the court is a bunch of pussies

[M. (hristine]

Other statutes allowing the death penalty for non-murder crimes.

Although no one is presently on death row for these crimes, capital offenses exist in state law for various other crimes:

 

Treason (Arkansas, Calif., Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Washington)

Aggravated kidnapping (Co., Idaho, Il., Missouri, Mont.)

Drug trafficking (Fl., Missouri)

Aircraft hijacking (Ga., Mo.)

Placing a bomb near a bus terminal (Mo.)

Espionage (New Mexico)

Aggravated assault by incarcerated, persistent felons, or murderers (Mont.)

 

 

Federal capital statutes for non-murder crimes (no one on death row)

Espionage (18 U.S.C. 794)

Treason. (18 U.S.C. 2381)

Trafficking in large quantities of drugs (18 U.S.C. 3591)

Attempting, authorizing or advising the killing of any officer, juror,or witness in cases involving a Continuing Criminal Enterprise, regardless of whether such killing actually occurs. (18 U.S.C. 3591)

[cryptique]

Interesting.

 

I guess I don't regard any of those as capital offenses. But of course, as I said, this isn't an issue I'm all that passionate about.

[Good Old Neon]

The drug trafficking one always cracks me up - two of the worst, most destructive drugs being legal - both (alcohol to a lesser extent), fill the pockets of many a politician, law maker, etc.

[M. (hristine]

Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were the last people to be executed in the US for espionage.

 

Brian Regan was up for the death penalty in 2003 for three charges of attempted espionage. He was sentenced to life without parole.

[ikol]

As the commander in chief, isn't Bush ultimately responsible for the mass murder of thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians, many of them children - why shouldn't he and his accomplices be held to the same standard? Mass murder, rape, and good ole fashioned murder are at war's center.

 

Because not everyone subscribes to utilitarianism and thus the primary intention of an act of war can justify the secondary effects such as civilian deaths.

[Leo]

Because not everyone subscribes to utilitarianism and thus the primary intention of an act of war can justify the secondary effects such as civilian deaths.

So tell me Ms. Kamm, does a "military engagement" brought to fruition through fabricated fear and arrogance-based fraud also justify innocent death? Where's the fucking morality in that?

[Good Old Neon]

Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were the last people to be executed in the US for espionage.

 

Brian Regan was up for the death penalty in 2003 for three charges of attempted espionage. He was sentenced to life without parole.

 

That

[JUDE]

That

[Good Old Neon]

And you think this is uniquely American?

 

No, but I do think it is uniquely retarded.

[MattZ]

Other statutes allowing the death penalty for non-murder crimes.

Although no one is presently on death row for these crimes, capital offenses exist in state law for various other crimes:

 

And you can bet that if anyone is on death row for those crimes in the future, that the defense will cite to this case and claim that the state law is unconstitutional.

[M. (hristine]

In a case of espionage or treason I'm not so sure.

[MattZ]

In a case of espionage or treason I'm not so sure.

 

Right, sorry. I think the majority even said as much in this most recent case.

[John Smith]

That's the point, though. Where is the court's justification for this. Essentially the majority is using its own sense of morality to determine if something is cruel and unusual. That isn't their job. Plus, it's inconsistent, as Alito pointed out in his dissent:

 

But isn't this what lawmakers do? Those in the majority make and pass laws based on their own sense of morality? Look at our nation over the past eight years. One party has had a slim majority and has used that slim majority to pass through all sorts of legislation, the supreme court is no different in that a slim majority is deciding a fairly large number of cases (by supreme court standards), by 5-4 margins. Cases going in both directions. It used to be that there would be consensus built and cases would be decided 7-2, 9-0 etc... Now in our politically polarized world we don't get those large consensus decisions very often.

 

One thing I don't get the the phrase legislating from the bench. Where exactly are they legislating? Saying a law is unconstitutional is deciding on the constitutionality of the law. Legislating from the bench is when the courts seemingly pass along modifications for laws when handing them back to congress or state legislatures. In the current court Scalia seems to be the guy who most often does this.

