<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="/css/atom.css" type="text/css"?><entry xmlns="http://purl.org/atom/ns#">
<created>2005-03-01T19:01:28Z</created>
<issued>2005-03-01T19:01:28Z</issued>
<title>Death penalty</title>
<modified>2005-03-01T19:51:43Z</modified>
<summary></summary>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped">&lt;p&gt;Seeing the juvenile death penalty overturned today was good in a number of ways&amp;mdash;the reading of the constitution that says the 8th amendment is malleable is plausible to me&amp;mdash;but the 5th amendment reading other people are putting forward is not. Already there &lt;a href="http://www.cleavelin.net/archives/00000270.htm"&gt;are calls&lt;/a&gt; to overturn the death penalty altogether on constitutional grounds. These, however, &lt;a href="http://xrlq.com/2005/03/01/2187/supremes-to-juvenile-thugs-dont-pay-no-mind-if-youre-under-18-you-wont-be-doin-any-time/"&gt;are not plausible&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I should be happy with today&amp;rsquo;s ruling, but I&amp;rsquo;m not. Most of the people calling for a complete overturn of the death penalty have apparently not read the constitution:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;blockquote&gt;No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, &lt;strong&gt;nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law&lt;/strong&gt;; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.&lt;/blockquote&gt;
Note that it is constitional to take a life provided that due process is provided. The death penalty is mentioned &lt;a href="http://www.cdharris.net/archives/2005_03.html#004360"&gt;elsewhere&lt;/a&gt; in the constitution and the country&amp;rsquo;s history doesn&amp;rsquo;t support a conclusion &lt;a href="http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/9433"&gt;that it is unconstitutional&lt;/a&gt;.
&lt;p&gt;The references to international law are a bit galling as well. I looked at the opinion and Kennedy did limit those references and stated that they had no legal weight. If so, why mention them? I'm with Scalia: if the Justices want to indulge their curiosity, fine. Just keep it out of their opinions.&lt;/p&gt;</content>
<link>http://blog.lordsutch.com/archives/2535</link>
<id>http://blog.lordsutch.com/atom.cgi/entryid=2535</id>
</entry>

