PLUNGERS DOWN
It is time to visit for the irriteenth (that is irritatingly-umpteenth) time, the death penalty. Not because I want to, not—and this is truly important—because there is any legal, rational, or pressing reason to, but because the “opponents” of it will not let it go and recently, for reasons known only to the liberal chatterati who manufacture culture, have redredged it as an issue. Little stories, in this case, from the likes of the various Innocence Projects and state moratoria, pile up over time and eventually gather enough mass to masquerade as a unified narrative ideal for pressing an agenda and filling blank newspaper columns when nothing else is pressing or at least press-worthy. Some convicts on death row have been “cleared’ by DNA or maybe some other exculpatory evidence. Some governors and state legislators with feet of clay respond to the attention—not, mind you, any public outcry—to declare moratoria on all executions or even introduce bills to relieve the law of this burden entirely. Here is the bottom line, no room for argument from anyone honest. As long at the people want the death penalty, we should have it. There is no reason not to. Arguments about deterrence, or efficacy are irrelevant. No laws have much deterrent effect. Look at the recidivism rates for prison and you can say that incarceration should be abolished too. And probation, and restitution. And criminal law. Nor is killing killers somehow illogical. Incarcerating kidnappers and fining embezzlers and tax cheats would be hypocritical if that bizarre reasoning was followed. Execution is not murder, any more than fines are theft, or taxes are extortion. At least in an elementary legal sense. Being in favor of the death penalty only means that you think death is the appropriate penalty for whatever crimes you are applying it to. If you don’t think death is the appropriate penalty for anything, that’s fine. You are outvoted, at present, just like those who wanted that municipal bond for a root vegetables museum passed. No constitutional issue there, either, just rejection of a bad idea.
This is very simple, and does not warrant the time and effort it gets in the media. Obviously there was no intent by the Founding Fathers to prohibit the death penalty via the Constitution. No one argues that there was. The only way you can get to this question as a constitutional issue is to buy into the blatantly arrogant drivel of the “living constitution” fetishists who say the Constitution means whatever they want it to—in this case the violation is of the cruel and unusual punishment ban regardless of what the authors of that ban intended. Kind of like reformed Episcopalians treat the Bible, when it is consulted at all. William Brennan is the most notorious of this foul breed, with his unsolicited opinion that that civilized nations no longer execute people and that we do it so seldom we obviously don’t really wan it. How William gets to this conclusion is pretty funny if it was an SNL skit instead of a serious attack on social values and democracy.
“Today society will inflict death upon only a small sample of the eligible criminals…At the very least, I must conclude that contemporary society views this punishment with substantial doubt.”
The infrequent use of the needle, chair, or chamber is not because of the legal obstacle course constructed by the likes of Brennan. It is the society that keeps the line stalled on death rows from coast to coast. It is the People who shout no to the executioner. Reasoning like this should have stopped him at junior high, let alone law school. We don’t let you use it, therefore you obviously don’t want to.
So, without the Constitutional argument, what do you have? We should be “civilized” like Europe? Europe that abandoned all notions of public morality long ago. Europe that we would easily assume doesn’t execute people because it simply doesn’t have he spinal rigidity or intestinal fortitude to put its slippered foot down about anything. Not even protecting itself from Jihadist murderers. Europe, Land of the Eloi, willing prey for their own Morlocks and those from abroad. Yeah, that is William Brennan’s idea of civilization. If it is not ours then let’s put this ridiculous concocted controversy to rest. As long as the people want the death penalty, we have it. And I hope that is a long, long time.
It is time to visit for the irriteenth (that is irritatingly-umpteenth) time, the death penalty. Not because I want to, not—and this is truly important—because there is any legal, rational, or pressing reason to, but because the “opponents” of it will not let it go and recently, for reasons known only to the liberal chatterati who manufacture culture, have redredged it as an issue. Little stories, in this case, from the likes of the various Innocence Projects and state moratoria, pile up over time and eventually gather enough mass to masquerade as a unified narrative ideal for pressing an agenda and filling blank newspaper columns when nothing else is pressing or at least press-worthy. Some convicts on death row have been “cleared’ by DNA or maybe some other exculpatory evidence. Some governors and state legislators with feet of clay respond to the attention—not, mind you, any public outcry—to declare moratoria on all executions or even introduce bills to relieve the law of this burden entirely. Here is the bottom line, no room for argument from anyone honest. As long at the people want the death penalty, we should have it. There is no reason not to. Arguments about deterrence, or efficacy are irrelevant. No laws have much deterrent effect. Look at the recidivism rates for prison and you can say that incarceration should be abolished too. And probation, and restitution. And criminal law. Nor is killing killers somehow illogical. Incarcerating kidnappers and fining embezzlers and tax cheats would be hypocritical if that bizarre reasoning was followed. Execution is not murder, any more than fines are theft, or taxes are extortion. At least in an elementary legal sense. Being in favor of the death penalty only means that you think death is the appropriate penalty for whatever crimes you are applying it to. If you don’t think death is the appropriate penalty for anything, that’s fine. You are outvoted, at present, just like those who wanted that municipal bond for a root vegetables museum passed. No constitutional issue there, either, just rejection of a bad idea.
This is very simple, and does not warrant the time and effort it gets in the media. Obviously there was no intent by the Founding Fathers to prohibit the death penalty via the Constitution. No one argues that there was. The only way you can get to this question as a constitutional issue is to buy into the blatantly arrogant drivel of the “living constitution” fetishists who say the Constitution means whatever they want it to—in this case the violation is of the cruel and unusual punishment ban regardless of what the authors of that ban intended. Kind of like reformed Episcopalians treat the Bible, when it is consulted at all. William Brennan is the most notorious of this foul breed, with his unsolicited opinion that that civilized nations no longer execute people and that we do it so seldom we obviously don’t really wan it. How William gets to this conclusion is pretty funny if it was an SNL skit instead of a serious attack on social values and democracy.
“Today society will inflict death upon only a small sample of the eligible criminals…At the very least, I must conclude that contemporary society views this punishment with substantial doubt.”
The infrequent use of the needle, chair, or chamber is not because of the legal obstacle course constructed by the likes of Brennan. It is the society that keeps the line stalled on death rows from coast to coast. It is the People who shout no to the executioner. Reasoning like this should have stopped him at junior high, let alone law school. We don’t let you use it, therefore you obviously don’t want to.
So, without the Constitutional argument, what do you have? We should be “civilized” like Europe? Europe that abandoned all notions of public morality long ago. Europe that we would easily assume doesn’t execute people because it simply doesn’t have he spinal rigidity or intestinal fortitude to put its slippered foot down about anything. Not even protecting itself from Jihadist murderers. Europe, Land of the Eloi, willing prey for their own Morlocks and those from abroad. Yeah, that is William Brennan’s idea of civilization. If it is not ours then let’s put this ridiculous concocted controversy to rest. As long as the people want the death penalty, we have it. And I hope that is a long, long time.
posted by the wrightist at 3:08 PM
0 comments
