[Kevin Curry]

Bookmarked. Scalia deserves to read carefully, when time does not press.

[Colonel_Flagg]

Agree with Kevin. This deserves to be savored. Thanks for the post.

[Catholicguy]

It will come as no surprise from what I have said that I do not agree with the encyclical Evangelium Vitae and the new Catholic catechism (or the very latest version of the new Catholic catechism), according to which the death penalty can only be imposed to protect rather than avenge, and that since it is (in most modern societies) not necessary for the former purpose, it is wrong. That, by the way, is how I read those documents—and not, as Avery Cardinal Dulles would read them, simply as an affirmation of two millennia of Christian teaching that retribution is a proper purpose (indeed, the principal purpose) of criminal punishment, but merely adding the “prudential judgment” that in modern circumstances condign retribution “rarely if ever” justifies death. (See “Catholicism & Capital Punishment,” FT, April 2001.) I cannot square that interpretation with the following passage from the encyclical:

Sliding his tray down the line of Doctrine in the Catholic Cafeteria goes one of the brightest men in America. Unfortunately, he is in the same line with Frances Quisling, the SSPX, Richard McBrien and the rest of the Protestant-Catholics who engage in private judgement and seek out their own "canonical experts" to assure them that THEY are exempt from this or that Doctrine because, no matter what the Pope says, the "canonical experts" have the real authority in the Catholic Church.

Scalia locuta est, Causa finita est. I sure wish the Pope would start listening to the real authorities...

[Vigilantcitizen]

"The death penalty is undoubtedly wrong unless one accords to the state a scope of moral action that goes beyond what is permitted to the individual. In my view, the major impetus behind modern aversion to the death penalty is the equation of private morality with governmental morality. This is a predictable (though I believe erroneous and regrettable) reaction to modern, democratic self–government."

Georgia law says I can use lethal force if in fear of my life or the lives of others, so the anti- capitol punishment crowd can drop that argument.

Scalia bump!

[RonF]

Very interesting article. You do have to read him carefully, though. Look here:in a country where the federal government and thirty–eight of the states (comprising about 85 percent of the population) believe the death penalty is sometimes just and appropriate?

If you don't read that carefully, it would seem as though he's asserting that 85% of the population favors the death penalty.

But in any case, am I correct in stating that the death penalty is justified not because it provides a deterrent, but because it is simply a just punishment in some cases? The proposition that the death penalty provides deterrence is one of the pillars that death penalty supporters use to justify it's continued usage.

[cruiserman]

It fosters civil disobedience, for example, which proceeds on the assumption that what the individual citizen considers an unjust law—even if it does not compel him to act unjustly—need not be obeyed.

What would he say about an unjust law that compels unjust behavior? Or about an unConstitutional law?

[4CJ]

I pause here to emphasize the point that in my view the choice for the judge who believes the death penalty to be immoral is resignation, rather than simply ignoring duly enacted, constitutional laws and sabotaging death penalty cases. He has, after all, taken an oath to apply the laws and has been given no power to supplant them with rules of his own. Of course if he feels strongly enough he can go beyond mere resignation and lead a political campaign to abolish the death penalty—and if that fails, lead a revolution. But rewrite the laws he cannot do.

Kudos to Justice Scalia (the next Chief Justice).

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

I have a problem with this though: "I do not believe (and, for two hundred years, no one believed) that the Constitution contains a right to abortion. And if a state were to permit abortion on demand, I would—and could in good conscience—vote against an attempt to invalidate that law for the same reason that I vote against the invalidation of laws that forbid abortion on demand: because the Constitution gives the federal government (and hence me) no power over the matter."

If an innocent helpless baby does not have the RIGHT to the pursuit of happiness,..and being treated equally, which is afforded by our Constitution, then WHO does?

Otherwise, I agree with the rest of his essay.

Any thoughts or debate on this matter? Thanks in advance.. as this area of individual rights really concerns me. These children cannot defend themselves.. I would hope our Constitution would defend them. But I read him saying it does not. How can that be??

[HiTech RedNeck]

So Scalia's read on the prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment" is according to what "cruel and unusual punishment" was at the founding of the republic, progressions in moral understanding (or even the very static dictionary meaning of the word "unusual") be damned. This throws the baby out with the bath water.

[avenir]

If anyone is interested in a truly fascinating book on the death penalty, see if you can find a copy of "The Death Penalty: A Debate" by Ernest Van den Haag and John P. Conrad.

Van den Haag is Pro, Conrad is Con. They exchanged chapters back and forth after meeting to establish ground rules. The result is very enlightening. There is much more to the death penalty than I thought (and I am pro).

[Emile]

Bump

[Kerberos]

Bump for later read

[TRY ONE]

Justice Harold Blackmun towards the end of his career ..... announced that he would henceforth vote (as Justices William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall had previously done) to overturn all death sentences.......

Yet these same "Justices" would vote to uphold Row v. Wade, having no remorse killing 35 million innocent ones....