todays world is that of a swift execution. This may not be what happens in reality, but it is at least a fair description of what the intentions of capital punishment are. If we cannot agree on this, then need to stop and clarify definitions before we can procede.)Counter Rebuttal:Degrading:Your claim: Degrading because the United States thinks it is ok to play God, and capital punishment has a lengthy process.Simply put, the goal of capital punishment is justice; if you think that it is the same as playing God, then it is nothing more than your opionion. The lengthy process just demonstrates how seriously the government treats capital punishment. It suggests an attempt at the certainty of the criminal, and whether or not they do deserve capital punishment. This is just evidence that the U.S. does not take capital punishment lightly. On the other hand, this process does force the criminal to wait potentially years while people decide his fate; consequently, this can be very emotionally stressing for the individual, but it is not degrading or humiliating. As a result, although the process can be long and painful for the convicted, it is an attempt at certainty, not an attempt at degradation. As a side note, we have to clarify that in order for a punishment to be cruel or unusual, it's principles have to be so.Inhumane:Your claim: Psychological torture from waiting and inmates results in violation of human rights. Stays of exection occur.The fundamental problem here is that these are not the intentions of capital punishment. They may be extremely unfortunate results, but this is a problem with the current system. In order for the punishment itself to be cruel or unusual, it would have to intend for this kind of thing to happen; and quite frankly, we cannot expect all of the other inmates to behave or act compassionately. I would agree that if capital punishment declared that those who are convicted shall be sentenced to years of psychological torment that it would be cruel; my example was of crucifiction or hangins where the criminals are shocased for all the world to see. But the death penalty currently seeks to execute the criminals swiftly and with as little pain as possible; those, are the intentions and the principles, and anything that does not reflect them can be attributed to a flaws in the system.Severe:Your claim: United states has the 5th most executions in the world, and all the leading countries are generally viewed as abusers of natural rights. The U.S. is one of few countries which practice it.The flaw here is that this simply does not relate to the subject of whether or not the punishment is to great for the crime. On the other hand, the first bit mentioned here is simply a false analogy. Just because some countries have a history with abusing natural rights, does not mean that all of their principles do so. Furthermore, the punishment is intended to execute them, which would in theory deprive them of their natural rights; however, it is done in a justified manner, after that person has violated the natural rights of their victim. The issue you need to address here is whether or not this punishment is too severe for this type of crime. This is the question I raised in my first post, and it is the one you have to answer. I do not need to know how many countries are doing.Conclusion:I believe that my arguments have withstood your scrutany, and that you have failed to demonstrate that the death penalty is degrading, inhumane, and too severe for the crime. You first claimed that since the process was lengthy, that it degrades the individual due to the emotional stress he endures. In response, I revealed that the lengthy process is the result of a quest for certainty, and that the negative effects of such a process on the convict is merely an unfortunate result of the process, and is not one of the intentions of the punishment as a whole. In addition, your main argument that it was inhumane was grounded in the fact that fellow inmates often harrass the one sentenced, and that there are often postponements. However, I demonstrated that both of these negative effects are once again not intended results of the death penalty, and are simply unfortunate results of the reality of the current system. Finally, you do not have an argument that it is too severe, but rather, you only reveal that countries which employ the death penalty are in the minority, and that the other countries have a history with human right violation. I point out that these facts alone do not make a case against the death penalty, nor the argument about severity. In the end, I believe that the main focus when trying to decide if a punishment is cruel or unusual should be the principles and intentions of the punishment. I believe we can agree that the current goal of the death penalty in the U.S (the United States' capital punishment seems to have become the focus of this debate) is a swift and painless execution. If we cannot agree on this, we should stop here and clarify definitions, but as it stands right not, it is not cruel nor unusual.NOTE: To respond to your last phrase: Do we rape rapists? etc...Capital punishment is not simply an "eye for an eye" policy. Capital punishment is the justified taking of a criminals life, who has violated the natural rights of his/her victims. This is the ultimate crime, and the ultimate abuse to a persons natural rights. This comment relates closely to the queston of severity, and whether or not someone who commits the ultimate crime, should pay the ultimate price. Can you arrive at justice even when the crime is worse that the punishment?