It is valid to hope that capital punishment be legally banned, either nationally or in one’s state. It is not valid, however, to hope that the Supreme Court would ban it. The court has no more authority to proclaim capital punishment unconstitutional than to proclaim same sex “marriage” and abortion to be constitutionally protected. Those were examples of gross overreach by the court, and we cannot complain about its behavior in those cases if we’re going to support equivalent behavior in cases of our choosing. These issues must be decided by legislation, not by fiat.
Exactly. One can not pick and choose when it comes to judicial over reach. Consitutionally, the intent is not for the court to define marriage any more than it is for the court to eliminate the death penalty. And I say this as someone opposed to both same-sex unions and the DP.
And we can do that by locking up those that threaten life. You don’t encourage a culture of life by taking lives.
Actually, that is the job of the court, to determine the meaning of the constitution. We don’t have to like or agree with their decisions, but that is certainly their role.
I would. It would deny them time to see the error of their ways, repent, and perhaps save their souls. It is different in battle where we are killing other fighters to save lives. But once they have been captured, we should not kill them.
The only reason I can see to need such would be that society has no other means of eliminating serious offenders. For example no room to house murderers that do not care at all what they do and kill and serial kill. Murder and sex offender stuff is way over blown into mythology in most cases. Now Ted Bundy or Otis Toole. Well they love killing sprees. Now concerning capital punishment I have read about prosecutors enjoying the suffering of some of these botched murders. I’m not saying kill Otooles or Bundys unless there’s no way to house them and they’re too dangerous. I like how Benedict xvi referred to this problem.
Yes, it is surely their role, but ruling that capital punishment is unconstitutional is simply not possible within the framework of the Constitution itself. It would require appeals to “penumbras”, the “right to define one’s own concept of existence”, and a people’s liberty to “to define and express their identity.” Basing rulings on such amorphous concepts is what gave us Roe, Casey, and Obergefell, and it would take just such a meaningless declaration to find within the Constitution the means of declaring that capital punishment was prohibited. Given that the seventh amendment starts out by explicitly recognizing the legitimacy of capital punishment:*No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless…
*it will take some real invention on the part of the court to rule it unconstitutional. Based on the cases mentioned above, however, it is clear that the court deems itself justified in rendering whatever judgment they prefer, regardless of how unreasonable it is.
Justice Alito (in his dissent in Obergefell) recognized the danger such rulings pose:*Today’s decision will also have a fundamental effect on this Court and its ability to uphold the rule of law. If a bare majority of Justices can invent a new right and impose that right on the rest of the country, the only real limit on what future majorities will be able to do is their own sense of what those with political power and cultural influence are willing to tolerate.
*Urging the court to ban capital punishment, a ruling it cannot legitimately make, is simply to urge another giant step down the road to abandoning the rule of law.
The death penalty is discriminatory and is often used against the poor, minorities and members of racial and ethnic minorities. Oftentimes, it’s imposed and carried out arbitrarily. It legitimizes an irreversible act of state-sanctioned violence that claims innocent victims. As long as human justice remains fallible, the risk of executing the innocent can never be eliminated.
If capital punishment is ever declared unconstitutional it be for just such personal beliefs, which will be superimposed on the Constitution so that what the Constitution actually says will become irrelevant. Make such arguments to your legislators; it is their responsibility to rule on the subject, but don’t argue that the court should decide for itself what it thinks the laws ought to be.*This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves. *(Scalia’s dissent in Obergefell)
This really is to exchange our birthright for a mess of pottage.