Scalia: 'Wouldn't surprise me' if death penalty struck down

[Lucille]

I hope so.

http://news.yahoo.com/scalia-wouldnt-surprise-death-penalty-struck-down-231927964.html


MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — Referencing rulings to restrict capital punishment and changing sentiment within the Supreme Court, Justice Antonin Scalia said Tuesday he wouldn't be surprised if the nation's highest court invalidates the death penalty.

Scalia addressed capital punishment during a University of Minnesota Law School appearance in which he also made clear retirement isn't in his near-term plans. The death penalty came up as Scalia described his judicial view that the Constitution is an "enduring" document that shouldn't be open to broad interpretation — while sharing frustration that his colleagues too readily find flexibility in it.

Scalia said death penalty decisions from the court have made it "practically impossible to impose it but we have not formally held it to be unconstitutional." Earlier in his remarks, Scalia said "it wouldn't surprise me if it did" fall, a comment that drew scattered applause in the mostly full, 2,700-seat auditorium. He said rulings have added mitigating circumstances that must be considered or made it impermissible to automatically sentence people to death for certain crimes, such as killing a police officer.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?482917-Oklahoma-Moving-Forward-With-Execution-of-Man-For-Murder-He-Didn%92t-Commit


In a separate dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, questioned whether the death penalty itself should be abolished. “I believe it highly likely that the death penalty violates the Eighth Amendment,” Breyer wrote. “At the very least, the Court should call for full briefing on the basic question.”

AF summed it up well:


You and I do not trust the state to fix a pothole.

You are prepared to trust it taking a man's life?

After considering the dismal track record, already proven, of the state getting it wrong, and executing innocent people, numerous times?

[surf]

good. I used to feel that it would be easiest to take the dude out back and shoot him (but only if he confessed to a heinous crime).

I've changed.

edit: thanks for posting

[Ronin Truth]

How about if only the incorrect ones (of the REALLY wrongly convicted) are struck down? How much would that cut the numbers?

[EBounding]

I'd be ok with the death penalty as long as someone else is willing to die (prosecutor, family member of victim) if it turns out the inmate is innocent after execution.

[sparebulb]

I think that the death penalty should be preserved only for high crimes of those who violate the public trust.

Other heinous acts that occur in society can be handled locally.....very locally.

[dannno]

I think that the death penalty should be preserved only for high crimes of those who violate the public trust.



I dunno, political scandals are rampant but they are also easily manufactured.

[Feelgood]

I'd be ok with the death penalty as long as someone else is willing to die (prosecutor, family member of victim) if it turns out the inmate is innocent after execution.

Juror? They were ultimately the ones that held the accused guilty and passed sentence.

[jonhowe]

Scalia wont be voting for it, of course, because of his absurd reading of the bill of rights. But I hope he's right.


And I can't WAIT to read his dissent! Always entertaining.

[Xenliad]

I'd be ok with the death penalty as long as someone else is willing to die (prosecutor, family member of victim) if it turns out the inmate is innocent after execution.

That would start quite a chain reaction if that "someone else" had to die and then later you find out they didn't but later find out that they did etc.

[Anti Federalist]

Good.

[phill4paul]

Good.

Double-down.

[Christian Liberty]

Good.

Why do you trust the Supreme Court to tell local governments how they should handle local problems?

[William Tell]

SCOTUS really should stop saying things are unconstitutional when they really mean they just don't like them. You would think they are the Supreme Legislature the way they act.

[Anti Federalist]

Why do you trust the Supreme Court to tell local governments how they should handle local problems?

Because the "local government" (in reality, all government) has a dismal track record of getting it right, and has routinely executed innocent people.

And because, as much as I am in favor local government, I am not in favor of setting up a system where each town I enter, I need to be compliant with a completely different set of laws and codes.

[Anti Federalist]

SCOTUS really should stop saying things are unconstitutional when they really mean they just don't like them. You would think they are the Supreme Legislature the way they act.


Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted

Lots of wiggle room there.

I happen to think that it is "cruel and unusual" to subject people to the death penalty process in AmeriKa, especially if innocent.

