Unconstitutionality Of Executing Child Rapists Decided By Popular Demand
A revealing of amorality within the Supreme Court's decision of Kennedy v. Louisiana. by Steven M. Paquin
(libertarian)
Monday, June 30, 2008
In last week's case Kennedy v. Louisiana the Supreme Court possibly made a wise decision classifying execution for convicted child rapists as unconstitutional, but the reasoning was utterly mindless.
One should always be suspicious of government because its purpose is to use defense force against natural rights violators, while it is controlled by a mob led by one strongman or a mystical collective mentality. In either case, the government begins initiating force. Therefore, even when the government is deciding to execute a criminal, there is cause for concern. This is why the United States has a Constitution.
The Constitution is undoubtedly imperfect, but it is on the path to Truth. It objectively guides the government by limiting its use of force. Thus, the government can approach understanding when it is acting virtuously — using defense force — or acting viciously — initiating force. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court ignored all of this in deciding Kennedy v. Louisiana.
Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the court arguing that executing convicted child rapists constituted "cruel and unusual punishment;" thus, violating the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution. This is a fine decision, but it requires reasoning. His reasoning is that, "society's standards, as expressed in legislative enactments and state practice with respect to executions" indicate that the general populous is opposed to the death penalty, and "cruel and unusual punishment" is defined by "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." Basically, according to Justice Kennedy, the majority of the population defines "cruel and unusual punishment." Regardless of whether or not one finds executing convicted child rapists as "cruel and unusual punishment," all can agree Justice Kennedy's reasoning is irrational.
This decision displays a complete unconcern for Truth. The purpose of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution — an objective guide towards Truth. Therefore, the Supreme Court is supposed to search for Truth. However, Justice Kennedy believes that Truth is decided by the masses. If this is the case, there is no need for a Supreme Court. Every time there is a Supreme Court case Gallup should just conduct a poll. In fact, there is no need to even have a written Constitution. If the majority decides what "cruel and unusual punishment" means, the majority can decide what the rest of the Constitution means. Maybe, they will decide the First Amendment really means that invisible pink unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters are man's lords and masters, and no one should say anything to offend their spiraling pink — yet invisible — horns and noodley appendages.
Justice Kennedy's decision exposes another perverting pervasion of rampant moral relativism, where every law, every action, every man, every thing is excused from moral discrimination, for a simple majority can determines Truth. However, when 50% plus 1% determines Truth, falsity will inevitably be chosen because there is no concern for reality, knowledge, or virtue only appeasement.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 2
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Steven M. Paquin only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Steven M. Paquin is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Sometimes you have to look at other things the founders did in order to understand their intent. Yes the 8th amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment but what did the founders consider to be cruel and unusual?
The Coinage Act of 1792 defined the exact amount of precious metal to be used in coins of various denominations. But it also prescribed the death penalty for any mint employees who intentionally debased the coins. [link edited for length]
That act was written at the time of the founders, so apparently they did not think it "cruel and unusual" to hang someone for cheating on the precious metal content of coins. In my opinion that seems like a far less heinous crime than raping a child.
Evolving standards of decency is an entirely reasonable argument. Like you said the framers of the constitution didnot consider death penalty as cruel and unusual for such offenses as adult sodomy, counterfeiting, slave revolt, theft. You cannot rely on standards that are more than 200 years old.
The 8th amendment didnot specify "cruel and unusual". It left the interpretation upto the independent discretion of the supreme court.
I have to disagree with your basis premise, Steven. The notion of an objective, ontological "Truth" is more fit for religious dogma than for political processes.
In fact, I would suggest that the Common Law which serves as the foundation for our entire system of law *requires* relativisitic judgements that change from place to place and time to time. I would further argue that our modern society's insistence on specific rules, rather than relying on relativistic common law, is a fundamental cause of the break down of liberty today.
Allow me an example. Let's suppose there are two raucous house parties going on. One is in a neighborhood of tightly packed homes. It is three o'clock in the morning, and there is a senior rest home next to our wild party.
Our second house party is on a lake in the woods. It is in a sparsely populated area of the same town; the lake is a historically popular summer home and tourist location. The party sounds echo and drift off miles across the lake.
Under the common law of Nuisance, the court would weigh the reasonableness of the party-goers actions and whether it constituted a nusiance to neighbors. Again, the court would use a 'reasonable man standard.' And that standard would change depending on place, time, and cirmustances. It is quite possible that the party next to the rest home constitutes a nuisance, but the lakeside summer resort is merely the continuation of a hundred-year traditon of summer parties on the lake. One might be guilty under common law, the other found to be entirely reasonable.
Our society has been rushing head-long towards demanding "rules" instead...specific rules, which if violated, make one 'guilty,' even if there is no ACTUAL damage or complaint. So, our town might pass an ordinance forbidding noise over 80 decibels, for a duration of 5 minutes or more, between mindight and 6 am, as measured from 500 feet from the the source.
It doesnt matter if no one complains. It doesnt matter if the nearest house is a half mile away. It doesnt matter if its a traditional summer resort activity. The Rule is The Rule.
We have lost Freedoms to The Rules. And we have begun to actually believe that violation of the Rules is more important than actually damaging someone else with our actions.
The Court is correct to consider what is reasonable in society's eyes, as that is consistent with our Common Law heritage.
Now, as to whether that lead them to the correct decision in this case is another story. But I do not think it is wrong to consider society's changing standards: quite frankly, that is exactly what the Court did in most of the sexual freedom cases (especially Griswold, legalizing birth control; Lawrence, striking down anti-sodomy laws; and Loveless, striking down miscegenation laws).
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
