Thursday, June 26, 2008

A Hypothetical

...and I'm not advocating this, necessarily. I am just wondering.

With the Supreme Court banning death sentences for child rape, what exactly would happen if a state chose to stand on its authority to determine sentences, and chose not to abide by the decision?

I'm rather a strict constructionist, and I'm wondering why they should've been even hearing this case in the first place.


Eric said...

It's an interesting question -- in both facets. (What would happen...? and Why are they reviewing this...?) I'm just guessing, but maybe murder charges would be forthcoming for those responsible.

Thursday's Child said...

If the Supreme Court is overstepping its bounds then nothing should be done as a penalty.The states are acting within their rights.

However, if the SC has the right to dictate something like that, and the people at state level know it, then they're asking for whatever penalty would be involved...including murder charges.

I can't say I'm in favor of it, but if you know something will result in a certain penalty and you do it anyway, no matter how justified you feel, that you take what you ask for.

Mike Baker said...

My guess is that supporters of the ruling are using Section 1 of the 14th Ammendment the to hold the states to the 8th Ammendment clause regarding cruel and unusual punishment... and then the suprmeme court has decided to define what "cruel and unusual" means.

I would expect this ruling to be the first move to try to backdoor the full removal of the state laws regarding the death penalty.

The Rebellious Pastor's Wife said...

What a lot of people don't know is that until the 13th and 14th Amendments, the U.S. Constitution did not claim to preside over state constitutions. States determined slavery issues (and yes, I do believe slavery was false) as well as religious ones. While the U.S. Government could not have an official religion, a state could. The Federal Constitution declared how the Federal government was to do ITS business, not how states should do theirs, except in areas such as commerce and other areas where the Constitution gave it jurisdiction. While slavery was an evil that needed to be dealt with, these are the amendments that in the end, gave us big government.

The thought had occurred to me because of the history behind the Trail of Tears. The Supreme Court ruled that the State of Georgia was violating the rights of the Cherokees, yet Andrew Jackson refused to enforce their decision and thus allowed the state of Georgia to send the Cherokees to the Oklahoma territory.

I don't know if murder would apply, since capital punishment is not by definition murder. But then again, they can change the definition, I suppose.

As someone who lived in California for several years and voted on a the protection of marriage amendment to the constitution as well as others, only to see them overturned by the liberal courts, I get very frustrated with all of this.

Personally, I don't have a problem with pedophiles getting the death penalty. They are notoriously difficult to rehab, and are only a burden and a threat to the safety of a society as a whole.