God's Justice and Ours [Antonin Scalia on capital punishment]

First Things ^ | 5/02 | Antonin Scalia

[Raymond Hendrix]

Thanks for posting this. It certainly answers some questions. Most nations believe in war when they are attacked so they do believe in the death penalty regardless of what they say. The state does indeed act (or is supposed to act) in the place of God. Therefore the state has the power to execute convicted criminals where the individual does not.

His ideas about democracy are also interesting and they ring true. We should not submit to mob rule and the constitution certainly should not be subject to the whims of the majority.

[Caleb1411]

I've never read a Scalia opinion that invoked the 'right to privacy' except to deride it. If I have read it, I don't remember it. I'm willing to be corrected, though.

And I can probably count the Scalia opinions I've read (in their entirety, at least) on one hand. So I'll entrust the refutation to you, gdani, when your weekend respite ends.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

I often hear Scalia talking about a constitutional "right to privacy" (in non-abortion situations) yet I see no mention of such a right in the Bill of Rights.

That could be a worrisome thing. Do you have links to any web-published remarks by Scalia on that "right"? I'd be interested in reading what he's said.

What would make "searches" "unreasonable," if not a right to privacy?

[Ol' Sparky]

Whether the system is flawed to the point of allowing the rich to hire lawyers that manipulate juries has nothing specificially to do with the death penatly. It's wrong for a rich man to be able to hire lawyers that prevent a jail sentence as well.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

it is no accident, I think, that the modern view that the death penalty is immoral is centered in the West. That has little to do with the fact that the West has a Christian tradition, and everything to do with the fact that the West is the home of democracy. Indeed, it seems to me that the more Christian a country is the less likely it is to regard the death penalty as immoral. Abolition has taken its firmest hold in post–Christian Europe, and has least support in the church–going United States.

Invocation of the Constitution by those who do not consider the text of it binding is hypocisy. They hope thereby to endue their ukase with the patina of legitimacy.

But their language-abusing "living Constitution" expression gives the game away; in truth they mean that the Constitution is dead.

When they say "Constitution" they mean, not an understanding adopted 200+ years ago, but their own will. It is folly to hear a liberal any other way than that--and it is folly to entrust such a person with authority over the enforcement of the law. Thanks be to God that we are past x42's reign of error; may we never have such another!

[dheretic]

What we need is a judicial panel that is constitutionally require to review any bill for constitutionality before it goes to the President, a balanced budget amendment and a constitutional rule which mandates that the name of the bill must reflect the content and that a bill can only address one subject (no omnibus bills anymore). Banning the addition of amendments would be nice too.

[bloggerjohn]

I keep seeing this Scalia "quote" all over the net. Can someone tell me if it's bogus netrumor or if not, what the source is? It seems kind of incredible so I figured the Dems made it up.

"Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached." - Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

[Vladiator]

It's not in an opinion. He said it in a speech. And yes, he did say it, and the context doesn't change it.

He meant that if someone is provably factually innocent, then the governor should pardon him, or otherwise take care of it, but there is no procedural mechanism in federal law to stop states from killing innocent people.

It was not Antonin's greatest moment.

As to privacy, he wrote the "thermal imaging" case, which forbids police from using infra-red to scan you in your home. I think that is a big privacy issue, but he couldn't bring himself to agree with the previous justices who had written on it, so he made his own law on it.

Here it is: Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27 (2001)

[Caleb1411]

I don't think anyone has found what appears to be an apocryphal quote. Witness this web-posted entreaty:

Apparently, after the 1993 Herrera decision (506 U.S. 390), Justice Scalia made the following comment in a speech: "Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached." I've searched the NYTimes for a mention of the speech, I've looked at a speech website (gwis2.circ.gwu.edu/~gprice/speech.htm), I've checked in news and transcript databases on Westlaw and Lexis both. Do any of you recognize this as coming from a speech given at your law school, by any chance, or can anyone point me to another likely place where I might find the speech? I continue to check things out as I get flashes of insight into where it might be lurking, but have come up dry in several days of looking.

There was only one reply: a respondent's suggestion to check out Amnesty International, which ardently opposes the death penalty, in the (Scalia-calumniating) hope that it could find the "quote."

[Tourist Guy]

As all will one day come to face the truth.
Thanks for the link, I vividly recall thinking of the Judgement Seat the day Blackmun passed on.

FRegards

[bloggerjohn]

"there is no procedural mechanism in federal law to stop states from killing innocent people."

Seems a bit harsh ;')

But thanks. Hard to sift the netrumors from the truth these days.

[apochromat]

"Mere factual innocence"

I'm not sure how that differs from simply saying "Innocence", but I'm sure it's complicated.

[weikel]

"Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached."

He wrote that you gotta be kidding me???

[F16Fighter]

Yeah -- You vs. Scalia in a debate over a "living Constitution." Oughta be a close one.

[onedoug]

You're right in that the Constitution admits, "...Capital or otherwise infamous offence(s)". But I've turned against the notion of its imposition since it has NEVER, in all of American history, seen anyone of any standing or celebrity (other than criminal) so dispatched.

[GarySpFc]

Ping!

[Paperback Writer]

I believe in some sort of speech? Misquotation?