8 ms·

>Critics complain that the idea of “evolving standards” is a mere pretense to wrap personal preferences in a scarf of constitutional law. But more than half a c

>Critics complain that the idea of “evolving standards” is a mere pretense to wrap personal preferences in a scarf of constitutional law. But more than half a century after the concept was coined, “evolving standards” is deeply woven into Supreme Court tradition. The Justices all know that the modern death penalty is a failure. When they finally decide to get rid of it, “evolving standards” is how they will do it. Does anyone else oppose both capital punishment and the use of judicial fiat to bring about its abolition?

joshmoz 11y ago
Maybe, but it's hard to get me too worked up about this mechanism when the government has people lined up to be killed.
- smallddemocrat 11y ago
  What other issues would you prefer be decided for us by unelected judges using nebulous legal doctrines hardly reconcilable with the document from which they supposedly derive, and further, how can you still consider yourself a supporter of democracy despite these thoroughly anti-democratic leanings?
- Natsu 11y ago
  The problem is what, in the end, we do with them? The options are, roughly: A) Kill them - The current choice. It's disfavored because it's final and we've made plenty of mistakes after doing it enough times. Also, it's more expensive than (B) because we try harder to make sure we've got the right person. B) Life in prison - Possibly a compromise option, but there are some who say this is equivalent to (A), or possibly even worse. Prison itself is rather detrimental to people, after all. C) Free them after some time. This is great for lesser crimes (which probably shouldn't result in prison to begin with). But for major ones, we're no longer protecting the rest of society from the murderers and rapists we have locked up. We hope they've been reformed, but prison really doesn't do that very well. And what do we do with the prisoners who have no reasonable prospects of life on the outside any more? You can expunge a criminal record, sure, but you can't make up for 20+ years in prison and a lack of marketable job skills overnight. It would be good if we had better avenues for reform.
  - zanny 11y ago
    Option D) used to be really popular. Exile. The problem is there is no unclaimed land to drop them on anymore that makes sense. Because really, the kind of extravagant violence to justify a death penalty is the kind that makes you want to do several things: 1. Not pay for their livelihood for the rest of their life. US prisoners cost somewhere in the ballpark of $150k a year to house, feed, etc. What a colossal waste of resources. 2. Not kill them, because thats barbaric and primitive. We are better than that. It even costs more to execute people than it does to imprison them forever, since the appeals and actual execution will run to the tune of millions. So kicking them out of the club we call society seems like a the best option in my view. The problem is, one, having somewhere to put them (I'm sure Australia would not be as much of a fan of having serial murderers dumped on their shores as they were two centuries ago) and two, keeping them out. But really, it seems to be like the moral / ethical maxima. If you break the most fundamental rules of society, to such a degree you are unfit to ever participate again, you are kicked out.
    - T-A 11y ago
      Manhattan? [1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_from_New_York#Plot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_from_New_York#Plot
    - cam_l 11y ago
      "having serial murderers dumped on their shores as they were two centuries ago" you are talking about the british, right?
    - cpitman 11y ago
      Are there really no uninhabited islands in the middle of nowhere?
      - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
        Someone would go get them again. Especially if they had boatloads of money socked away.
    - venomsnake 11y ago
anigbrowl 11y ago
Somewhat. I'd much rather just amend the Constitution, but that's a slow and unreliable process. I do not see it as inevitable that the Supreme Court will just get rid of it. The Constitution specifically mentions capital crimes so it cannot be argued that the DP is inherently cruel and unusual or otherwise prohibited by the Constitution - sure some people try to make that argument, but like all people that try to cherry pick only the parts of the law that suit their argument, they're wrong. An amendment is the only way to go, and frankly we should be making more use of the amendment process instead of treating the Constitution like some religious artifact that's going to disintegrate if we alter it.
- Retric 11y ago
  You can easily argue that 30 years on death row and 6 stays of execution is Cruel and unusual punishment. Basicly, while in theory there is nothing inherently wrong with the death penalty our current system is broken.
  - anigbrowl 11y ago
    I'm not in favor of the DP and agree it's both monstrous and unworkable as it is in the USA, and that it's not perfectible. But from a purely legal point of view, abolition has to come from the legislative branch.
    - Retric 11y ago
      I don't think it's quite that black and white. The judicial branch could decide anyone on death row for more than 10 years automatically has there sentence committed to life. Remember, the judicial branch is supposed to be equivelent to the other two. They don't get to create the law on a whim, but they can get rid of any of them.
  - venomsnake 11y ago
    Life without parole is also cruel. Sadly not unusual.
- sukilot 11y ago

joshmoz 11y ago

Maybe, but it's hard to get me too worked up about this mechanism when the government has people lined up to be killed.

