Freethought & Rationalism Archive

theyeti · 03-03-2002, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fromtheright:

As to the death penalty, I am for it and based on what is to me the clear inference of the Eighth Amendment, as well as its prevalence at that time, I believe it is Constitutional. As to its deterrent effect I don't know enough about the literature to judge, but it seems incredible that it would encourage capital crimes, in particular murder.

Late here too,
Gene

Maybe a little off topic, but here's a thread where the deterence factor was discussed rigorously: <a href="http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deter.html" target="_blank">Morality of the death penalty</a>. You can read some general info on detterence on <a href="http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deter.html" target="_blank"> this page</a>. Generally speaking, there is no evidence that the death penalty deters crime, and even some evidence that it encourages it. For what it's worth, I think the higher murder rates in death penalty states are due to their prevailing attitudes and cultures rather than the death penalty per se.

As for the Constitutional issue, I would agree that the death penalty per se is not unconsitutional. But I oppose the death penalty because I think it's extremely bad policy, regardless of any Constitutional issues. However, certain uses of the death penalty can be considered unconstitutional. For instance, that electric chair down in Florida ("ole sparky") that was setting people's heads on fire would be "cruel and unusual" in my book. Unfortunately, it's a subjective thing. Also, that the death penalty is applied unequally (far more often to minorities and the poor for the same crimes) would seem to be in violation of some Constitutional equality priciple or another (forgive my ignorance of constitutional law). So the death penalty per se is not unconsitutional (unless one's subjective opinion is that death is "cruel"), but as it tends to be practiced, it probably is.

theyeti

[ March 03, 2002: Message edited by: theyeti ]

hezekiah jones · 03-04-2002, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by copernicus:
[Levy] pointed out that modern conservatives have used the original intent argument to completely contradict the very clear intent of the framers to keep religion out of politics. Modern conservatives take the position that the "establishment clause" of the First Amendment was only intended to ban the favoring of one religion over another, not to ban religious influence on government entirely.

Indeed. Levy's books are excellent. I would also recommend Ronald Dworkin's Freedom's Law, which contains, inter alia, several articles about both the Bork and Thomas nominations, and especially a rather trenchant criticism of Bork's "original understanding."

fromtheright, I hope you don't adjust your views too much. I appreciate your perspective and read your posts with great interest.

PopeInTheWoods · 03-05-2002, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by fromtheright:
I disagree with your statement that "conservatives are quick to play the states' rights card when it suits their agenda, but are equally quick to use the power of the purse to mold state laws" because I don't see conservatives doing the latter. Any example or two that come to mind?

Reagan abandoned his usual "states' rights" stance to push conservative values when he blackmailed the states into raising their drinking ages to 21 by threatening to withhold federal highway money.

Admittedly over 80% of both parties voted in favor of the blackmail law, but the impetus came from Reagan and his transportation secretary, one Elizabeth Dole.

Andy

fromtheright · 03-05-2002, 04:06 PM

Yeti,

At the risk of appearing to modify my views too much (sorry, hezekiah), I agree with you about such as "ol' Sparky". A good friend of mine, who otherwise is so conservative he makes me look like George McGovern, is opposed to the death penalty because of the possibility of error.

As to the unequal application, I disagree that that is the case, at least to any significant degree, but I'm not very up on those stats either.

hezekiah,

Re your March 3 8:20 post, I agree that divining original intent is not an easy proposition and that there will surely be disagreement, much of it heated as demonstrated in many of the discussion threads here, but I agree with Scalia's point (which I think I pointed to earlier in this thread, but perhaps in another) that we must at least search and that it beats the alternative of casting that intent aside; otherwise, if we don't look to what the Founders meant all we can do is look inside our own disparate hearts and minds for what it "means to me". Yes, of course, I understand that the search for original intent will have a great deal of self-serving and selective history because of each side's own axe to grind but I believe the search must start there and then let us all debate what was intended. While I disagree with much of the strict separationist conclusions regarding that intent I respect that those conclusions are based on looking to history for what the Founders meant.

[ March 05, 2002: Message edited by: fromtheright ]

hezekiah jones · 03-08-2002, 05:49 AM

Scaliawatch:

Quote:

On February 20, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Atkins v. Virginia, case number 00-8452, which will determine whether it is constitutional to sentence mentally retarded inmates to death. Advocates for people with mental retardation joined other supporters on behalf of Daryl Atkins, a death-row inmate who has an I.Q. of 59. Those with an I.Q. below 70 are classified as mentally retarded.
.....
During the one-hour hearing, several justices seemed convinced that it was time for the High Court to bar such executions. However, Justice Antonin Scalia, a Reagan appointee, seemed not only unmoved by the argument but downright hostile to the subject -- at one point describing Atkins and others with retardation as "not playing with a full deck."

