Executing Juviniles
This Slate article has a lot of information about the Roper v. Simmons case being heard by the Supreme Court on whether the execution of people who were 16 or 17 years old when they committed their crimes constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment". Now, as I have stated previously, I tend to give teens a lot of credit in regard to how much responsibility they should be able to have, and that includes responsibility for their actions and the consequences of those actions. So, I don't think that executing a 16 or 17 year old convincted of egregious murder is necessarily wrong. That being said, the phrase 'tried as an adult' gets in my craw. If 'adultness' is an attribute that can be gained regardless of age for the purpose of criminal prosecution then it should be an attribute that can be gained, regardless of age for other purposes as well. If 16 or 17 year olds could take an 'adultness test' that would allow them to purchase cigarettes or alcohol, sign contracts and fully engage in other adult activities then I would have no problem with an 'adultness test' being administered by the courts. There is one piece in the Salon article that I thought was especially foolish:
Dissenting in Atkins, Justice Antonin Scalia once raged: "But the Prize for the Court's Most Feeble Effort to fabricate 'national consensus' must go to its appeal (deservedly relegated to a footnote) to the views of assorted professional and religious organizations, members of the so-called 'world community' … the views of professional and religious organizations and the results of opinion polls are irrelevant. Equally irrelevant are the practices of the 'world community,' whose notions of justice are (thankfully) not always those of our people." This is an argument George Bush makes five times every debate. (Watch for it again tonight.) While we might agree that world opinion, international law, and scientific truth can't single-handedly dictate American law or policy, the new patriotism holds that they cannot even illuminate it.I have to fully agree with Scalia on this issue. Popularity certainly does not equal morality, if you doubt me on this, ask any parent whether 'everyone is doing it' constitutes a sound moral arguement. Things are either moral or immoral. It is certainly possible that immoral practices might be considered moral because of cultural blindspots, and in this situation world opinion may enlighten us that we might have missed something, but in the end, the moral reasoning must stand on it's own, not be based upon current opinions or popularity.
posted by Dave Justus | 10/15/2004 09:03:00 AM
3 Comments:
Your moral absolutism is anti-historical and I don't believe it's reflected in the law. Outside of the courts, in the legislative branch, our society makes all sorts of collective moral judgments through popular consensus. Each year, some are legislated, others are repealled, and still others that have been previously repealled, are restored. That is the nature of democracy. In fact every piece of legislation is ultimately a moral or ethical judgment embodied in the powers of the state.
The courts come in as an interpreter of the constitution, which he treat as a more conservative foundation for what moral and ethical judgments are and are not in the greater interests of democracy. It slows down radical decisions and defeats those that would threaten the cability for the process to continue.
The issue of the death penalty, for adults, juveniles, or the mentally unsound, is really only referenced in the constution on the grounds of 'cruel and unusual punishment.' That statement does not, in itself, inform us of whether various forms of the death penalty meet that criteria. That is a matter of interpretation that falls in the hands of the justices, whom, in the spirit of democracy should inform their opinion by current social norms. Those social norms should not dictate the judges decisions, but they should, along with broader reading of the intent of the Constitution, play a role in their decision-making process.
So should the fact that "everybody's doing it" make it okay? No, of course not. But that fact should make us reflect on it more deeply. Why is everybody doing it? Do their reasons support our contradict our higher values? Maybe these people have an insight which the state has yet to recognize.
Even a parent should second guess themselves once or twice when their kid tells them that "everybody's doing it." They should cede their own values, but they should set aside the time to re-assess their application. Otherwise, they miss an opportunity to grow wiser and their kid may miss an opportunity to acheive everything that it has the capability to.
I think we actually are in agreement here Andrew.
Obviously the laws (and what we view as moral) changes overtime. But I do not believe that morality itself does.
For examply Slavery was wrong in 1787, it was wrong in 1860 and it is wrong today. The laws, and attitudes of the people have in fact changed, but morality has not.
Now to an extent a person is more morally culpabable if they have a slave today than if they had a slave in 1787, in that now they should be fully aware that such behavior is immoral. But the morality of slavery itself is the same.
When I said: "It is certainly possible that immoral practices might be considered moral because of cultural blindspots, and in this situation world opinion may enlighten us that we might have missed something, but in the end, the moral reasoning must stand on it's own, not be based upon current opinions or popularity."
I was refering to just the sort of 'take time and look at it' action that you are talking about. Popular opinion is a great reason to recheck your moral system, but it, in and of itself, does not hold any moral weight in my opinion. You have to figure out why the popular opinion is a certain way and decide what is moral and what is not moral regardless of what is popular.
" to unkill people later if you find out you've made a mistake..."
Yea, i have been leaning that way for quite awhile.
Just lock them up and make them do hard labor, their life span will be shorter (there by costing less money) and they will do some work which will lessen the cost of their imprisionment.
I personally think the death penalty should be saved for the big fishes. In effect saying, we are not afraid to kill you, but instead we choose to make you live to work for the benefit of the society you hurt instead.
Think of all the work you could get form a 16 year old who had a life senentce, a 60 years worth of hard labor.
Post a Comment
<< Home