Tuesday, March 01, 2005
Scaliawatch
or, 123 you're dead.
The court decided today... ok the court announced today. I don't know when it decided... that it is unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment to execute those who were 16 or 17 at the time of the crime. It was close, 5-4, the usual split, with Kennedy as the majority author and deciding vote.
I don't have strong feelings either way. The guy was no good. He'll do life in Potosi.
Heck I wouldn't want to do life in Potosi outside the prison. You ever been to Potosi? It's like Martinsville, but less civilized.
http://www.stripcreator.com/comics/arbi/273221
Two things of note about this case.
It highlights the tension between two wings of the court. There's the evolving penumbras set, which looks at legislative trends and what Europe is doing these days.
That's judicial activism - the federal government is telling the states what to do, and the judicial branch is essentially legislating. Usually I'm in favor of that.
123 people have been killed for crimes committed as juveniles since the last case 15 years ago. Were they rightly or wrongly killed?
Here, I'm neutral.
The other side says, hang 'em all, it's what the founders would have done.
The eighth amendment's cruel and unusual clause textually incorporates the evolving standards approach - Scalia disagrees. *
There's at least a reasonable argument 'unusual' means today, not 1870 or 1780.
Since the last decision 15 years ago, even dictatorships have stopped formally executing kids. Often it's been outsourced and privatized.
I'm not strongly opposed to killers being killed. I don't think the government - e.g. missouri - does a very good job of it. This case means fewer innocent kids will plead guilty to soemthing they didn't do because they a) can't afford a lawyer and b) are scared of the death penalty.
Anyway, the point of this blog entry was that I'd been waiting to see if the court would do what it did here. Because I think it's time to revisit Ingraham v Wright.
That case held that government agents can assault citizens without a hearing.
The court said there's no eighth amendment issue because they haven't been found guilty of anything. That's absurd, to say punishment isn't punishment, but that does take it outside the 8th a zone, leaving a due process claim and my innovation, a 13th A claim.
* update: some guy named will baude has a pretty good post looking into this issue further at crescat.
or, 123 you're dead.
The court decided today... ok the court announced today. I don't know when it decided... that it is unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment to execute those who were 16 or 17 at the time of the crime. It was close, 5-4, the usual split, with Kennedy as the majority author and deciding vote.
I don't have strong feelings either way. The guy was no good. He'll do life in Potosi.
Heck I wouldn't want to do life in Potosi outside the prison. You ever been to Potosi? It's like Martinsville, but less civilized.
http://www.stripcreator.com/comics/arbi/273221
Two things of note about this case.
It highlights the tension between two wings of the court. There's the evolving penumbras set, which looks at legislative trends and what Europe is doing these days.
That's judicial activism - the federal government is telling the states what to do, and the judicial branch is essentially legislating. Usually I'm in favor of that.
123 people have been killed for crimes committed as juveniles since the last case 15 years ago. Were they rightly or wrongly killed?
Here, I'm neutral.
The other side says, hang 'em all, it's what the founders would have done.
The eighth amendment's cruel and unusual clause textually incorporates the evolving standards approach - Scalia disagrees. *
There's at least a reasonable argument 'unusual' means today, not 1870 or 1780.
Since the last decision 15 years ago, even dictatorships have stopped formally executing kids. Often it's been outsourced and privatized.
I'm not strongly opposed to killers being killed. I don't think the government - e.g. missouri - does a very good job of it. This case means fewer innocent kids will plead guilty to soemthing they didn't do because they a) can't afford a lawyer and b) are scared of the death penalty.
Anyway, the point of this blog entry was that I'd been waiting to see if the court would do what it did here. Because I think it's time to revisit Ingraham v Wright.
That case held that government agents can assault citizens without a hearing.
The court said there's no eighth amendment issue because they haven't been found guilty of anything. That's absurd, to say punishment isn't punishment, but that does take it outside the 8th a zone, leaving a due process claim and my innovation, a 13th A claim.
* update: some guy named will baude has a pretty good post looking into this issue further at crescat.
Comments:
Post a Comment
