Death Penalty Decision

[DonkSlayer 1]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060626/us_nm/...m4yBHNlYwNmYw--I haven't read the law for myself, but Yahoo and Reuters are reporting that the 1994 law passed in Kansas the Supreme Court just upheld tells jurors that if they have convicted a defendant of a capital offense, they must use the death penalty unless mitigating factors outweigh those that favor the death penalty. Meaning, if mitigating = death, you go with death.The decision was 5-4. The dissent that was filed by Souter included the below quote:Souter cited the evidence of hazards in capital cases and wrote that the Kansas system "is obtuse by any moral or social measure."So, do you think that the Supreme Court's decision was constitutionally correct? Was Souter right to consider "moral" or "social" issues when ruling on this case?

[Yoda 1]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060626/us_nm/...m4yBHNlYwNmYw--I haven't read the law for myself, but Yahoo and Reuters are reporting that the 1994 law passed in Kansas the Supreme Court just upheld tells jurors that if they have convicted a defendant of a capital offense, they must use the death penalty unless mitigating factors outweigh those that favor the death penalty. Meaning, if mitigating = death, you go with death.The decision was 5-4. The dissent that was filed by Souter included the below quote:Souter cited the evidence of hazards in capital cases and wrote that the Kansas system "is obtuse by any moral or social measure."So, do you think that the Supreme Court's decision was constitutionally correct? Was Souter right to consider "moral" or "social" issues when ruling on this case?

Without getting political...I just have to say that some bastards just really really deserve the death penalty. Like child molester murderers.P.S. Lincoln Burrows is innocent

[keith crime 8]

I'd be a bit more comfortable with the death penalty if DNA wasn't freeing like 5 guys a day from death row. Anyone ever seen the thin blue line - about an innocent guy the filmmaker proved was innocent that was on death row?Hell Yeah Lincoln Burrows is innocent - one handed T Bag is too!

[LongLiveYorke 38]

I'm against the death penalty all the way, so don't get me started.

[dna4ever 2]

I'd be a bit more comfortable with the death penalty if DNA wasn't freeing like 5 guys a day from death row.

Leave me out of this fuckface

[DonkSlayer 1]

The point of my OP was....is it correct for Supreme Court judges to take into consideration what Souter did, or should the rule strictly on the constitutionality of issues like this?

[keith crime 8]

I believe jurors should follow their hearts and I don;'t really think precedent applies when things get this goofy and detailed - so i like what he did - it sounds like a dumb law

[ricker 0]

my head just exploded

[CobaltBlue 662]

I believe jurors should follow their hearts

That's not exactly a good basis for a judicial decision.

So, do you think that the Supreme Court's decision was constitutionally correct? Was Souter right to consider "moral" or "social" issues when ruling on this case?

DS, I'm not really clear about what you're asking in the first question. As for the second, I think moral and social issues are obviously going to influence judicial rulings since they're the building blocks of the judicial system anyway.

[DonkSlayer 1]

That's not exactly a good basis for a judicial decision.DS, I'm not really clear about what you're asking in the first question. As for the second, I think moral and social issues are obviously going to influence judicial rulings since they're the building blocks of the judicial system anyway.

My first question was simply: Was this ruling correct, given the constitution, and why?Personally Cobalt, I would like to see moral and social issues shaping the law, but not its interpretation.

[Shimmering Wang 1]

