« Congratulations to this year’s winners! | Main | The Holocaust »
March 01, 2005
Murder most Legal
My own feelings on capital punishment are mixed: on the one hand, I don't think that the state should have the right to put anyone to death. On the other hand, I do believe that there are some crimes that are so heinous* as to merit only the ultimate punishment. My own feelings, however, are not the basis for the legality of state sanction death. The US constitution is...
The Constitution is, for good reason, shy about stating what crimes are. It does declare that the state may not pass “Cruel and Unusual” sentences. This is something of a broad, ill-defined mandate, and it can thus difficult to determine when the line has been crossed. Complicating the mater is the fact that what is perfectly permissible in one era (involuntary servitude by others) may well be utterly unconscionable in another (slavery). Ms. Lithwick takes a look at the issue, and gives a bit of history...
Should we be executing children? What do our prisons exist for, anyway? If we as a society believe that human beings have the power to better themselves, then our prisons should at least make the attempt to turn otherwise useless dregs of our civilization into productive citizens. In the case of children who murder, it seems obvious that we will have a long time to act on our redemptive instincts, to awaken within those children the idea that others exist as more than mere extensions of their own will to power...
The Supreme Court today seems to recognize that children have underdeveloped minds. In doing so, they give us a chance to save a child’s soul...
*Those crimes are:
1) Genocide
2) Slavery
3) Treason
4) Rape. Rape covers so much ground that I am not usually willing to see death imposed for it...
Posted by Andrew at March 1, 2005 11:24 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.punningpundit.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/666
Comments
While I appreciate your conflicting thoughts about capital punishment, after reading your post I am left with a big question...
What do you mean "Rape covers so much ground that I am not usually willing to see death imposed for it..."
I'm not convinced death ought be imposed for rape, but the definition of rape is pretty damn clear, at least to me. What do you mean it "covers so much ground"?
Posted by: Tom Stockman at March 2, 2005 05:11 AM
There was a case last year wherein a pair of teenagers were copulating. During this extra-curricular activity, the girl said something like “my dad is coming home soon”, or “we should get going”, or “I’m bored”. This was ruled to have been her removing her consent, and thus the boy was found guilty of rape...
I’d have a hard time putting someone to death for that...
Posted by: Andrew Cory at March 2, 2005 06:51 AM
Are you serious, this was actually ruled a rape? Please give me an URL to a credible source. What you are describing is not to me even close.
Posted by: Tom Stockman at March 2, 2005 11:28 AM
Tom, hate to break it to ya, but that's the current definiton of rape. Even if the girl fully consented up to that point, if she says "no," or "stop" in the middle of wild-monkey sex, and the boy doesn't stop, it's as much rape as if the boy shoved a knife against her throat.
But Andrew, I would suggest the "cruel and unusual" clause is not nearly as confusing as you think. Anyone with even a casual knowledge of the context, and history of European law, would understand that as a reference to punishment such as hanging, drawing and quartering, boiling in oil, or burning at the stake.
Obviously, modern American hanging (which relies on a quick neck-break for the actual killing) is far more merciful.
This is the same (literally) unthinking emotional response as the claim that practices such as sleep deprivation, etc. are "torture."
I have a fairly simple view of execution: a dead murderer (or rapist, or whatever) will never, ever, ever do it again. Garanteed.
Posted by: Casey Tompkins at March 4, 2005 10:30 PM