[Christian Liberty]

Because the "local government" (in reality, all government) has a dismal track record of getting it right, and has routinely executed innocent people.

And because, as much as I am in favor local government, I am not in favor of setting up a system where each town I enter, I need to be compliant with a completely different set of laws and codes.

I'm not saying local government is always good but... are you really OK with giving control over these issues to the Federal government for this reason?

I agree with you often but I do not agree here... at all... Although I do agree that, as much as I am in favor of the death penalty on principle (and frankly, even for things that you'd consider me a total tyrant for) I think our system's application of the death penalty is completely corrupt. And every other penalty for that matter. Its not just, at all.

A big part of the problem is that the system assumes people are guilty until proven innocent. The Westminster Confession of Faith rightfully extrapolates that this is a violation of the 9th commandment (we are obligated to assume the truthfulness of our neighbors until proven otherwise.)


Lots of wiggle room there.

I happen to think that it is "cruel and unusual" to subject people to the death Penelope process in AmeriKa, especially if innocent.

Again, the process is one thing (its messed up here) but the Bill of Rights specifically recognizes that the death penalty isn't inherently cruel and unusual. Of course, I'm not a constitutionalist and I think the constitution is borderline satanic, and not for this reason

[Anti Federalist]

I'm not saying local government is always good but... are you really OK with giving control over these issues to the Federal government for this reason?

I agree with you often but I do not agree here... at all... Although I do agree that, as much as I am in favor of the death penalty on principle (and frankly, even for things that you'd consider me a total tyrant for) I think our system's application of the death penalty is completely corrupt. And every other penalty for that matter. Its not just, at all.

A big part of the problem is that the system assumes people are guilty until proven innocent. The Westminster Confession of Faith rightfully extrapolates that this is a violation of the 9th commandment (we are obligated to assume the truthfulness of our neighbors until proven otherwise.)

No, but am less comfortable with the prospect of people getting stoned to death for adultery in one town (in a town with nomist law) and being beheaded for having a beer in the next. (in a town with sharia law)

If it is not just (and it isn't), whatever puts a stop to the state unjustly killing people is OK with me.


Again, the process is one thing (its messed up here) but the Bill of Rights specifically recognizes that the death penalty isn't inherently cruel and unusual. Of course, I'm not a constitutionalist and I think the constitution is borderline satanic, and not for this reason

Where does it say that?

[twomp]

I'm not saying local government is always good but... are you really OK with giving control over these issues to the Federal government for this reason?

I agree with you often but I do not agree here... at all... Although I do agree that, as much as I am in favor of the death penalty on principle (and frankly, even for things that you'd consider me a total tyrant for) I think our system's application of the death penalty is completely corrupt. And every other penalty for that matter. Its not just, at all.

A big part of the problem is that the system assumes people are guilty until proven innocent. The Westminster Confession of Faith rightfully extrapolates that this is a violation of the 9th commandment (we are obligated to assume the truthfulness of our neighbors until proven otherwise.)



Again, the process is one thing (its messed up here) but the Bill of Rights specifically recognizes that the death penalty isn't inherently cruel and unusual. Of course, I'm not a constitutionalist and I think the constitution is borderline satanic, and not for this reason

This is the guy that thinks God has ordained the government to kill people. THOU SHALL NOT KILL unless THOU WORKS FOR THE GOVERNMENT then its okay.

[Christian Liberty]

No, but am less comfortable with the prospect of people getting stoned to death for adultery in one town (in a town with nomist law) and being beheaded for having a beer in the next. (in a town with sharia law)

If it is not just (and it isn't), whatever puts a stop to the state unjustly killing people is OK with me.


I don't agree that its unjust for someone to be executed for adultery, although I think the victim has a right to ask that the penalty not be applied.

That said, I agree that I wouldn't share a magistrate with Sharia Law towns :p


Where does it say that?

Implicit in the "capital or otherwise infamous crime" bit in the 5th amendment.


This is the guy that thinks God has ordained the government to kill people. THOU SHALL NOT KILL unless THOU WORKS FOR THE GOVERNMENT then its okay.

That's a total strawman of what I believe. And frankly, I am REALLY not in the mood for those today. If you need clarification, please ask.