I read this article earlier today, and I've actually given in quite a bit of thought. I was going to try and find the actual majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions in order to better understand the ruling (the article cited above was super-vague and unhelpful), but I'm drinking instead.So, without further ado, the Ruminations of Wang:Firstly, I should qualify this with my extreme anti-death penalty leanings. I'll try to keep the scope as narrow as possible here, but I'm human, so my judgment will likely be colored. Once again, I'm absolutely NOT arguing from a backwards Anti-DP state, and trying to retrospectively justify a position, but I am surely still biased.As to the ruling: I don't get it. At all.If I have the proper gist of Souter's dissension, I'm completely on baord with what he has to say. In our legal system, the tie goes to the runner. By that I mean all things equal, when a definitive decision can't be reached, we should err on the side of the defendant (or, in this case, convicted murderer). I don't have a strong background in Sentencing Law, nor- to be perfectly honest- the law as it pertains to the application of the death penalty. But it DOES seem morally obtuse to say, as the Thomas decision seems to, "if jurors are torn by whether or not mitigating factors outweigh the crime, then the sentence MUST be death." Why? WHY does the tie go the State, here? If I had a Constitutional answer to that question, I'd be better equipped to answer the question DonkSlayer proposed. But, alas, I don't. On face, in my gut, I think the ruling is scary and sad. If the crime is EXACTLY mitigated by other factors, then it seems the nature of the crime is COMPLETELY mitigated by those factors. I really wanna talk about this. Keep it coming, DonkSlayer, and if I don't get too drunk you can bet I'll engage you in a very lively but civil discussion of this very narrow aspect of the case. Send me a PM if nobody else is responding and you want someone to bounce ideas off of.Cheers,Wang

Souter cited the evidence of hazards in capital cases and wrote that the Kansas system "is obtuse by any moral or social measure."So, do you think that the Supreme Court's decision was constitutionally correct? Was Souter right to consider "moral" or "social" issues when ruling on this case?

I think you misunderstand. He's not saying jurors should consider moral and social issues (though the latter they CAN of course), but rather that the Kansas System- ie, the "tie goes to the State" system- is "obtuse by any moral or social measure." I think everyone misunderstood, including DonkSlayerWang

[DonkSlayer 1]

I don't know if this opine of mine makes me conserv., lib, constructionist, etc...but here goes.I believe the law must be black and white, for the most part. It's why I tend to side with those who are against amnesty for illegal aliens, punishment for marjiuana use, etc...the law is the law.I personally agree with Wang about the death penalty (I believe only in the rarest cases is it the best punishment) and it's application in Kansas. I think the Kansas legislators have better things to worry about than making sure some guy gets the chamber if there's some sort of "tie." HOWEVER,The constitution does not forbid states from passing a law similar to the one in question here. Does the state have the right to pass such a law? The Constitution says that unless Congress was allowed that particular power, states/localities have it.So, I think the Supreme Court was right to overturn the decision of the Appeals Court: The state had a right to pass the law and no part of the constitution restricts it.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

I take it that your issue, Donk, is with the concept of "activist judges." Okay, maybe that's an extremely loaded term, but I agree with you to an extent. The role of the court is to interpret and to determine constitutionality. You're right, there's nothing "unconstitutional" with the law (or no more than any death penalty law, whatever that means). So, sure, I guess it was the right ruling since we don't want real legislating from the bench.The role of the Supreme Court has always been blurry, and determining what is "constitutional" is quite difficult often. I believe that the Supreme Court has had a ton of success over the last century and was a great force for change for the good (Brown vs. Board of Ed, etc etc etc). One could argue that there aren't direct constitutionality issues in many cases that have brought about change for the good, but rather they are more based on morality and societal norms. I don't know, I'm not really a hardcore history person or I'd be more specific. But I don't think it's always a bad thing of the court strays a bit to tackle an issue brought before it that doesn't directly violate an overt statement in the constitution. But what do I know?I guess the end justifies the means...?

[Shimmering Wang 1]

The constitution does not forbid states from passing a law similar to the one in question here. Does the state have the right to pass such a law? The Constitution says that unless Congress was allowed that particular power, states/localities have it.So, I think the Supreme Court was right to overturn the decision of the Appeals Court: The state had a right to pass the law and no part of the constitution restricts it.

