Point/Counterpoint

A conflict in power

Supreme Court oversteps bounds and denies justice

By Danae M. Condos
From the September 2008 Print Edition

Capital punishment, the ultimate form of punishment that can be administered by the state or federal government, has now been subject to new interpretation; or perhaps more accurately, has now been critically limited by the United States Supreme Court in the case Kennedy v. Louisiana. Clearly this decision was a progressive step forward in protecting the moral compass of society. We should give our thanks to the activist judges on the court for saving society from itself -- the irrational populous.

Obviously, the people of Louisiana did not understand the idea of proportionality when they decided that child rapists qualified for the death penalty. Not to mention the states of Texas, Oklahoma, Georgia, Montana, and South Carolina which also authorize the death penalty for child rapists; as well as several other states considering similar measures. Louisiana was definitely out of line and warranted the intervention of the Supreme Court.

At first glance, the reasons for the Court’s decision, which banned giving the death penalty to child rapists, seem intelligible. A key element of the case was the idea of a “national consensus”. Since only six states actually authorize the death penalty for child rape, this shows a national consensus that the punishment is too excessive. Capital punishment should be reserved for crimes against the state such as terrorism, espionage, and treason; or cases in which a person’s life is taken.

Rape of a child, however atrocious it may be, cannot result in the death penalty if the victim is not killed because the punishment would not fit the crime. This would be cruel and unusual punishment. Allowing Louisiana to give the death penalty to someone who rapes but does not kill a child under 12 (including aggravating circumstances) would create a slippery slope of unfair decisions and unlimited execution powers for the state.

This is understandable, yet there are blatant flaws in this reasoning and a serious conflict in state versus federal powers. A vital aspect of American society is the notion that the rights and freedoms of the people cannot be circumvented by the federal government. The will of the people in Louisiana had legislatively enacted into its Constitution the death penalty for child rapists. The Supreme Court overstepped its boundaries in its arrogant decision to apply its subjective judgment to the people.

The Court failed to recognize and respect the consensus among the citizens of Louisiana. Should we allow our Constitution to continue to be interpreted on the basis of changing national opinions? I say no, or else it is inevitable that the rights of the states and of the people will begin to disappear. Our Constitution must not be subject to change just because there is a perceived national agreement. This type of action would limit states’ powers and leave room for arbitrary change by judicial activism.

The Court is not a place for activism. It is not the duty of the Supreme Court to invoke “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society” in its decisions. This is something that should and must be left to the people. Activism starts with the people, and it is the people who can now protect the Constitution.

If the Supreme Court really wanted to defend the moral compass of society, it should have taken a more victim-centered approach. Sure, “evolving standards of decency must embrace and express respect for the dignity of the person” (meaning protection of the perpetrator); but what about the dignity of the eight year old girl raped by her stepfather? The humane process of lethal injection would reinforce our stance on moral decency by protecting the future of our society and punishing the morally depraved. This is exactly what the state of Louisiana had done in handing down its ruling.

The people of Louisiana also decided that the punishment was proportional. The Eighth Amendment restricts punishment that is cruel and unusual, it does not restrict who can or cannot receive the death penalty. This was something left for the states to decide. That power has now been taken away by the United States Supreme Court. Also, is a punishment really cruel and unusual just because it is disproportionate? Would not a heinous crime require a heinous punishment in order to be proportionate? On what grounds is the death penalty disproportionate for crimes against the most defenseless members of society?

Regardless of whether or not you generally agree with the death penalty, it is imperative to understand that the Court’s decision was an abuse of federal judicial power. Judges are here to interpret the law, not to make the law. I cannot stand for a violation of states’ rights. Congratulations Justice Kennedy, that’s another step forward in maintaining our liberties and Constitution. I’m sure the family of the victim values the righteousness of the decision.

Respond to letters@californiapatriot.org

If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting the Patriot