randomWalks

Is anyone else finding themselves wondering if the laws of gravity will soon be repealed? Because this is some very freaky shit happening. It's...positive. But it's still sort of eery.

I think the anti-dp movement, as fractured as it has been at times, has clearly played a role here. Public support for the dp has been declining. And court decisions tend to reflect what the "momentum" is (I think that's what Rehnquist called it in one of the SC's decisions). It's similar to how Roe v. Wade was reached during Nixon's presidency. People hear about 100+ innocent men coming off death row, and worse, the innocent men who have been executed. People hear about Mumia's case. People hear the governors of Maryland and Illinois imposing moratoriums. People hear City Councils urging moratoriums in their states, and that helps shift things. Things could clearly swing back in the other direction, but I don't think that these decisions are being made in a vacuum.

I agree absolutely, zagg. It's a victory, but a small one, and we have to keep fighting. It's one issue where I believe that if the average Jane/Joe America knew the facts and truths - especially the racial imbalance - they would vote to change the status quo.

I guess the fact that I live in Texas is a fairly serious media handicap. From my standpoint, the entire world supports the death penalty. It's nice to know that's not necessarily the case, although I do understand we have a long way to go.

I know there's some anti-dp work being done in Austin. As for the rest of Texas. Well.

On the other hand, weren't there even some minor reforms in Texas shortly after Bush left for DC?

There's always been an aspect of dp judgements in the USA which acknowledges 'evolving standards of decency': the main issue was whether the 'standards' were to be determined from a strictly domestic perspective. Justice O'Connor appears to be shifting away from that.

I'm playing devil's advocate here (I'm anti-dp as well), but I'm having a hard time seeing the constitutionality issue here.

It's one thing to call into question the appropriateness of the penalty--I don't find it appropriate, for example, for many similar reasons. But it seems to me that it's not an issue of constitutionality, but rather whether the death penalty is correctly applied, which really has nothing to do with the Constitution.

In all honesty, I don't believe the legal ins and outs on issues like this matter all that much. The law is twisted or interpreted in the direction of one idea or another largely because of external factors. Whether it's unconstitutional or not to execute mentally disabled people really doesn't matter. The key is that society as a whole has continued to move in the direction of rejecting that idea as morally abhorrent and unacceptable, so the court made an interpretation to jibe with that.
The key challenges for abolitionists are to use these rulings to continue raising questions about getting rid of the death penalty and furthermore using it ideologically as a way to get people to question the way society is arranged as a whole.

Also, Due Process is clearly violated when you're put to death by the state. I think most Americans consider "Innocent until Proven Guilty" sacred, but our justice system is pretty bad at getting that right. If you doubt the legitimacy of criminal courts, then it's not much of a leap to claim that the constitutionality of those courts is suspect.

that should read:

the legitimacy of criminal court decisions

But I think it should even go a step beyond that. It's not just that the constitutionality of the courts that is suspect, but the whole criminal justice system itself. Who/what is it really protecting? Who is at the brunt of its brutality? The dp epitomizes the class and race bias programmed into the system.

It could, but that wasn't Missy's question. ;)

I think it makes sense to have a short term and a long term focus, and they aren't mutually exclusive. In the long term, I support the abolition of US prisons. In the short term, I welcome the end of the death penalty in NY, and hopefully other states will follow suit.

Frankly, I don't see an end to the death penalty through the courts. I'm not a legal scholar, nor would I ever pretend to be, but I just don't see the death penalty as a due process clause issue. The death penalty is a punishment that is handed after due process (in theory) takes place. The technology of DNA evidence is only recent, but I cannot say for certain how quickly or how widespread it is becoming commonplace in the court system. Due process, quite obviously, is violated if the option to use DNA evidence is there but it is for some reason denied. I think this is where the scrutiny needs to lay, at least in the short term. At the very least, we'd be preventing the possibility of sending more innocent people to death row.

And frankly, it would seem to me that, like abortion, the Constitution is silent on the death penalty, and the decision should ultimately be left up to the states (as it is now for the later), barring amendment(s). I shudder at the thought of courts overstepping their bounds.

Tell me, dj, practically speaking, what is your solution to the punishment of crimes in the absense of prisions? Without opening a can of worms here, we can take this to email if you want. I'm curious, is all.