Anti-Climacus

SUPREME COURT ON EXECUTION OF THE MENTALLY RETARDED:

Again, I find myself marvelling over the stupidity of the Justices involved.

First, I should declare my biases openly: I am unabashedly pro-death penalty; not because I believe it's a deterrent (though it can be), and not because I believe it's unimpeachably fair and just (it isn't always), but rather because it provides a fairly easy way to stop the more unsavory elements of society (think serial murderers, child molesters, and Hitler), even if only one-at-a-time. Secondly, as Christopher Hitchens said repeatedly around the time of the execution of the Oklahoma City bomber, one cannot be for the death penalty a la carte: either the State absolutely has the right to take a life, or it absolutely does not.

That said, let's move on.

1. Well, the next lawsuit is clear: a killer with a high IQ should appeal his death sentence on the grounds that he is being unfairly descriminated against for being smart. Hell, he might even win.

2. Let me see if I get this straight: an accused killer can't even be tried if he is ruled unable to understand the charges against him, assist himself adequately in his own defense or unable to grasp the distinction between right and wrong. In other words, if someone makes it to trial on a murder charge, they know damn well what they did, and that it was wrong. All the people affected were found guilty, which means we can remove (for our intents and purposes) the concern that they 'might not have done it.' The argument, as I followed it, of the ruling is that executing these people is a moral, not procedural, wrong, and there is little precedent to support this decision. In other words, there's no legal reason to stop these people from being executed, but the Justices felt compelled to speak for the American people.

Now, maybe skipping all of those Intro to American Politics lectures hurt my understanding of how our government works (Ha!), but isn't it the job of the Legislative branch to respond to the urges of the public? And isn't it the job of the Supreme Court to interepret the law? Alexander Hamilton must be rolling in his grave.

But then again, what do I know?