I believe that killing is murder except when it has divine sanction. Which means, self-defense or defense of another person, just war (only against combatants, requires proper authority, and must not be a war of aggression), or execution for an act that the Bible says should be a death penalty (which must be carried out by prior authority.)

Killing for any other reason is murder no matter who you are.

[William Tell]

Lots of wiggle room there.

Nah, not that much. Because the 5th amendment above it mentions capital crimes. So unless capital means something entirely different than I think it does I think its safe to say the Constitution in no way forbade the death penalty. If they meant to ban it they would have said so. I'm just talking about what the Constitution says here, not what the best path for justice is.



I happen to think that it is "cruel and unusual" to subject people to the death Penelope process in AmeriKa, especially if innocent.
I certainly oppose innocent people being killed, both by government and repeat offenders. I also don't think throwing everyone innocent or not into prison for life a good idea.

I oppose pretty much everything about how the justice and prison systems are run. They are letting some murderers out of prison before non violent inmates. In general we should have a restitution based system in my opinion. Do away with prisons as much as possible. Obviously restitution doesn't work with murderers though.

[helmuth_hubener]

I'd be ok with the death penalty as long as someone else is willing to die (prosecutor, family member of victim) if it turns out the inmate is innocent after execution.
This is actually an extremely wise statement.

[Anti Federalist]

I don't agree that its unjust for someone to be executed for adultery, although I think the victim has a right to ask that the penalty not be applied.

That said, I agree that I wouldn't share a magistrate with Sharia Law towns :p

I find that to be out of proportion.


Implicit in the "capital or otherwise infamous crime" bit in the 5th amendment.

Implied perhaps, but not condoned or expressly permitted.

And certainly subject to restriction or abolition under the 8th.

[helmuth_hubener]

And because, as much as I am in favor local government, I am not in favor of setting up a system where each town I enter, I need to be compliant with a completely different set of laws and codes.

I am in favor of that. At least as an interim measure, a step in the right direction. Then at least we would have a choice. If there's even one, single, tiny town anywhere that's free... that's where we could all be.

Vote with our feet. Mission accomplished. Freedom achieved.

[helmuth_hubener]

Implied perhaps, but not condoned or expressly permitted.

And certainly subject to restriction or abolition under the 8th.
Well, both the 5th and the 8th were passed at the same time, by the same people. All part of the Bill of Rights. This theory that the 8th Amendment modifies the 5th Amendment is untenable, in my opinion. It's really a stretch. I think that Christian Liberty is on solid ground on this one, Constitutionally.

[Christian Liberty]

I find that to be out of proportion.

I understand why you'd say that, but I don't think the Bible agrees.




Implied perhaps, but not condoned or expressly permitted.

And certainly subject to restriction or abolition under the 8th.

Since they were all passed at the same time, you simply can't say the 8th is saying that its INHERENTLY cruel and unusual.

Maybe certain methods or using certain evidence thresholds, but not outright.

That said, I don't really care since I oppose the constitution. I think its a satanic document that sinfully refuses to recognize Christ as King of the Nations, and thus is an explicit violation of Psalm chapter 2.

[twomp]

I don't agree that its unjust for someone to be executed for adultery, although I think the victim has a right to ask that the penalty not be applied.

That said, I agree that I wouldn't share a magistrate with Sharia Law towns :p


Implicit in the "capital or otherwise infamous crime" bit in the 5th amendment.



That's a total strawman of what I believe. And frankly, I am REALLY not in the mood for those today. If you need clarification, please ask.

I believe that killing is murder except when it has divine sanction. Which means, self-defense or defense of another person, just war (only against combatants, requires proper authority, and must not be a war of aggression), or execution for an act that the Bible says should be a death penalty (which must be carried out by prior authority.)

Killing for any other reason is murder no matter who you are.

And who is this mystery "authority" that you speak of? What is their qualifications that allow them to kill people? Do they walk around with a halo over their heads? Maybe they spent every Sunday in church for a year? Or did they pass a test to get "death certificatied" in order to kill people? I didn't know there was fine print in the 10 commandments that said one of the commandments has a loophole in it allowing "authority figures" to go ahead and kill people.

