OMG Clarence Thomas issues a Supreme Court decision!

[techs]

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/us/death_penalty

The Kansas case was unique. The state law says juries should impose death sentences if aggravating evidence of a crime's brutality and mitigating factors explaining a defendant's actions are equal in weight.

Justice David H. Souter, writing for the liberals, said the law was "morally absurd."

But the five conservatives, including Alito, overturned a Kansas Supreme Court ruling that found the law violated the Eighth Amendment's protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

Writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas disputed the claim by critics that the law created "a general presumption in favor of the death penalty in the state of Kansas."


How absurd. If you have equal evidence both ways the law says kill the guy?

 

[chowderhead]

the decisions are becoming so predictable, falling on ideological lines. I guess all those articles gushing about how Roberts has brought unity to the courts have gone out the window.
Kennedy has now replaced O'Connor as the swing vote.

 

[theeedude]

Oh wow, they let Thomas write one for the team?

 

[Amplifier]

Originally posted by: techs
The state law says juries should impose death sentences if aggravating evidence of a crime's brutality and mitigating factors explaining a defendant's actions are equal in weight.

explain what that means

 

[Termagant]

Originally posted by: Amplifier

Originally posted by: techs
The state law says juries should impose death sentences if aggravating evidence of a crime's brutality and mitigating factors explaining a defendant's actions are equal in weight.

explain what that means

I think it means that if there exists aggravating evidence of the brutality of the crime, i.e. a depraved way in which the murder was conducted, and there also exists some mitigating factors explaining the brutal crime, i.e. the murderer was molested by the deceased, then the brutality evidence trumps the mitigating factors and the death penalty is warranted, so long as the brutality is equal to the mitigation.

 

[Amplifier]

Originally posted by: Termagant

Originally posted by: Amplifier

Originally posted by: techs
The state law says juries should impose death sentences if aggravating evidence of a crime's brutality and mitigating factors explaining a defendant's actions are equal in weight.

explain what that means

I think it means that if there exists aggravating evidence of the brutality of the crime, i.e. a depraved way in which the murder was conducted, and there also exists some mitigating factors explaining the brutal crime, i.e. the murderer was molested by the deceased, then the brutality evidence trumps the mitigating factors and the death penalty is warranted, so long as the brutality is equal to the mitigation.

So if a murderer kills the person who molested him by some cruel method, he should get the death sentence because chopping someone up >= molestation. But if the murderer kills the molester 'cleanly' there wouldn't be a death sentence. However if the murderer cleanly kills a person who stole his girlfriend he would get the death sentence?

 

[Moonbeam]

Of course the whole notion of state sponsored killing is completely insane. Imagine telling people they must not kill or we will kill you. It was good at a time when there were no jails, but we can now put people away who are a danger. The reason that we never focus on helping the criminally insane is because we feel they are the monster within us. Helping them requires recognizing yourself.

 

[Amplifier]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Of course the whole notion of state sponsored killing is completely insane. Imagine telling people they must not kill or we will kill you. It was good at a time when there were no jails, but we can now put people away who are a danger. The reason that we never focus on helping the criminally insane is because we feel they are the monster within us. Helping them requires recognizing yourself.

there actually are programs that worked very effectively but they are being shot down for being faith based v🙂v

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: techs
http://news.yahoo.com/fc/us/death_penalty

The Kansas case was unique. The state law says juries should impose death sentences if aggravating evidence of a crime's brutality and mitigating factors explaining a defendant's actions are equal in weight.

Justice David H. Souter, writing for the liberals, said the law was "morally absurd."

But the five conservatives, including Alito, overturned a Kansas Supreme Court ruling that found the law violated the Eighth Amendment's protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

Writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas disputed the claim by critics that the law created "a general presumption in favor of the death penalty in the state of Kansas."


How absurd. If you have equal evidence both ways the law says kill the guy?

The ruling was only regarding whether the deah penalty constitutes cruel/unusual punishment, saying nothing of the merits of the law itself. At least, that's how I see it from what you said. I can't get the link to work for some reason.

edit: And, for the record, I am firmly against the death penalty. It just looks to me like the justices weren't asked whether the law made sense, only whether it contradicted the eighth amendment, which it clearly does not (based on precedent, anyway).

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Oh wow, they let Thomas write one for the team?

Writing Instruments, Property of Clarence Thomas

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Of course the whole notion of state sponsored killing is completely insane. Imagine telling people they must not kill or we will kill you. It was good at a time when there were no jails, but we can now put people away who are a danger. The reason that we never focus on helping the criminally insane is because we feel they are the monster within us. Helping them requires recognizing yourself.

Exactly, teaching people not to kill by killing lots of people doesn't make a lot of rational sense. Plus, you have the possiblity of innocent people being executed. Our legal system is good, but not perfect, and many innocent people have been wrongly charged throughout its history. Furthermore, the death penalty simply drags society down to the barbaric level of the people we're executing.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Of course the whole notion of state sponsored killing is completely insane. Imagine telling people they must not kill or we will kill you. It was good at a time when there were no jails, but we can now put people away who are a danger. The reason that we never focus on helping the criminally insane is because we feel they are the monster within us. Helping them requires recognizing yourself.

Well lets get ride of jail and warrents because we teach people not to kidnap.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: techs
How absurd. If you have equal evidence both ways the law says kill the guy?

