First we take Washington
…then Chicago and New York City.
For the week it’s tied 1 -1. Yesterday the US Supreme Court banned the States’ right to put to death child rapists. However, today in a moment of clarity the Justices ruled in favour of individual gun rights, and reversed Washington DC’s Stalinist gun ban. With Justice Anthony Kennedy being the flipper on each decision. Next to go…the Capital of Obama (Chicago) and New York City’s strict gun laws.
Reader Comments
Justice Kennedy made two good decisions if you ask me. The death penalty is a difficult and constantly debatable issue, but I think the courts are wise to restrict it to the most extreme situations. An eye for an eye might be fair, but a head for an eye is not.
As evil as the rape of a child might be, death is not the appropriate punishment.
As far as the DC gun decision goes, any other decision would have been ridiculous. A law abiding individual’s right to a means of self defense should never be infringed.
Life and liberty are common sense. At least the U.S. Supreme Court are willing to uphold such things.
“a head for an eye is not”
You don’t have children do you?
Now the “National Consensus” in Canada might be in favor of not executing child rapists. But the uproar after USSC’s decision here in the US clarly shows were the actual “National Consenus” was.
The decision to execute child rapists should be left to each State. Not some non elected black robe based on some imaginary “National Consensus”.
No I don’t have children. If I ever do, I can only imagine how I would feel if someone were to abuse them in that way. Castrating the bastard would be a punishment to fit the crime.
But the death penalty is different. It shouldn’t be based on a “National Consensus.” What if the Consensus was to execute all rapists? People who commit date rape? People who get women drunk and take advantage of them?
I think there’s a legitimate slippery slope here that begins to occur the moment you allow administer capital punishment for anything other than premeditated murder.
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
I would argue that “due process of law” implies just and natural laws which uphold the sanctity of life, liberty, and property. Not emotional knee jerk reactions based on some vague “consensus.”
Correction: Sorry, I misunderstood what you were saying about the “national consensus” idea. I thought you were arguing in favour of a pro-death penalty consensus in the U.S.
My point is this: use of the death penalty should not be arbitrarily decided by either a national or state consensus of judges or legislators. It should be strictly limited by the natural reverence for all life that is found in the Constitution.
Pro or Anti capital punishment is irrelevant in this case. (I’m pro).
Kennedy’s decision was made in part based on some “national consensus” that he had; I guess determined himself.
It’s not the job of the judicary to determine or respond to “national consensus”. It’s the legislature’s job.