 

Anyhow beyond all that the thing about the law that troubles me is defining the whole mess. The case at hand was especially heinous and evil, no doubt about that, it is pretty cut and dry/black and white. But what about the grey area's? What would qualify as the crime? Certainly a father/child situation qualifies? Older sibling/younger sibling? Polygamists in west TX? What about teacher/student? 19 year old & 16 year old? 21 year old and a 14 year old having consensual sex and parents seeing it otherwise? Would the case be as notable if the mother in that family had raped the son?

[EL the Famous]

Sounds like you have a pretty narrow idea of what "Christian" is.

 

understatement. of. the. year.

[ikol]

So tell me Ms. Kamm, does a "military engagement" brought to fruition through fabricated fear and arrogance-based fraud also justify innocent death? Where's the fucking morality in that?

 

That sounds like a "How many times do you beat your wife?" type of question.

[MrRain422]

Law itself is really nothing but a way of codifying morality.

[bleedorange]

But isn't this what lawmakers do? Those in the majority make and pass laws based on their own sense of morality? Look at our nation over the past eight years. One party has had a slim majority and has used that slim majority to pass through all sorts of legislation, the supreme court is no different in that a slim majority is deciding a fairly large number of cases (by supreme court standards), by 5-4 margins. Cases going in both directions. It used to be that there would be consensus built and cases would be decided 7-2, 9-0 etc... Now in our politically polarized world we don't get those large consensus decisions very often.

 

One thing I don't get the the phrase legislating from the bench. Where exactly are they legislating? Saying a law is unconstitutional is deciding on the constitutionality of the law. Legislating from the bench is when the courts seemingly pass along modifications for laws when handing them back to congress or state legislatures. In the current court Scalia seems to be the guy who most often does this.

 

Anyhow beyond all that the thing about the law that troubles me is defining the whole mess. The case at hand was especially heinous and evil, no doubt about that, it is pretty cut and dry/black and white. But what about the grey area's? What would qualify as the crime? Certainly a father/child situation qualifies? Older sibling/younger sibling? Polygamists in west TX? What about teacher/student? 19 year old & 16 year old? 21 year old and a 14 year old having consensual sex and parents seeing it otherwise? Would the case be as notable if the mother in that family had raped the son?

 

That's how our system of government is supposed to work. The legislators pass laws based on the will of the people as elected representatives of the people, who have a better understanding of evolving opinions of morality or decency or whatever else.

 

The term "legislating from the bench" is a bit of a misnomer. When 5-9 people start determining whether a law is unconstitutional based on nothing more than their own sense of right or wrong, that's where the term comes from. Justices aren't appointed to be the nation's moral guide on all issues and laws, but rather unbiased interpreters of laws.

 

In Alito's dissent, he brings up the gray areas of the law. Of course, it isn't a black or white issue. But it is the role of juries to determine the fate of the convicted in these cases, and to distinguish the depraved from the other instances.

[John Smith]

The term "legislating from the bench" is a bit of a misnomer. When 5-9 people start determining whether a law is unconstitutional based on nothing more than their own sense of right or wrong, that's where the term comes from. Justices aren't appointed to be the nation's moral guide on all issues and laws, but rather unbiased interpreters of laws.

 

But that is the courts job...to interpret the law and overturn it if they feel that it is unconstitutional. Going to the extreme with a goofy example...if legislatures passed laws making it illegal to be left handed and 80% of the population agreed with the laws it is the courts job to determine the validity of the law regardless of public pressure, regardless of popularity. One woudl hope that the justices woudl use more than simply their own moral compass, that they woudl use precident (which some justices have openly said they do not agree with), that they woudl use the writings available etc... to come up with a decision. That is not always happening today. Of course we may view this differently but I see Scalia as being the primary example of someone using his personal beliefs to trump the law time and time again.

[bobbob1313]

No, but I do think it is uniquely retarded.

 

Uniquely retarded for the world?

[Rev HW Smith]

I feel certain the justices prayed long and hard before reaching a decision