Though the death penalty is often regarded as a race issue justifiably, it is overwhelmingly an issue of unfairness, injustice, and a disregard of Christian value (a principle upon which this country was founded). IT is an issue of life and redemption, not vengeance and retaliation, an issue of cruel and inhuman punishment. Historically, the NAACP has been an outspoken voice against injustices and the "dual justice system".
Historically, it is the poor, powerless and educationally deprived members of society who are disproportionately represented on death row, all too often death row inmates are black and brown faces who have fallen victims of a racist society that has denied them the opportunity to enjoy full citizenship a society where they are forced to live in an impoverished environment, found to be incompetent or unskilled due to an inferior education, and too often subjected to employment discrimination. (Roger Hood, 1996)
Consider now the phrase used in the Eighth Amendment itself. It prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, not cruel or unusual punishment. Therefore, a punishment must be cruel and unusual to be unconstitutional. The framers meant to outlaw unusual punishment, if cruel. But not cruel punishment, if usual. A punishment has to be new (unusual) as well as cruel to be unconstitutional. The death penalty hardly qualifies on that score. For whether cruel or not, the death penalty is not "unusual" in this Eighth Amendment sense.
Now, in what sense could the death penalty be cruel? There are two possible legal meanings of cruel. First, cruel here may mean disproportionate, either to the seriousness of the crime or to other penalties. The death penalty for pickpockets or car thieves may strike us as cruel in this sense. But the death penalty for murder hardly does. The courts have declared the death penalty.........
