First off, I didn't exactly laud the decision. As I said, this is clearly a case of judicial overreach. But again, the net result here seems to be a good since this case does not abolish an electorally-reached consensus, but merely qualifies it. Obviously constitutional purists will disagree. They're not wrong; I'm just taking other factors into consideration. If and when capital punishment is abolished altogether, that decision will hopefully only be reached through our elected officials.
Legalisms aside, the morality of capital punishment is worth thinking about seriously. One of the best pieces on the subject is from a 2002 issue of First Things. It's by Antonin Scalia and it lays out the most cogent case I've seen for the death penalty.
It's no surprise that Scalia is both brilliant and very persuasive. But ultimately, I find him less persuasive than Avery Cardinal Dulles who, in another issue of First Things, takes on capital punishment and comes to the opposite conclusion.
Dulles details the early Christian tradition with the death penalty and the moral cases for it. He then acknowledges that while the death penalty "is not in itself a violation of the right to life," the moral issue is "to determine the circumstances under which that penalty ought to be applied."
In considering this question, Dulles treats the four ends of punishment--rehabilitation, defense against the criminal, deterrence, and retribution. He comes to these conclusions:
Pope John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae declared that "as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system," cases in which the execution of the offender would be absolutely necessary "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent." Again at St. Louis in January 1999 the Pope appealed for a consensus to end the death penalty on the ground that it was "both cruel and unnecessary." . . .
In coming to this prudential conclusion, the magisterium is not changing the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes. But the classical tradition held that the State should not exercise this right when the evil effects outweigh the good effects. Thus the principle still leaves open the question whether and when the death penalty ought to be applied. The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good. . . .
In a brief compass I have touched on numerous and complex problems. To indicate what I have tried to establish, I should like to propose, as a final summary, ten theses . . .
1) The purpose of punishment in secular courts is fourfold: the rehabilitation of the criminal, the protection of society from the criminal, the deterrence of other potential criminals, and retributive justice.
2) Just retribution, which seeks to establish the right order of things, should not be confused with vindictiveness, which is reprehensible.
3) Punishment may and should be administered with respect and love for the person punished.
4) The person who does evil may deserve death. According to the biblical accounts, God sometimes administers the penalty himself and sometimes directs others to do so.
5) Individuals and private groups may not take it upon themselves to inflict death as a penalty.
6) The State has the right, in principle, to inflict capital punishment in cases where there is no doubt about the gravity of the offense and the guilt of the accused.
7) The death penalty should not be imposed if the purposes of punishment can be equally well or better achieved by bloodless means, such as imprisonment.
8) The sentence of death may be improper if it has serious negative effects on society, such as miscarriages of justice, the increase of vindictiveness, or disrespect for the value of innocent human life. . . .
Dulles's 9th and 10th theses are simply about Catholic duties, and are therefore of less interest. But I would encourage those interested in the subject to read both Dulles and Scalia in their entirety.
3 comments:
I'm still flummoxed as to why you seem to be breezily dismissing the matter of judicial overreach and bad legal thinking because you got the outcome you wanted.
What happened to the whole "judicial overreach is bad for demcoracy" point conservatives have been trying to make for the past few years? Have you tossed that over because you got a decision that backs up something you believe? I'd be surprised if you weren't a foe of that sort of overreach (before yesterday, at any rate) and I wonder why it's not such a big deal in this case.
But it's not even remotely clear that overreach of any sort is sanctioned by the Constitution. I'd argue that the document goes exactly the other way and prefers that power be left to the demcoratic process and not to a judicial decision.
You said, "If you want kids to be executed when they murder people, write your congressman."
Regardless of your position oon the issue, what would you get by writing your Congressman about it? Aside from the death penalty being a state issue and not a Federal one, the Supremes have put that issue beyond the reach of anything short of another Supremes decision. It's on the high shelf where the infants like you and I can't get to it and hurt ourselves. Lucky us that the Supremes are looking out for us so.
As I mentioned in my comment on JVL's previous post yesterday, it all depends on who your moral authority is. If you are adhering to teachings of First Things, then you are likely accepting the Mother Catholic Church as your authority. If you are Christian but not Catholic, then the Bible should be your authority. There is a big difference.
Post a Comment