On the death penalty...
In Criminal Law today, we had an interesting discussion on the death penalty, in part due to a controversial Supreme Court decision that was handed down last week on the death penalty and minors, Roper v. Simmons. (2005 WL 464890)
Here is a link to the case... I suggest you read the entire opinion, including the concurrance and dissents. They are a good read.
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-633.ZS.html
I don’t disagree with the death penalty on a theoretical, ideological level. Perhaps it’s becauseI feel that if you break your contract with society and have such a strong, disregard for someone else’s right to breath, the society shouldn’t respect yours. Life is all about choices….. we all live together under an implied social contract, that places a high regard for life in general. We choose to reap the benefits of that social contract, and if we take away someone else’s benefits
under that contract, we deserve to have our own revoked. Retribution is a very human aspect, that no matter how “civilized” we become, we have a strong need for… and I don’t think it’s a matter of bloodlust, I think it is a matter of restoring the victim’s rights, and bringing the criminal back to the level of the victim. The criminal has taken away someone else’s fundamental rights without remorse or a second thought, and no recognition of that can come without bringing the criminal to some kind of level point to the victim.
That being said, I have a major problem with the application of the death penalty. The system we have can never be made perfect, but under the current system I think it is much less perfect than it could be. The penalty is applied with racial bias, in generally way too many cases, (not being used as a last resort) and is applied with generally unequal force. Juries are imperfect, and are sometimes not an accurate cross section of our society, even though there are procedures to
question the validity of any specific jury. Facts are imperfect, and there are situations where the facts in a given case do not support the actual death sentence. Also, governmental bias can come into play, and we currently have some criminals on death row who are there because of political or social ideals, such as Mumia Abul-Jamal, who was convicted under an unfair trial. If we cannot apply the death penalty in a way that reflects a narrow, objective, last resort way, then we shouldn’t apply it at all. I don’t necessarily buy the principle that the means justify the ends. The argument that we shouldn’t question the validity of the system just because some people fall under the wheels of the system is absurd. The judicial system is in place in order to adequately protect the rights that we have under our social contract, and that means the rights of the accused, as well as the rights of the victims. Now, if there isn't ANY doubt in the world as to who committed the crime, the crime was particularly heinous, and the criminal is only human because of biology, then I don't feel to badly about the death penalty. Fry the son of a bitch. BUT, it should be applied as narrowly as possible, if we have to apply it at all.
Simmons acted in an inhumane, terrible way that makes us question his ability for compassion and human empathy. That is obvious. However, he was only a junior in high school when this happened. I agree with Justice Kennedy when he stated that “the differences between juvenile and adult offenders are too marked and well understood to risk allowing a youthful person to received the death penalty despite insufficient culpability.” Pg. 14. A bright line should be drawn, if only because it is more objective than allowing the courts to try juveniles on a case by case basis. Such subjectivity leads to discriminatory and inconsistant results. It is damned near impossible for us to determine the emotional maturity of a minor, and with overwhelming evidence and experiences, it is a basic assumption that minors are rash, impetuous, and do not weigh the choices of our consequences. We protect minors for a reason. Unless we can determine mental and emotional maturity in minors for certain, without any doubt, and determine that they are fit for the death penalty because they are emotionally older the age of majority, there is NO WAY we can sentance them to death. Besides, life in prison for an eighteen year old is a fairly harsh sentance, and I think, equally fits the bill in this case.
Here is a link to the case... I suggest you read the entire opinion, including the concurrance and dissents. They are a good read.
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-633.ZS.html
I don’t disagree with the death penalty on a theoretical, ideological level. Perhaps it’s becauseI feel that if you break your contract with society and have such a strong, disregard for someone else’s right to breath, the society shouldn’t respect yours. Life is all about choices….. we all live together under an implied social contract, that places a high regard for life in general. We choose to reap the benefits of that social contract, and if we take away someone else’s benefits
under that contract, we deserve to have our own revoked. Retribution is a very human aspect, that no matter how “civilized” we become, we have a strong need for… and I don’t think it’s a matter of bloodlust, I think it is a matter of restoring the victim’s rights, and bringing the criminal back to the level of the victim. The criminal has taken away someone else’s fundamental rights without remorse or a second thought, and no recognition of that can come without bringing the criminal to some kind of level point to the victim.
That being said, I have a major problem with the application of the death penalty. The system we have can never be made perfect, but under the current system I think it is much less perfect than it could be. The penalty is applied with racial bias, in generally way too many cases, (not being used as a last resort) and is applied with generally unequal force. Juries are imperfect, and are sometimes not an accurate cross section of our society, even though there are procedures to
question the validity of any specific jury. Facts are imperfect, and there are situations where the facts in a given case do not support the actual death sentence. Also, governmental bias can come into play, and we currently have some criminals on death row who are there because of political or social ideals, such as Mumia Abul-Jamal, who was convicted under an unfair trial. If we cannot apply the death penalty in a way that reflects a narrow, objective, last resort way, then we shouldn’t apply it at all. I don’t necessarily buy the principle that the means justify the ends. The argument that we shouldn’t question the validity of the system just because some people fall under the wheels of the system is absurd. The judicial system is in place in order to adequately protect the rights that we have under our social contract, and that means the rights of the accused, as well as the rights of the victims. Now, if there isn't ANY doubt in the world as to who committed the crime, the crime was particularly heinous, and the criminal is only human because of biology, then I don't feel to badly about the death penalty. Fry the son of a bitch. BUT, it should be applied as narrowly as possible, if we have to apply it at all.
Simmons acted in an inhumane, terrible way that makes us question his ability for compassion and human empathy. That is obvious. However, he was only a junior in high school when this happened. I agree with Justice Kennedy when he stated that “the differences between juvenile and adult offenders are too marked and well understood to risk allowing a youthful person to received the death penalty despite insufficient culpability.” Pg. 14. A bright line should be drawn, if only because it is more objective than allowing the courts to try juveniles on a case by case basis. Such subjectivity leads to discriminatory and inconsistant results. It is damned near impossible for us to determine the emotional maturity of a minor, and with overwhelming evidence and experiences, it is a basic assumption that minors are rash, impetuous, and do not weigh the choices of our consequences. We protect minors for a reason. Unless we can determine mental and emotional maturity in minors for certain, without any doubt, and determine that they are fit for the death penalty because they are emotionally older the age of majority, there is NO WAY we can sentance them to death. Besides, life in prison for an eighteen year old is a fairly harsh sentance, and I think, equally fits the bill in this case.