I'm with you. I had to seriously think about my position when I was almost selected for a jury that was solely about condemning a criminal to death (he had already admitted his guilt). As long as we can protect our society from these people then we should give them every chance to repent and change. Whether they take that opportunity is up to them but providing it is up to us.

We should abolish the death penalty because you just can't trust the State to get it right. If somebody has his thumbs on yer windpipe, squeezin' hard, and you manage to plug the bastard just before you pass out forever, that's cool.
Corrupt lawyers and idiot jurors discussing things a year or so later is another thing entirely.

I'm a 50 year old woman, a wife and mother, and a conservative. Sometimes, when I hear conservatives howling on the radio or TV about the death penalty, I cringe.

I won't, here, get into the history of the progression of DNA technology, or the number of men who have been wrongly placed on death row because of the lack of DNA technology.

My problem with the death penalty is much deeper than that, as you pointed out in your blog.

At any rate, I agree with you! Deborah

I personally don't see that it's any more cruel and unusual (especially in the context of the constitutional language, which seems to have been aimed against innovation of non-legistlatively-approved punishments; thus the "cruel AND unusual" language, not "cruel OR unusual" or simply "cruel") to kill someone than to lock them in prison for the rest of their lives.

I don't have any beef in principle with a decision saying executing people for crimes committed when under 18 (though as others have pointed out, if we're going to do that, we ought to treat such people as thorough children in all respects, to be consistent); I do have a problem with the essentially non-Constutitional reasoning the court used to make the decision - in terms of judicial logic I am thoroughly on the dissent's side on this one.

I'm going to disagree with you here, not just because I'm a personally reluctant supporter of the death penalty. I think it's used too often, and I think that like most government run projects, it's far too often badly handled. But I believe that there are acts heinous enough carried out by human creatures vicious enough that on the rare occasions that they are caught, they should be put down like any other rabid animal.

Having said that, it is the legislatures who are responsible for deciding whether or not any particular state should have a death penalty. It is the job of the Supreme Court to measure those laws against the Constitution of the United States - not against "public opinion" and not against "world opinion," and certainly not against their own personal opinion.

The Constitution specifically permits the taking of life after due process of law. The death penalty is Constitutional. What the Supreme Court did was violate (again) their mandate to protect and defend the document from which their power is derived. If it doesn't mean anything to them, then why should it mean anything to US?

This goes beyond whether the death penalty is a good or bad idea. It goes to the heart of our system of government: a rule of law, not of men.

I'm not going to agree or disagree with you, but will say, that what I like is that you are consistent. There is much to be said for that...

Beth:

The problem with that line of reasoning is this:

Turn this situation on its face: say the berobed five had used a less-than-majority of the states and international law to infer a "national consensus" that the death penalty was NOT cruel and unusual, despite the fact the the state legislatures and Congress had NOT come to this conclusion.

WOULD YOU STILL SUPPORT THEIR DECISION?

What you are essentially saying is that it is fine with you for the judicial branch of the government to set aside the will of the people as long as you, personally, agree with their OPINION as to the morality of the issue in question.

But that is not really how the Constitution says our government is supposed to operate. Criminal law is supposed to be set by the STATES, not the federal government. It is supposed to be enacted by the LEGISLATURES of the several states, so that local standards reflect the will of the people who live and work in a particular area.

The role of the judiciary is to interpret the Constitution. Increasingly, the Court seems to see it's role as some sort of counter-majoritarian balancing force: i.e., if the majority of the American people think one way, the Court wants to step in and make darned sure the law rules the other :)

Because we're just a bunch of ignorant yay-hoos and they know better.