[Christian Liberty]

And who is this mystery "authority" that you speak of? What is their qualifications that allow them to kill people? Do they walk around with a halo over their heads? Maybe they spent every Sunday in church for a year? Or did they pass a test to get "death certificatied" in order to kill people? I didn't know there was fine print in the 10 commandments that said one of the commandments has a loophole in it allowing "authority figures" to go ahead and kill people.

Read the rest of Exodus-Deuteronomy. The commandment is against murder, not all killing.

[RonPaulIsGreat]

They should allow the convict to select death instead of life in prison if they want. I'd certainly prefer it.

[ghengis86]

They should allow the convict to select death instead of life in prison if they want. I'd certainly prefer it.

they can already do that; neck, meet homemade, sheet rope.

[jmdrake]

I don't agree that its unjust for someone to be executed for adultery, although I think the victim has a right to ask that the penalty not be applied.

That said, I agree that I wouldn't share a magistrate with Sharia Law towns :p

It's funny, but what the rest of the world has against Sharia Law is that it allows capital punishment for things like adultery, being gay, witchcraft, and heresy. Those are all things you hold in common with Sharia law. I think it's disingenuous to jump on the anti Sharia bandwagon when you know, or should know, that most folks biggest concern isn't that they say "Allah" instead of "God" in their prayers.

[Cissy]

Lots of wiggle room there.

I happen to think that it is "cruel and unusual" to subject people to the death Penelope process in AmeriKa, especially if innocent.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/cd/2e/3b/cd2e3ba311abe21c9d2beb4a6a49925a.jpg

Spoilsport.

[Ender]

It's funny, but what the rest of the world has against Sharia Law is that it allows capital punishment for things like adultery, being gay, witchcraft, and heresy. Those are all things you hold in common with Sharia law. I think it's disingenuous to jump on the anti Sharia bandwagon when you know, or should know, that most folks biggest concern isn't that they say "Allah" instead of "God" in their prayers.

And, of course, Allah means God in Arabic- Christian Arabs also say Allah, which makes US Christians run around with their hands in the air. ;)

I am with AF on this. There are too many innocents condemned to death in our "justice" system and many who have been "set up" as guilty.

[Lucille]

http://www.aol.com/article/2015/10/24/obama-the-death-penalty-is-deeply-troubling/21253441/


President Barack Obama confirmed speculation that he may be close to opposing the death penalty in federal cases.

In an interview with The Marshall Project editor Bill Keller published Friday, Obama said that he found the death penalty "deeply troubling," citing the lopsided racial disparity of death penalty cases as well as several recent botched executions.
[...]
Obama told Keller that he is withholding action for now, and will wait until the results of a Department of Justice review of the death penalty is released before deciding if the administration will act to curb the use of capital punishment.

As the number of Americans who oppose the death penalty increases, many experts predict that it will face a more forceful challenge in the courts as well. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has said that he would not be surprised if his court eventually rules that the death penalty is unconstitutional.

A lot of bloodthirsty Americans in the comments. Bin Laden was wrong when he said Americans love life (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_VOjGXpyIU). They love death too.

[Anti Federalist]

Stoopid auto correct!

Thanks, fixed.


https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/cd/2e/3b/cd2e3ba311abe21c9d2beb4a6a49925a.jpg

Spoilsport.

[amartin315]

i think once most of the states ban the death penalty, then we can call it "unusual" for the remaining few who do it, and then it can be banned by the bill of rights... the death penalty is most certainly "cruel"

[Christian Liberty]

It's funny, but what the rest of the world has against Sharia Law is that it allows capital punishment for things like adultery, being gay, witchcraft, and heresy. Those are all things you hold in common with Sharia law. I think it's disingenuous to jump on the anti Sharia bandwagon when you know, or should know, that most folks biggest concern isn't that they say "Allah" instead of "God" in their prayers.

There's the fact that Sharia is actually tyranny, and then there's the aspect that people just oppose it because its a theocratic law-order. Both exist...

[twomp]

Read the rest of Exodus-Deuteronomy. The commandment is against murder, not all killing.

Is that where the fine print for the 10 commandments is? The fine print is where they always get you!!