Well, virtually all death penalty opponents say that life in prison is far worse of a punishment. They have to get up every day and think about why they are in prison. So, in the case of a tie, the law SHOULD take the lesser of two evils and kill the murderer.

 

[Tom]

Reading the actual decision, it seems logical and sound to me. The primary point seems to be that mitigating circumstances have to "outweigh" aggravating circumstances, and obviously if they are equal, then the mitigating factors haven't outweighed the aggravating factors.

It is interesting to note that this system of weighing facotrs is pretty much based on the idea that each case is supposed to be decided on an individual basis, at least partly because mandatory capital sentences were judged unconstitutional a few decades ago. At least I believe that is the case.

The only real issue would be deciding that capital punishment itself should be stopped entirely, which even though I would favor doing so, the proper way to do so would be through legislation, or even a Constitutional Amendment. Particularly because the Constitution specifically calls for capital punishment for some crimes, I believe.

 

[speedstream5621]

The "cruel and unusual punishment" clause of the 8th Amendment does not ban capital punishment. Specific language changing the 5th Amendment is required to do so. No such language is found in the 8th.

The Court is correct, it is up to the states to decide how juries weigh factors. The Courts can't/shouldn't intervene.

Souter, writing for the liberal members, says the law is "morally absurd." I find that interesting because when it comes to abortion cases they say just because a law is stupid or immoral, the courts don't have the power to overturn it.

Different when it comes to people who have clearly committed a crime though? Interesting.

 

[DealMonkey]

If you insist on having a death penalty, at least make it uniform across the land. This business of some states more readily handing out the ultimate punishment is a rather grim one if you ask me. How is it fair to apply a serious punishment like the death penalty in such a subjective way?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: dullard
Well, all death penalty opponents say that life in prison is far worse of a punishment. They have to get up every day and think about why they are in prison. So, in the case of a tie, the law SHOULD take the lesser of two evils and kill the murderer.

No, this isn't what all death penalty opponents claim. In fact, I've never seen such a claim.

 

[shira]

This Kansas law IS absurd. Consider the following:

The Kansas law refers to countervailing factors that are "equal in weight." "Equal in weight" means they cancel each other out. It's as though there were no aggravating and mitigating factors in the first place.

So, in Kansas, if a person has no aggravating or mitigating factors, he won't get the death penalty. But if the person has equal-weight aggravating and mitigating factors - which is equivalent to having none of these factors - he gets the death penalty.

Maybe that tornado was doing Dorothy a favor.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
If you insist on having a death penalty, at least make it uniform across the land. This business of some states more readily handing out the ultimate punishment is a rather grim one if you ask me. How is it fair to apply a serious punishment like the death penalty in such a subjective way?

That's part of the point of having seperate states.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
If you insist on having a death penalty, at least make it uniform across the land. This business of some states more readily handing out the ultimate punishment is a rather grim one if you ask me. How is it fair to apply a serious punishment like the death penalty in such a subjective way?

That's part of the point of having seperate states.

Yep, if only we had a fence for some of the midwest and southern ones.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk

Originally posted by: senseamp
Oh wow, they let Thomas write one for the team?

Writing Instruments, Property of Clarence Thomas

Is that a colored joke?

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: shira
This Kansas law IS absurd. Consider the following:

The Kansas law refers to countervailing factors that are "equal in weight." "Equal in weight" means they cancel each other out. It's as though there were no aggravating and mitigating factors in the first place.

So, in Kansas, if a person has no aggravating or mitigating factors, he won't get the death penalty. But if the person has equal-weight aggravating and mitigating factors - which is equivalent to having none of these factors - he gets the death penalty.

Maybe that tornado was doing Dorothy a favor.

If I mix a pound of sugar and a pound of salt, it won't taste like nothing.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
If you insist on having a death penalty, at least make it uniform across the land. This business of some states more readily handing out the ultimate punishment is a rather grim one if you ask me. How is it fair to apply a serious punishment like the death penalty in such a subjective way?

That's part of the point of having seperate states.

Yep, if only we had a fence for some of the midwest and southern ones.

Believe you me, those of us in the midwest would be happy with that fence..

Fences work in both directions..

 

[Termagant]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: shira
This Kansas law IS absurd. Consider the following:

The Kansas law refers to countervailing factors that are "equal in weight." "Equal in weight" means they cancel each other out. It's as though there were no aggravating and mitigating factors in the first place.

So, in Kansas, if a person has no aggravating or mitigating factors, he won't get the death penalty. But if the person has equal-weight aggravating and mitigating factors - which is equivalent to having none of these factors - he gets the death penalty.

Maybe that tornado was doing Dorothy a favor.

If I mix a pound of sugar and a pound of salt, it won't taste like nothing.

But we say it tastes like salt, because we have bloodlust.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk

Originally posted by: senseamp
Oh wow, they let Thomas write one for the team?

Writing Instruments, Property of Clarence Thomas

Is that a colored joke?

LOL!

The death penalty is one of the few issues on which I come down on the right side of the fence (at least in theory, in practice I'm not so sure), and I agree with the ruling.

All I see is that if someone is found guilty of a capital offense, and the aggravating & mitigating factors are roughly equal, they should still get killed. These capital offenses are not the cases in which I am willing to give someone the benefit of the doubt.

On a more general note, I think the death penalty appropriately expresses the notion that a society is somehow greater than the sum of its aggregate parts.