<a href="http://www.raggededgemagazine.com/extra/fulldeck022702.htm" target="_blank">Scalia shows true colors in case on execution of prisoners with retardation</a>

Toto · 07-08-2002, 09:34 AM

Scalia's remarks have suddenly resurfaced in the press, as people start to ponder their implications:

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/08/opinion/08WILE.html" target="_blank">From Justice Scalia, a Chilling Vision of Religion�s Authority in America</a> by Sean Wilentz:

Quote:

One senses that Mr. Scalia's true priority is to get secular humanists off the federal bench. In his dissent to Atkins v. Virginia, the recent decision against executing mentally retarded criminals, Mr. Scalia wrote, "Seldom has an opinion of this Court rested so obviously upon nothing but the personal views of its members." The ones he had in mind were not all the members, just the six who disagreed with him. Mr. Scalia dissents vigorously against them for letting their personal notions infect the law.

In Chicago Mr. Scalia asserted, not for the first time, that he is a strict constructionist, taking the Constitution as it is, not as he might want it to be. Yet he wants to give it a religious sense that is directly counter to the abundantly expressed wishes of the men who wrote the Constitution. That is not properly called strict constructionism; it is opportunism, and it threatens democracy. His defense of his private prejudices, even if they may occasionally overlap the opinions of others, should not be mislabeled conservatism. Justice Scalia seeks to abandon the intent of the Constitution's framers and impose views about government and divinity that no previous justice, no matter how conservative, has ever embraced.

07-08-2002, 04:25 PM

You can listen (w/Real Player) to parts of Scalia's speech <a href="http://www.npr.org/ramfiles/me/20020624.me.06.ram" target="_blank">here.</a>

His comments near 5:40 in the Real Player clip are chilling.

[ July 08, 2002: Message edited by: atheist_in_foxhole ]

galiel · 07-08-2002, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fromtheright:
Yeti,

At the risk of appearing to modify my views too much (sorry, hezekiah)

It is unfortunate that our current strident, artificially polarized and binary culture makes changing one's mind due to reflection or listening to another opinion into a *bad* thing. Politicians are vilified if they dare to espouse a different position when they are 60 than they did when they were 20.

Surely science has taught us that new understanding often leads to changing previous beliefs. One should never apologize for clarifying, enhancing, modifying or even reversing an opinion as a result of considered discussion.

Independent of your specific position

I salute your courage.

[ July 08, 2002: Message edited by: galiel ]

[ July 08, 2002: Message edited by: galiel ]

03-05-2002, 04:06 PM	#24
fromtheright Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Huntsville, AL Posts: 633	Yeti, At the risk of appearing to modify my views too much (sorry, hezekiah), I agree with you about such as "ol' Sparky". A good friend of mine, who otherwise is so conservative he makes me look like George McGovern, is opposed to the death penalty because of the possibility of error. As to the unequal application, I disagree that that is the case, at least to any significant degree, but I'm not very up on those stats either. hezekiah, Re your March 3 8:20 post, I agree that divining original intent is not an easy proposition and that there will surely be disagreement, much of it heated as demonstrated in many of the discussion threads here, but I agree with Scalia's point (which I think I pointed to earlier in this thread, but perhaps in another) that we must at least search and that it beats the alternative of casting that intent aside; otherwise, if we don't look to what the Founders meant all we can do is look inside our own disparate hearts and minds for what it "means to me". Yes, of course, I understand that the search for original intent will have a great deal of self-serving and selective history because of each side's own axe to grind but I believe the search must start there and then let us all debate what was intended. While I disagree with much of the strict separationist conclusions regarding that intent I respect that those conclusions are based on looking to history for what the Founders meant. [ March 05, 2002: Message edited by: fromtheright ]</p>

07-08-2002, 04:25 PM	#27
atheist_in_foxhole Guest Posts: n/a	You can listen (w/Real Player) to parts of Scalia's speech <a href="http://www.npr.org/ramfiles/me/20020624.me.06.ram" target="_blank">here.</a> His comments near 5:40 in the Real Player clip are chilling. [ July 08, 2002: Message edited by: atheist_in_foxhole ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.