And here is where we have to probably end the argument, unless we read the decision itself. I'm not sure what the justification of the decision was. There may have been an argument similar to DonkSlayer's in there, somewhere. If it was an issue of States' Rights, then it makes a little more sense. If it was an issue of Cruel and Unusual punishment, it makes less sense. It might have been an issue of Due Process, or something more complicated (read: I can't think of it). If it was an issue of the American Constitution, it probably comes down to a few things. If the state of Kansas passed a law that violated the US Constitution, that law (or decision) should be overturned. If the law was inconsequential, it should be (and will be) ignored by the highest court in the land. If it was an issue of judicial dissent, it should be examined. I'm hammered (like a lot), but I just don't know the arguments made by both sides. I think I'm going to examine them further tomorrow, and figure out what the basis for the decision was. If it was an issue of "States' Rights" I'll probably let it go grudgingly, even though I think the concept is pretty outdated when it comes to important national issues, especially those typically referred to the Supreme Court. If there's some other issue at bar (which I have an inkling there is) I'd like to discuss it further. If I had a copy of the Constitution in front of me, I'd like to think that there's some part of it that says or implies: "tie goes to the defendant." The death penalty is not to be taken lightly. Why is "Equal mitigation" not the same as "complete mitigation" in the eyes of the Constitution.WangPS- States' Rights on important issues are silly, and we'll talk about this laterPPS- Also, the "equal mitigation = death" seems so... arbitrary

[CobaltBlue 662]

Personally Cobalt, I would like to see moral and social issues shaping the law, but not its interpretation.

I can dig that approach.

[Shimmering Wang 1]

Everyone but me is missing the point.Wang

[Dirtydutch 8]

Free Hat.

[CobaltBlue 662]

Everyone but me is missing the point.

I didn't even really get the question, so I'm not likely to get the answer.

[Shimmering Wang 1]

I didn't even really get the question, so I'm not likely to get the answer.

6am ESTI... I don't believe I'll remember this in the morning. DonkSlayer didn't even understand the question he was asking, I don't think. Actually, that's not fair. He knew the question he was asking; it just didn't make any sense.My longasss post does a decent job of explaining the... I don't know..I can't see the keyboard..... I think the idea is: "When a jury is debating whether or not a defendant should be put to death, if they consider 'mitigating factors' exactly equal to......"Whoa.It's like 620Am.....CRADLE ROOOOOLLLLL! Wang

[DonkSlayer 1]

Everyone but me is missing the point.Wang

^^^This is awesome.Wang I don't think we're missing the point, but maybe you find a higher cause in the issue than the one I was talking about. I love me some sticky Supreme Court cases b/c of the complexity and gray-area stuff that is coming up in this thread.As for your P.S. Wang, State's "rights" is important in this case. Everyone should embrace the notion of strong states, not because it makes you a conservative but because you are virtually guarunteed a larger influence on the state or even lower level on issues than you are at the national. Yorke, your point that the Court has been on the right side of history on occasions such as Brown vs. Board of Education, etc. is spot-on. I'm happy with those decisions b/c I believe they are based on good Constitutional content...I just hope that's really the case and that I don't just believe that b/c the decision was "good."

[Farnan 0]

OK--first of all, donkslayer--while i appreciate your interest in the subject area, you've completely missed the issues and what the justices focused on in their legal analysis. And i mean completely. Now i fault the poorly written article that was obviously written by someone with little or no legal knowledge--so please don't take what i'm saying the wrong way. This is often the problem with reporting on legal issues--they miss the key issues 9 times out of 10.In furman v. georgia, justice brennan outlined the test for cruel and unusual punishment---The "essential predicate" is "that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity", especially torture. "A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion". "A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society". "A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary". The third test--"A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society" obviously allows for a discussion of modern day morals and views towards the form of punishment. So to answer your question, yes, in this case, it is appropriate to discuss moral and social issues.And while i also like to see bright line tests for law---not all issues are able to be analyzed that easy. The 8th amendment is definately one of them.If you truely like constitutional law (it IS really interesting)--i suggest buying a Constitutional Law treatise--such as Constitutional Law Policies and Procedures by Erwin Chemerinsky -- that got me through con law class when my professor was a fricken chop

[DonkSlayer 1]

Farnan, I like your points. However, I don't think the punishment was the issue as much as it was "Can Kansas do this?" Right?