Vaermina
Well worn.
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2015
- Messages
- 6,114
- Likes received
- 67,110
That's kind of the opposite of how it works.It isn't cruel on its own, although the circumstances of individual cases might be cruel, which would go right back to indemnification only applying to the actual homicide and not other actions that might surround it.
It also isn't unusual, as it is already well-established that lethal force is permitted when there is a clear and present danger, as well as being well-established that lethal force is explicitly authorized against prison escapees if they ignore clear warnings.
Basically the government has a list of execution methods that aren't considered cruel and unusual, and everything else is considered by default to be cruel and unusual.
Meaning by ordering the death of someone, but leaving the method of that death completely open, any such law would run face first into the 8th Amendment.
Going back a bit, there's also the general problem with the second part of Grayven's law that it might violate the 8th on principle due to Atkins v. Virginia.