So Young Joel wrote about Justice Scalia and the recent Supreme Court decision on the topic of the death penalty for juveniles.
Unlike Joel, I pretty much agree with Scalia.
I know this shocks my loyal readers.
Here is what I believe.
I'm not opposed to the death penalty in theory if it were carried out fairly. Since there are studies that seem to show the death penalty is always applied unfairly I would prefer it not be legal. I also see no justice in seeing the death penalty applied to people under some minimal age, probably 16. I also don't see the mercy in sentencing a 16 year old to die of old age in prison. BTW, I've always lived in states without the death penalty and I'm happy about that.
But my opinion about the death penalty is outside the scope of the argument that Scalia makes.
Scalia's criticism of the Supreme Court decision was because the court is making law, based on it's perception of "evolving standards." I, like Scalia, want the legislatures in each respective state to make laws not courts, especially not the federal courts. Then if the laws are lousy we can throw them out of office and get new people to make better laws. Scalia pointed out in a recent speech that it seems strange that anyone wants a world where laws are essentially made by nine unaccountable lawyers.
Now, if your issue is the death penalty, the court's decision was a win, but only because the current set of juctices favor your position. The next set probably won't favor your position. Then how happy are you going to be when they re-write your favorite laws. People on the current bench, like Justice Thomas, will be all to happy to have a conservative and activist court and will likely be achieving that goal in their lifetime.
Being a libertarian, I would like to see the maximum power aggregated in the smallest arena. So I prefer states to take up the important issues like when is it fair to apply the death penalty. If you can't convince your fellow citizens move to a different state. The further away the decision is made, the less power you have to influence it.
I recognize this anti-federalist sentiment places me squarely in a quaint, nostalgic minority.
The problem is that if one starts talking this kind of "states rights" talk the next thing you know you accidentally sound like some wild eyed Dixiecrat trying to keep the people of color out of public universities.
This issue, as well as the Terry Schiavo case, are really making me think lately. Here is the most incendiary thing I've ever said on my blog. I'll probably live to regret it. How strange is the world when you have people who are desperate to keep Terry Schiavo alive and at the same time happy to bomb the hell out any muslim country and put juveniles to death? How strange is a world where people are upset that a cow, chicken, fish or sheep feels pain when slaughtered but are happy to legalize the purposeful ending of life of either an adult or an unborn fetus, a.k.a. a baby?
This issue, as well as the Terry Schiavo case, are really making me think lately. Here is the most incendiary thing I've ever said on my blog. I'll probably live to regret it. How strange is the world when you have people who are desperate to keep Terry Schiavo alive and at the same time happy to bomb the hell out any muslim country and put juveniles to death? How strange is a world where people are upset that a cow, chicken, fish or sheep feels pain when slaughtered but are happy to legalize the purposeful ending of life of either an adult or an unborn fetus, a.k.a. a baby?
