Post by marion on Jun 29, 2006 2:09:49 GMT -5
High court's death penalty ruling has proper focus
The Supreme Court ruling makes it clear that Kansas, like any of the 50 states, has the right to establish how the death penalty is imposed.
By the Editorial Board of the Union-Bulletin
Jun 28, 2006
Have the majority of the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court declared - in an emphatic tone - that they are fans of the death penalty?
Not really.
Yet, those on both sides of capital punishment have been using a lot of exclamation points as they spin Monday's high court ruling that upholds Kansas' capital punishment law.
That's because the ruling came after a 5-4 vote in which the deciding ballot was cast by the court's newest justice, Samuel Alito. Those who are passionate about this issue - on both sides - see the 5-4 ruling as a signal the court has made some sort of philosophical shift.
But that's not necessarily the case. Most of the justices, as they should, simply ruled on a very narrow issue that came up because of a twist in Kansas' death penalty law, a twist that's unique to that state.
In Kansas the law says that juries should sentence a defendant to die (as opposed to life in prison) when the evidence for and against imposing death is equal.
The law seems an odd one, and not one that we would recommend for Washington or Oregon.
The death penalty should be reserved for the worst of the worst. It should be used rarely and only when another punishment is not deemed sufficient.
Ironically, that seems to be the result of the Kansas law even with its twist. There are just eight inmates on Death Row and nobody has been executed in Kansas for more than 40 years.
Apparently the jurors in Kansas - or perhaps the prosecutors - are very careful about who is sentenced to death. The Kansas law seems to be working.
The high court, in upholding that law, did not say that it liked the Kansas law or that it embraced a widespread use of the death penalty. The court simply said that Kansas, like any of the 50 states, has the right to establish how the death penalty is imposed.
Or, in the words written for the majority by Justice Clarence Thomas, ``Our precedents establish that a state enjoys a range of discretion in imposing the death penalty.''
The ruling overturns a Kansas Supreme Court decision that found the law violated the Eighth Amendment's protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
Ultimately, it's not the role of the U.S. Supreme Court - or any court - to determine if the death penalty should be imposed. That's for those sitting in state legislatures, as representatives of the people, to decide.
The high court framed this issue properly in ruling that this was not a matter of cruel and unusual punishment, but of state authority to set reasonable standards in imposing the death penalty.
The Supreme Court ruling makes it clear that Kansas, like any of the 50 states, has the right to establish how the death penalty is imposed.
By the Editorial Board of the Union-Bulletin
Jun 28, 2006
Have the majority of the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court declared - in an emphatic tone - that they are fans of the death penalty?
Not really.
Yet, those on both sides of capital punishment have been using a lot of exclamation points as they spin Monday's high court ruling that upholds Kansas' capital punishment law.
That's because the ruling came after a 5-4 vote in which the deciding ballot was cast by the court's newest justice, Samuel Alito. Those who are passionate about this issue - on both sides - see the 5-4 ruling as a signal the court has made some sort of philosophical shift.
But that's not necessarily the case. Most of the justices, as they should, simply ruled on a very narrow issue that came up because of a twist in Kansas' death penalty law, a twist that's unique to that state.
In Kansas the law says that juries should sentence a defendant to die (as opposed to life in prison) when the evidence for and against imposing death is equal.
The law seems an odd one, and not one that we would recommend for Washington or Oregon.
The death penalty should be reserved for the worst of the worst. It should be used rarely and only when another punishment is not deemed sufficient.
Ironically, that seems to be the result of the Kansas law even with its twist. There are just eight inmates on Death Row and nobody has been executed in Kansas for more than 40 years.
Apparently the jurors in Kansas - or perhaps the prosecutors - are very careful about who is sentenced to death. The Kansas law seems to be working.
The high court, in upholding that law, did not say that it liked the Kansas law or that it embraced a widespread use of the death penalty. The court simply said that Kansas, like any of the 50 states, has the right to establish how the death penalty is imposed.
Or, in the words written for the majority by Justice Clarence Thomas, ``Our precedents establish that a state enjoys a range of discretion in imposing the death penalty.''
The ruling overturns a Kansas Supreme Court decision that found the law violated the Eighth Amendment's protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
Ultimately, it's not the role of the U.S. Supreme Court - or any court - to determine if the death penalty should be imposed. That's for those sitting in state legislatures, as representatives of the people, to decide.
The high court framed this issue properly in ruling that this was not a matter of cruel and unusual punishment, but of state authority to set reasonable standards in imposing the death penalty.