And Also: Fifty pages of opinions -- This Supreme Court favors short opinions -- divided by an ideological 5-4 vote with strong dissents (each liberal had their own with some agreement among them on core points; Roberts for majority, Thomas concurred) suggests the importance given to arbitration matters like handed down today. More here. Case where membership matters.
This might be more of a pure against the death penalty matter.* Other gruesome deaths don't result in execution. A select few do. Plus, even here, a few close relatives are against it. "What about the victims" during delays etc. are not about those victims though. Finally, if you allow the death penalty, problem cases will arise. Put aside the basic principle that the state executing people is wrong. Even here, two were sentenced to die (one executed in 2011), one deemed worthy of life imprisonment for taking a lesser part in the proceedings. And, in his early 60s, he will be eligible for parole. Would over thirty years in prison be wrong even for King? He has been on death row for about twenty years now.
[I wrote the rest of this before the Supreme Court, without comment, refused a stay, King then -- without the same extended drama of recent times -- executed. Looked up the briefing (note the numbers on the order page and the"docket search" tab), it actually was close. The Texas court below split 5-4 on denying the say, a key issue the proper application of a recent case. There was also some concern about seriously addressing the innocence claim. Basically, the dissent thought discretion was the better part of valor, even if King eventually lost.
That's troubling -- an execution shouldn't go on by a narrow vote like that. And, I think some justice should have flagged the issue, again since it isn't trivial. I will leave the rest unedited, including the footnote, since it is informative Plus, I'm not sure how strong the bottom line claim is. Still, bit more open to the idea there was a due process problem here too.]
Pairing him up with the victim of a gay hate crime (though one account argued it was not), the federal government eventually passed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act. The law provided money and resources to help states investigate and prosecute hate crimes. But, also a means to federally prosecute. A lower court held -- in a case involving a racial hate crime -- this was acceptable under the Thirteenth Amendment. National origin and even religion (at least Jews and Muslims) have been understood to be originally seen as "racial" in origin. A federalist challenge, at least these days, might be stronger without a "federal hook" in cases of gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.
It looks like Congress used the Commerce Clause to defend that aspect of the statute. The main argument for hate crimes is that the crimes are as much against a group as an individual. A person who is gay, e.g., has reason to fear specifically for that reason, not merely as an individual. Line drawing and controversy makes me wary about these things. They seem best as a means to protect a community and provide additional penalties for lesser crimes. The crime here is so horrible that racism appears to have been involved does not really add much to things. With or without the legislation, two people were sentenced to die, one to life.
The handing out of the death penalty for the murder of a black man by a white man is fairly atypical though the horrible nature of this crime is significant. As noted, the crime took place in 1998, so it has been about twenty years. There have been more blatant cases of people spending an extended time in prison. Not seeing a concern for the lethal injection protocol. Again, the bottom line is that the death penalty is not good policy and in practice it has deep constitutional problems. Even in this case.
---
* I saw on Twitter (again a helpful resource to get updates) there is a claim that too much was granted at trial of his criminality (trying to fit things into a Supreme Court case on the matter). This would makes sense since the news articles highlight that King never admitted guilt. Of course, there are various due process claims made. There might be something significant. But, I think this -- more than most -- is a "pure" death penalty case.
The details were gruesome: using a logging chain, the three killers had tied [James] Byrd’s ankles to the bumper of the pick-up and dragged him along Huff Creek Road for more than three miles, leaving a trail of blood and clothes along the roadway. Byrd’s severed head, neck and arm fell in a driveway near a culvert. Experts later testified that he would have still been alive when his body was ripped apart.When examining the details of the people scheduled to die this year, I have repeatedly found some issue. For instance, the person has been on death row for like three decades. Serious chance of problems with a lethal injection protocol. Some credible due process concern (King himself made some.) And, even disputes over the religious officiant to allow in the death chamber.
This might be more of a pure against the death penalty matter.* Other gruesome deaths don't result in execution. A select few do. Plus, even here, a few close relatives are against it. "What about the victims" during delays etc. are not about those victims though. Finally, if you allow the death penalty, problem cases will arise. Put aside the basic principle that the state executing people is wrong. Even here, two were sentenced to die (one executed in 2011), one deemed worthy of life imprisonment for taking a lesser part in the proceedings. And, in his early 60s, he will be eligible for parole. Would over thirty years in prison be wrong even for King? He has been on death row for about twenty years now.
[I wrote the rest of this before the Supreme Court, without comment, refused a stay, King then -- without the same extended drama of recent times -- executed. Looked up the briefing (note the numbers on the order page and the"docket search" tab), it actually was close. The Texas court below split 5-4 on denying the say, a key issue the proper application of a recent case. There was also some concern about seriously addressing the innocence claim. Basically, the dissent thought discretion was the better part of valor, even if King eventually lost.
That's troubling -- an execution shouldn't go on by a narrow vote like that. And, I think some justice should have flagged the issue, again since it isn't trivial. I will leave the rest unedited, including the footnote, since it is informative Plus, I'm not sure how strong the bottom line claim is. Still, bit more open to the idea there was a due process problem here too.]
Pairing him up with the victim of a gay hate crime (though one account argued it was not), the federal government eventually passed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act. The law provided money and resources to help states investigate and prosecute hate crimes. But, also a means to federally prosecute. A lower court held -- in a case involving a racial hate crime -- this was acceptable under the Thirteenth Amendment. National origin and even religion (at least Jews and Muslims) have been understood to be originally seen as "racial" in origin. A federalist challenge, at least these days, might be stronger without a "federal hook" in cases of gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.
It looks like Congress used the Commerce Clause to defend that aspect of the statute. The main argument for hate crimes is that the crimes are as much against a group as an individual. A person who is gay, e.g., has reason to fear specifically for that reason, not merely as an individual. Line drawing and controversy makes me wary about these things. They seem best as a means to protect a community and provide additional penalties for lesser crimes. The crime here is so horrible that racism appears to have been involved does not really add much to things. With or without the legislation, two people were sentenced to die, one to life.
The handing out of the death penalty for the murder of a black man by a white man is fairly atypical though the horrible nature of this crime is significant. As noted, the crime took place in 1998, so it has been about twenty years. There have been more blatant cases of people spending an extended time in prison. Not seeing a concern for the lethal injection protocol. Again, the bottom line is that the death penalty is not good policy and in practice it has deep constitutional problems. Even in this case.
---
* I saw on Twitter (again a helpful resource to get updates) there is a claim that too much was granted at trial of his criminality (trying to fit things into a Supreme Court case on the matter). This would makes sense since the news articles highlight that King never admitted guilt. Of course, there are various due process claims made. There might be something significant. But, I think this -- more than most -- is a "pure" death penalty case.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!