We need to consider the 5-4 decision by the US Supreme court in slightly different tones than does Deacon. His concern in this post is about numbers and words. I look at it in what some would say are simpler terms.
Our nation was formed, and our Constitution written, in direct opposition to the way things were done in Europe. Now it appears we have Supreme Court justices who want to impose the will of European elites on the American people.
Does that make any sense at all?
I guess you can be forgiven since you live in about the only place in the universe that seems to think executing the retarded is ok.
Comment by Bubba Bo Bob Brain — March 2, 2005 @ 7:31 pm
Bunker, I would caution against using the logic that ‘If Europe does it/wants it, we should NOT do it/want it’. It makes no more logical sense to do something strictly in opposition of European sentiment, than it would to follow their fashion for no reason.
As Justice Scalia stated in his dissent, it does not make sense as a reflection of the will of the majority of the states. Further, giving in to European demands in this manner sets a very dangerous precedent in my view!
Comment by Barb — March 2, 2005 @ 7:49 pm
As a lawyer I am reduced to tears.
IMHO militant Islam is a minor problem.
Europe will explode and unless totally incapable of doing anything at this late date, will sow destruction.
America, when I hear of the airports I think we are one step from loading people into boxcars without question. I cannot believe what people obey without question. I read a persons lugage was exploded, after the flight was completed without incident, probably because the person said a bad word about airport security.
Comment by Doug_S — March 2, 2005 @ 8:51 pm
It’s not really about following Europe, it was just the home of the examples the majority used. Liberalism is the common agenda, and the Europeans were simply the guys with the answers that the five liberals on the court wanted. I’m quoting from memory here, but in his dissent Scalia said that the majority was, in effect, “pointing to their friends in the crowd.”
The shameless five committed a crime against the Constitution when they stepped outside of its margins. Europe was just where they landed, it was the how of getting there that has the framers spinning in their graves.
Oh, and I apologize for encouraging the Bubba person by responding to him in some earlier comments. Originally, I had mistook him for a simple moron, but now I realize he is just a cowardly troll.
Comment by Cerberus — March 3, 2005 @ 1:16 am
Bubba is a fairly regular visitor. He and I have had words in the past, but nothing caustic. And I’m always pleased to see him comment. Yes, I see no reason why someone with a lower IQ than average should be immune from the laws we all share. “Retarded” is the word used only when liberals, in all their sensitivity, want to make excuses for someone who, although slower than others, did something they knew to be wrong.
Back to the main point–Granted, Europe is cited simply out of convenience. However, I think it is a bit ironic to judge our Constitution by standards of the very place the Founding Fathers distanced themselves from in writing it.
Comment by Bunker — March 3, 2005 @ 5:17 am
You ranted less than I did, about this! It is a disgrace! Beth, you missed the point. In the USA, we make laws in our states. Period. The Supreme Court does not make laws. These guys are totally out of hand! If you don’t like a law, petition to change it. Move to a state that has different laws!
Beth, read “Men in Black” and you will be as outraged as I am!
Comment by DagneyT — March 3, 2005 @ 1:13 pm
First allow me to speak as the parent of an autistic child. Last time I looked autism fell under the heading of “retardation”. The retarded often do not have the capacity to distinguish between “right” and “wrong”, so executing them coarsens us as a society. The retarded of all levels percieve the world differently than the rest of us, so what might onlt be “words” to you or me can be percieved as a serious threat by the “mentally challenged”. Now does this equate to my fully agreeing with this decision? Uh, not really. I think a 16, or 17 year old cut off is not unreasonable, these are people that are still only at the begining of their life. I think there might be some hope for more than a few of these teens. However if said teenager has a loooong juvenile record, one of ever porgressing violence, a sentance of death might be called for. I am hardly a death penalty opponent, but I think there needs to be a NATION-WIDE uniform policy on “capital crimes”. Further there needs to be uniform standards regarding the burden of proof in these capital cases, not unreasonable requests as I see it. I view this decision as just a small step towards uniformity. As to my being a troll, well I can do the troll bit if a feel that a simple request to stop referring to me as a “liberal” in a pejorative manner, is being ignored. For a fine example of me in full blown pissed-off mode go over to the Precinct 333 blog and read the screed that got me banned, then e-mail me and ask me if I give a rat’s ass.
Bunker usually does not refer to me in such a pejorative manner, so I give him the respect I feel he deserves.
Comment by Bubba Bo Bob Brain — March 3, 2005 @ 7:02 pm
Bubba, if someone autistic were being sentenced, a jury would not lay the death penalty on them. What the Supreme Court has done is taken the decision out of the hands of people whom we hope are capable of rendering some kind of analytical judgement. Even if the jury determines the death penalty is warranted, appellate reviews can, and often do, overturn them.
I don’t agree on a nation-wide standard. We in Texas like ours but don’t want to impose it on others!
Comment by Bunker — March 4, 2005 @ 5:30 am
I don’t know about you, but if my autistic son were to face the situation, I sure would not trust his fate to twelve people not smart enough to find a way to avoid jury duty.
Comment by Bubba Bo Bob Brain — March 4, 2005 @ 9:00 am
I’ve got an autistic son myself. He’s 4 and he knows full well when he has done something wrong. He may not always understand why something is wrong but he knows that it is. My sister works with adults who have the reasoning of someone still in the single digits as far as age goes. They have a pretty good sense of what behaviour is acceptable and what is not. They are more than capable of choosing not the follow the rules.
Comment by Samantha — March 4, 2005 @ 10:57 am
The imposition of the death penalty in the case of a youth has checks at every level. First, there has to be a determination that the offender can be tried as an adult. Then there is the trial on guilt or innocence. Then there is the penalty phase, where the jury — the trier of fact — determines if the death penalty is an appropriate punishment under all of the circumstances relevant to the case. There are so many safeguards at the state trial level, and then the state appellate level, before you get the the US Supreme Court. In a federal system, you have to give the benefit of the doubt to the state court justice system to not sentence a minor (acutally, someone who was a minor when the crime was committed) to the death penalty unless it was demonstrated that he had the requisite mental capacity to understand right from wrong when the crime was committed.
Here, the defendant bragged to his friends that he was going to kill someone and he was going to get away with it because he was a minor. The details of the murder are horrifying. The evidence appears to be overwhelming that this defendant knew what he was doing, regardless of his age. If any factual scenario supported a death sentence, this was it.
The issue here is not whether we should or should not have a death penalty. There are certainly moral issues which could lead one to support or oppose the death penalty. But this state had a law on its books providing for the death penalty for minors, meaning that the elected officials of that state, acting on the collective public opinion of the people of that state, are of the opinion that the death penalty is appropriate for minors in some cases. The problem here is that the US Supreme Court, relying on “international opinion” and a contrived “analysis” of what some other states have done in the past fifteen years, has determined, as a matter of law, that the death penalty for minors is “cruel and unusual punishment” in violation of the 8th Amendment to the Constitution. To me, the Court’s action is an inappropriate usurpation of the legislature’s powers to make laws. Moreover, it adds to the erosion of of the federal republic by moving “moral” decisions from the state and local level and attempting to create a national moral standard. Remember, this is a court where not a single member has ever tried a capital murder case. Moreover, I do not believe that any of these justices spent significant time on a trial court bench where they could see how these factual determinations of mental competency and guilt are made.
This is a danagerous decision not so much for the fact that it saves a few hundered people from execution, but for the fact that it is a power grab which leads me to believe more and more that we are living in a “judicial dictatorship” or “judicial oligarchy,” as Paulie likes to call it.
Comment by John Adams at The Commons — March 4, 2005 @ 11:08 am