I like the way you talk.
Maybe they don’t like the fact of the precident being set that constitutional matters, which the death penalty is, being decided by current public opinion, instead of being determined by the constitution, and what was meant by the language used when it was written.
Also, as was earlier stated, define what point mental retardation becomes great enough to be a defense, it is not a black and white answer, and can not be easily defined.
(Note, I am against the death penalty as a matter of personal feeling, since I distrust the current legal system to get things right in matters of civil law, much less constitutional or laws regarding such important matters as death.)
They’ve agreed that those that apply will have a) IQs under 70 and b) documented history of retardation and difficulty with standard life tasks before the age of 18; they don’t intend people to be able to back-engineer a life of retardation.
In an ideal world, I think the death penalty has its place. Since we don’t live in an ideal world, I’m generally against the death penalty.
Anyway, even though I support this ruling, I think that the SCOTUS making a ruling based on public opinion is a huge load of steaming bullshit. They’re supposed to be above the public, the congress, the president; they’re supposed to make rulings on what is right and conforms to the constitution, not which direction the prevailing wind of public opinion is blowing.
I’m an idealist and a cynic. It’s a pain in the ass.
It’s a great opportunity to remind people that the Bush administration is chomping at the bit - positively salivating at the chance - marking the days off their calendar - I mean they just can’t WAIT, man - to appoint someone very, very much like Scalia or Thomas to the Supreme Court.
One objection to the ruling is that it’s a puts into the law a presumption that having an IQ < 70 means one doesn’t know right from wrong, but this assumption is actually not true. I know several people who have mental retardation, including an adult Downs Syndrome, and they DO know right from wrong.
This case overturned an earlier SCOTUS decision. The majority did not follow stare decisis.
From a purely legal POV there’s nothing embarassing about the minority position. BTW, judges are supposed to rule from a purely legal POV, aren’t they?
gobear asks (of myself, I believe):
I guess I dunno. Perhaps “bile” wasn’t the best word, but the thread belongs here anyway. Ask the OP if it’s bile or moral revulsion.
I was watching “New Hour with Jim Lehrer” on PBS last , and a Michael Rushford anticipates every death-row inmate to file a claim of retardation, in an attempt to get out of the spike/chair. His logic (and i completely agree if you can’t tell) is that they are not prohibited from doing so and have nothing to lose and everything to gain by doing so.
End result= Huge waste of time/money/resources for the taxpayers and judicial system.
Has this problem actually popped up in states that already prohibit executing the mentally retarded?
According to what I’ve read on this to date (and no, I don’t have a cite handy), they’d have to be able to produce evidence from before their 18th birthday that indicates their retardation. So, while you have a valid point, it’s not one that hasn’t already been taken into account.
I was simply stating that without even having to check the news reports, when I saw the decision went 6-3, I immediately knew who the three were that voted against. The fact that I indeed feel moral revulsion at all impositions of the death sentence had little to do with my original post, other than my use of the word “unholy”, of course.
After thinking about this subject for a bit longer, I realized that there is another reason that I agree with the judges who voted against. The reason is that there is already someone who is far more intimately involved in the crime that was commited, who are also in a better position to make the descision as to wiether the guilty knew or did not know the right or wrong of what they did. Namely the jury, this SCotUS descision takes a measure of the responsibility, duty and descretion of the jury away, which is a very bad precident I feel. Just as I hate so call ‘Mandatory Sentencing’ because it takes responsibility, duty, and descretion away from the judge, limiting the judges choices in a matter he should have priority in.
It takes every juror in the trial to agree that death is warrented before it is considered as a possible penalty, the judge can not decide without the agreement of the jurors. Which means every juror had to ask themselves, ‘Is there any reason this person should not get the death penalty.’ If they felt that the person did not understand the nature of the crime, that point is addressed in the judges directions to the jury, and the defense attorney can most likely use it as a reason against that penalty (Not sure what the Defense is allowed to say in closing/sentancing, so might be incorrect there.) But with the descision of the SCotUS, we are begining to render that obligation of the jury null and void.
Dear Lord, what happened to the idea that the SCotUS should be above the politics of the day and focused on the legal issues only?
While digging a little deeper into this issue I found this quote:
"In 1989, the Supreme Court held that executing persons with mental retardation was not a violation of the Eighth Amendment because a “national consensus” had not developed against executing those with mental retardation. At the time, only two states prohibited such executions. Since then, 16 more states and the federal government have enacted laws prohibiting the execution of the mentally retarded… "
At http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/dpicmr.html
Sweet Jumping Jesus. If the “national consensus” at the time was that drawing and quatering the mentaly retarded was ok would the SCotUS go along?
Looking further I found this quote:
“In a separate dissent, Rehnquist said he was troubled by the court’s reliance on the views of opinion polls, foreign governments, and professional and religious organizations in reaching its decision. Such sources are not relevant to questions of constitutionality, Rehnquist wrote.”
From http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/local/3512458.htm
Love him or hate him Rehnquist got that right.
Polycarp,
From the same article I found this quote:
“The court chose not to define a disqualifying level of mental retardation in its opinion. But a footnote in the majority opinion quotes the American Association of Mental Retardation’s definition, which in part says mental retardation includes “significantly subaverage intellectual functioning…Mental retardation manifests before age 18.””
And
“A whole bunch of cases are going to have to be looked at,” said David Elliot, spokesman for the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty. “Everybody on death row today who has a mental retardation claim is going to have to be given a venue and be heard. And in some states, like Texas and Missouri, that is really going to slow things down.”"
So Polycarp, they thought about it some but didn’t make any concreate ruling on the issue so every death row inmate will raise the issue.
FYI, I believe in the death penalty in cases where there is no question that the person is guilty and the crimes are truely horrid. For example, Jeffery Dahlmer should have hit death row. (Though the way he died was more apt than getting an IV stuck in his arm)
Slee
Damn, Slee, preview!
quatering should be quartering
Slee
Well I like the way you talk.
gobear, you seem to be assuming that the judges ruling was based on whether they approved of executing retarded people. That’s a slander on them. Judges are supposed to rule according to the law and the Constitution. Five appointed judges aren’t empowered to enact a law just because they approve of it.
Unfortunately, gobear, your assumption may well be correct. The majority decision seems like a rationalization to justify what the six judges thought was a good idea.