Supreme Court rules execution of metally retarded UNCONSTITUTIONAL

MSNBC ^ | 6/20/02 | MSNBC

[Hacksaw]

That's nice. Now the Constitution is determined by concensus.

The SC majority puts more value on the life of a retarded murderer than they do on an unborn child.

I noticed that concensus did not get in the way of the SC declaring Nebraska's ban on partial birth abortion unconstitutional.

[IncPen]

Someone ought to tell Clinton. Seems to me he presided over the execution of a retarded man as governor on the eve of the '92 election, because he was being hammered as being 'soft on crime'.

Who knew?

[Alberta's Child]

Here's an interesting question: How can a specific manner of criminal punishment be declared "cruel and unusual" simply because of the type of person it is being carried out against? Does this mean that retarded people are being given a Constitutional protection that "normal" people do not have?

[onedoug]

Celebrities and the wealthy need not fear capital punishment either.

[Ken H]

This is the same USSC we are guaranteed will throw out the First Amendment restictions of the Campaign Finance Reform bill.

[Paleo Conservative]

Someone ought to tell Clinton. Seems to me he presided over the execution of a retarded man as governor on the eve of the '92 election, because he was being hammered as being 'soft on crime'.

Who knew?

He wasn't retarded when he committed the crime. He tried to commit suicide by shooting himself in the head when he was cornered by police. He ended up giving himself a lobotomy instead.

[Jim Noble]

Does anyone have the url or a link to the dissent?

[ladtx]

Scalia said he thinks this ruling will turn death penalty cases into a game, with convicts trying to fake being mentally retarded...

Exactly!

[cd jones]

nepotism at it's best

[IncPen]

He wasn't retarded when he committed the crime. He tried to commit suicide by shooting himself in the head when he was cornered by police. He ended up giving himself a lobotomy instead.

You're right.

[mict42]

Well, let's see, we have the Special Olympics and Special Education, how about Special Injections- the needle is one of those practical joke kinds that just looks like it's going in.

[eagleye]

The rationale for the death penalty is a mystery to me. Even the proponents do not claim that it deters crime, and it costs the state more than imprisonment, given that numerous appeals must be litigated. And DNA evidence has proved that we have come dangerously close to frying a good number of innocent people. So, will someone articulate for me just why you belive we should continue the practice?

[hopespringseternal]

The real question is: Given the obvious insanity of 2/3rds of Supreme Court justices, should they be excused from the death penalty too?

I find it amazing that democrats can appoint Supreme Court justices who will further their agenda 100% of the time, while republicans are lost in the woods on the issue.

Of course, this may just be protection from republican lawmakers too, since none of them apparently have an IQ over 70 either.

[Alberta's Child]

If you want to argue against the death penalty on any of the grounds that you've described, then fine. But ruling the death penalty unconstitutional on any of those grounds is intellectually dishonest. And deciding that the death penalty is unconstitutional only when it is applied to "retarded" people is such an idiotic application of the law that the U.S. Supreme Court has less moral authority than a cockroach.

[Bryan]

The rationale for the death penalty is a mystery to me. Even the proponents do not claim that it deters crime, and it costs the state more than imprisonment, given that numerous appeals must be litigated. And DNA evidence has proved that we have come dangerously close to frying a good number of innocent people. So, will someone articulate for me just why you belive we should continue the practice?

I'm from Illinois, where we've had a moratorium on the death penalty for several years. I'm also a paralegal who worked for a defense attorney for over a decade and yes, we handled a few murder cases. I can certainly understand the arguments offered by both sides.

My position is that in some cases, we need the death penalty because certain people simply don't deserve to live and because the surviving relatives of the victims deserve retribution. I think that every death sentence should mean that the state forfeits jurisdiction of the case directly to the United States Supreme Court.

Let the Supreme Court divide into three panels of three justices each, just like every other appellate court in the nation, in order to hear the increased case load. And let this be the one and only appeal. We'd see brutal murderers executed within 18 months of a guilty verdict, rather than 18 years. Justice delayed is justice denied.

[eagleye]

Alberta's Child,

Thanks for your response. I am much more interested in the question of whether the death penalty is intelligent and moral social policy than whether or not it is strictly constitutional. I lack the legal expertise to address that question with much authority.

Regarding strict constitutional interpretation, it is interesting to note that most constitutional amendments in recent years have been offered by "conservatives."

[Alberta's Child]

Regarding strict constitutional interpretation, it is interesting to note that most constitutional amendments in recent years have been offered by "conservatives."

That is precisely what defines these people as "conservatives." The U.S. Constitution includes a clearly-defined process for passing amendments. What infuriates conservatives is that liberals have never even bothered to amend the Constitution -- they simply rely on justices to render decisions that have no basis in Constitutional law.

I'm no fan of the death penalty, either. Not for any of the reasons that you describe, but because a nation that can produce an O.J. jury, a Clinton presidency, or a Jerry Springer show doesn't have the moral authority to put people in jail, let alone execute them.

[Ditto]

Regarding strict constitutional interpretation, it is interesting to note that most constitutional amendments in recent years have been offered by "conservatives."

What is unusual about that? If you think the Constitution has a flaw, the proper way to resolve it is through amendment, not by re-interpretation based opinion polls or popular sentiment. That is not law --- it is mob rule in robes.

I personally have a problem with the death penalty, not on constitutional grounds but on religious/moral/ethical grounds. But I refuse to insult anyone’s IQ by making a case that it is unconstitutional on its face. It clearly is not.

This ruling by the SC is bizarre at best. The perp admits forming prior intent and admits understanding that it is wrong. I don't give a damn if his IQ (what the hell is that anyway, and who decides?) is 70 or 170, he meets the criteria for pre-meditated murder in the act of committing a felony. If I get caught I can simply plead stupidity while someone doing the exact same thing who happened to finish high school still gets fried? Are we equal under the law or not?