|
Important
twitter updates
Hosted by
the mindful mission Recent Comments
Most Commented Posts
Categories
Archives
Syndication
Credits
|
More on Death
In the Supreme Court ruling on the Kansas death penalty that I just wrote about, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a separate opinion defending the death penalty:
How do these people become Supreme Court Justices and be so completely ignorant? Does he believe that if the American public believes something, it must be true? And further, I am not convinces that the American public believes what he says they do. First of all, study after study has shown that the death penalty is simply not a deterrent against violent crime. For Justice Scalia to even pretend something different is either complete ignorance or a blatant lie. Second of all, how dare he say that deterrence and "meting out justice" outweighs the possibility of error? Does he understand what an error means? An error in the death penalty means that an innocent person dies at the hands of the "justice" system. Or in other words, at the hands of each and every one of us. Third, Scalia claims that it is not proper to "second-guess" the judgment of death. Really? Not fair? Is it not the role of the Supreme Court to assure that justice has been done? In turn, does this not mean that it is very proper to second-guess the judgment when justice has been wronged? Or when innocent people are being murdered? On top of that, one of the roles of the Supreme Court is to uphold the Constitution, regardless of what the "American people" believe. Just because the American people may believe that the so-called benefits of the death penalty outweigh the possibility of errors does not mean that it is the right thing to do. And Justice Scalia knows that. I would love to have a lunch with Justice Scalia. And just ask him a few simple questions:
Once again, I sure am glad that this nation has "pro-life" judges on the Supreme Court. Aren't you? Comments, Pingbacks:
A few months ago I wrote a short essay for an ethics class about capital punishment. What sets it apart from what I've read and heard elsewhere is that it disregards and refutes the most common political concerns and instead attacks the death penalty from an ethical and philosophical position. It's a very preliminary piece, but if anyone is interested, it is available at this address: http://www.scottsforum.com/files/TheoryOnTheImmoralityOfCapitalPunishment.pdf
I'd be very interested to hear any comments on this essay from people who have spent more time than myself researching and following the debate over capital punishment.
Comment from: Roland [Visitor] 06/27/06 @ 07:44
 Permalink
You keep using that term (pro-life). I do not think i tmeans what you think it means.
It refers to INNOCENT life. But anyway. Scalia knows more about the Constitution than just about everybody else in the country.
Comment from: Helen [Visitor] 06/27/06 @ 13:29
Permalink
'Pro-Life' is a catchy term that has been adopted because it sounds pure and righteous. It is an over-simplified label that does not accurately put across what the majority of those who use it mean.
Pro-Life literally means 'in favour of life'. You want to add 'innocent' to the phrase to clarify I'd be glad to see it (not least because it won't fit on your posters so well.) When Dave writes 'Pro-Life' he means 'Pro-Life'. It's really quite simple. And don't give me that rubbish about traditional Pro-Lifers being in favour of saving innocent life. Are the lives of mothers endangered by pregnancy not innocent? What about in multiple pregnancies in which the mother's body cannot sustain all the feotuses? You can't say you are in favour of saving innocent life and then picking and choosing which of the innocent lives you are prepared to save. It refers to INNOCENT life.No it doesn't, but you can pretend that it does. When one claims to be pro-life, they claim to support life over death. You cannot claim that the "benefits" of the death penalty outweigh possible errors (i.e. innocent people being killed) and claim to be pro-life.
Comment from: Roland [Visitor] 06/28/06 @ 10:28
Permalink
When what you SAY it means and what the people actually using it say it means something else, I go with what the people using it actually intend.
That means they're in favor of innocent life. Babies who have never done anything to deserve torture and dismemberment. Victims who didn't do anything to deserve the crimes committed against them. You know...the GOOD guys.
Comment from: Helen [Visitor] 06/28/06 @ 13:10
Permalink
Roland, Dave is one of the people actually using the term. And I notice you dodge the issue of choosing between innocents. Furthermore, I think you will find there is pretty strong evidence that innocent people have been executed (Lena Baker is one who has been acknowledged.) How easily does that sit with your cosy little Pro-Life, Pro-Death Penalty stance?
Dave,
I can understand your anger about this decision but this post reminds me of fringe leftists who have no clue what judges and courts do. Treating Scalia as if he were an idiot or doesn't understand the law doesn't reflect well on you. You're treating Scalia as if he were a legislator. Scalia notes that it isn't the job of the courts to decide whether a state can regulate its policy on the death penalty. He's not saying the American people are always right. He's merely noting that it's a legislative decision. With regards to abortion, Scalia would have a similar take - his view isn't that the Constitution says abortion should be illegal but that the Constitution doesn't address abortion so states should be allowed to decide abortion policy. Did you take the time to read the whole decision?
Yes...I did read the whole decision.
Scalia notes that it isn't the job of the courts to decide whether a state can regulate its policy on the death penalty. He's not saying the American people are always right. He's merely noting that it's a legislative decision.I understand what you are saying, and I disagree that this is what Scalia said. Scalia said nothing about the states. Scalia referred to the American people. And if it is a legislative decision, then it is the courts role to make sure that the legislation matches up the Constitution. Leave a comment:
|
Friends of
the mindful mission Visit the mindful mission's Amazon store 
Im online casino Playunited wird Ihnen eine grosse Auswahl von online spielautomaten und Internet roulette spielen und zur Verfügung gestellt. friends Trying to make a difference? Get your Master's Degree in Social Work recommended blogs criminal justice/death penalty Progressive Christian Blog Network
|