smallddemocrat 11y ago
What other issues would you prefer be decided for us by unelected judges using nebulous legal doctrines hardly reconcilable with the document from which they supposedly derive, and further, how can you still consider yourself a supporter of democracy despite these thoroughly anti-democratic leanings?
Natsu 11y ago
The problem is what, in the end, we do with them? The options are, roughly: A) Kill them - The current choice. It's disfavored because it's final and we've made plenty of mistakes after doing it enough times. Also, it's more expensive than (B) because we try harder to make sure we've got the right person. B) Life in prison - Possibly a compromise option, but there are some who say this is equivalent to (A), or possibly even worse. Prison itself is rather detrimental to people, after all. C) Free them after some time. This is great for lesser crimes (which probably shouldn't result in prison to begin with). But for major ones, we're no longer protecting the rest of society from the murderers and rapists we have locked up. We hope they've been reformed, but prison really doesn't do that very well. And what do we do with the prisoners who have no reasonable prospects of life on the outside any more? You can expunge a criminal record, sure, but you can't make up for 20+ years in prison and a lack of marketable job skills overnight. It would be good if we had better avenues for reform.
- zanny 11y ago
  Option D) used to be really popular. Exile. The problem is there is no unclaimed land to drop them on anymore that makes sense. Because really, the kind of extravagant violence to justify a death penalty is the kind that makes you want to do several things: 1. Not pay for their livelihood for the rest of their life. US prisoners cost somewhere in the ballpark of $150k a year to house, feed, etc. What a colossal waste of resources. 2. Not kill them, because thats barbaric and primitive. We are better than that. It even costs more to execute people than it does to imprison them forever, since the appeals and actual execution will run to the tune of millions. So kicking them out of the club we call society seems like a the best option in my view. The problem is, one, having somewhere to put them (I'm sure Australia would not be as much of a fan of having serial murderers dumped on their shores as they were two centuries ago) and two, keeping them out. But really, it seems to be like the moral / ethical maxima. If you break the most fundamental rules of society, to such a degree you are unfit to ever participate again, you are kicked out.
  - T-A 11y ago
    Manhattan? [1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_from_New_York#Plot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_from_New_York#Plot
  - cam_l 11y ago
    "having serial murderers dumped on their shores as they were two centuries ago" you are talking about the british, right?
  - cpitman 11y ago
    Are there really no uninhabited islands in the middle of nowhere?
    - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
      Someone would go get them again. Especially if they had boatloads of money socked away.
  - venomsnake 11y ago

anigbrowl 11y ago

Somewhat. I'd much rather just amend the Constitution, but that's a slow and unreliable process. I do not see it as inevitable that the Supreme Court will just get rid of it. The Constitution specifically mentions capital crimes so it cannot be argued that the DP is inherently cruel and unusual or otherwise prohibited by the Constitution - sure some people try to make that argument, but like all people that try to cherry pick only the parts of the law that suit their argument, they're wrong. An amendment is the only way to go, and frankly we should be making more use of the amendment process instead of treating the Constitution like some religious artifact that's going to disintegrate if we alter it.

Retric 11y ago
You can easily argue that 30 years on death row and 6 stays of execution is Cruel and unusual punishment. Basicly, while in theory there is nothing inherently wrong with the death penalty our current system is broken.
- anigbrowl 11y ago
  I'm not in favor of the DP and agree it's both monstrous and unworkable as it is in the USA, and that it's not perfectible. But from a purely legal point of view, abolition has to come from the legislative branch.
  - Retric 11y ago
    I don't think it's quite that black and white. The judicial branch could decide anyone on death row for more than 10 years automatically has there sentence committed to life. Remember, the judicial branch is supposed to be equivelent to the other two. They don't get to create the law on a whim, but they can get rid of any of them.
- venomsnake 11y ago
  Life without parole is also cruel. Sadly not unusual.
sukilot 11y ago