Post by SoulTrainOz on Jul 26, 2006 7:44:14 GMT -5
If the arguments for and against executing a convict are equal in Kansas, the convict must die. The Supreme Court stamped its approval to that law last month before taking off to enjoy the summer.
The law is a capital punishment version of baseball's "tie goes to the runner" rule. Unlike Kansas, baseball doesn't say that in its rule book. But, starting in Little League, every time there is a close play at first base someone will shout, "Tie goes to the runner!" The wording in the rule book is that the first baseman must have the ball "before (the batter) reaches the base."
What baseball leaves implicit Kansas law makes explicit. As in Florida, after conviction of a crime eligible for the death penalty, jurors are supposed to weigh mitigating factors (he was abused as a child) against aggravating factors (he tortured his victim) in deciding if the convict must die. Unlike Florida, where juries make a recommendation to the judge, Kansas has juries that decide the sentence. To aid them, the law requires that when the mitigating and aggravating factors come out even, the jurors
must vote for death.
The Kansas Supreme Court ruled that the law was bloody arbitrary, but 5 justices of the Supreme Court find it perfectly reasonable.
Kansas hasn't executed anyone in 40 years. It has 8 people on death row, including the man who brought the case that Kansas appealed to the Supreme Court. Either way, the original plaintiff wouldn't have had much help from the decision because he was condemned with an aggravating to mitigating ratio of 3-to-1. It makes one wonder why the Supremes even took the case. Did they just feel like slapping down the Kansas high court?
The "if it ties, the convict dies" rule fits well into the jurisprudence
of a counter where provable innocence doesn't necessarily keep a person from being executed. The high court decided that in a case from Texas 1993. An appeals court held that "actual innocence" was irrelevant if the evidence for it turned up after the original trial. There's no reason to order a whole new trial in that case if the first trial followed all the rules. The Supremes agreed. They suggested that the accused try for a pardon.
The decision had the tone of a spit-spot nanny: "You had your chance. Don't come crying to us."
This year's opinion, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, boiled down to saying that these cases have to be decided some way. Kansas gave jurors a way to decide them. It's a lot like Arizona's system, which was upheld in an earlier case. So there's no problem.
The dissenters worried that the Kansas bias increases the likelihood that an innocent person will be executed. But the high court decided that in 1993: No problem. Justice Antonin Scalia, in addition to agreeing with Justice Thomas, wrote to pooh-pooh the dissenters concerns. But he blew up his own argument with this thought:
"Like other human institutions, courts and juries are not perfect. One cannot have a system of criminal punishment without accepting the possibility that someone will be punished mistakenly ... But with regard to the punishment of death in the current American system, that possibility has been reduced to an insignificant minimum."
It may not seem insignificant to the person who gets killed.
The dissenters should have argued that - because of the possibility Justice Scalia admits exists - ties ought to be decided in favor of life. They still would have lost.
The 3 who joined Justices Thomas and Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy. Those are the 5 Catholic justices on whom the Christian right is relying to overturn the Roe vs. Wade abortion decision if the first 4 can get a small wiggle their way from the court's new swing vote, Justice Kennedy.
If that comes to pass, the reversal will be clamorously lauded as an affirmation of the value America places on human life. The clamor should have a clunky sound of hypocrisy while soldiers and civilians are still dying in a war enthusiastically undertaken without forethought and planning.
And it will clunk if it comes from justices who, in June of 2006, showed little hesitation in deciding that in close cases, when choosing between life and death, juries must choose death.
(source: Palm Beach Post)
The law is a capital punishment version of baseball's "tie goes to the runner" rule. Unlike Kansas, baseball doesn't say that in its rule book. But, starting in Little League, every time there is a close play at first base someone will shout, "Tie goes to the runner!" The wording in the rule book is that the first baseman must have the ball "before (the batter) reaches the base."
What baseball leaves implicit Kansas law makes explicit. As in Florida, after conviction of a crime eligible for the death penalty, jurors are supposed to weigh mitigating factors (he was abused as a child) against aggravating factors (he tortured his victim) in deciding if the convict must die. Unlike Florida, where juries make a recommendation to the judge, Kansas has juries that decide the sentence. To aid them, the law requires that when the mitigating and aggravating factors come out even, the jurors
must vote for death.
The Kansas Supreme Court ruled that the law was bloody arbitrary, but 5 justices of the Supreme Court find it perfectly reasonable.
Kansas hasn't executed anyone in 40 years. It has 8 people on death row, including the man who brought the case that Kansas appealed to the Supreme Court. Either way, the original plaintiff wouldn't have had much help from the decision because he was condemned with an aggravating to mitigating ratio of 3-to-1. It makes one wonder why the Supremes even took the case. Did they just feel like slapping down the Kansas high court?
The "if it ties, the convict dies" rule fits well into the jurisprudence
of a counter where provable innocence doesn't necessarily keep a person from being executed. The high court decided that in a case from Texas 1993. An appeals court held that "actual innocence" was irrelevant if the evidence for it turned up after the original trial. There's no reason to order a whole new trial in that case if the first trial followed all the rules. The Supremes agreed. They suggested that the accused try for a pardon.
The decision had the tone of a spit-spot nanny: "You had your chance. Don't come crying to us."
This year's opinion, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, boiled down to saying that these cases have to be decided some way. Kansas gave jurors a way to decide them. It's a lot like Arizona's system, which was upheld in an earlier case. So there's no problem.
The dissenters worried that the Kansas bias increases the likelihood that an innocent person will be executed. But the high court decided that in 1993: No problem. Justice Antonin Scalia, in addition to agreeing with Justice Thomas, wrote to pooh-pooh the dissenters concerns. But he blew up his own argument with this thought:
"Like other human institutions, courts and juries are not perfect. One cannot have a system of criminal punishment without accepting the possibility that someone will be punished mistakenly ... But with regard to the punishment of death in the current American system, that possibility has been reduced to an insignificant minimum."
It may not seem insignificant to the person who gets killed.
The dissenters should have argued that - because of the possibility Justice Scalia admits exists - ties ought to be decided in favor of life. They still would have lost.
The 3 who joined Justices Thomas and Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy. Those are the 5 Catholic justices on whom the Christian right is relying to overturn the Roe vs. Wade abortion decision if the first 4 can get a small wiggle their way from the court's new swing vote, Justice Kennedy.
If that comes to pass, the reversal will be clamorously lauded as an affirmation of the value America places on human life. The clamor should have a clunky sound of hypocrisy while soldiers and civilians are still dying in a war enthusiastically undertaken without forethought and planning.
And it will clunk if it comes from justices who, in June of 2006, showed little hesitation in deciding that in close cases, when choosing between life and death, juries must choose death.
(source: Palm Beach Post)