The Supreme Court has certainly taken issue with the taking of life recently. How ironic for a judicial body that otherwise condones it in one of the worst ways.
In a pair of controversial rulings last week, the high court decreed that the death penalty cannot be carried out against people who were ordered to die by a judge instead of a jury, or against prisoners judged to be mentally incompetent – findings that have alarmed death-penalty proponents who are convinced that sort of conspiracy is afoot to dismantle this form of punishment.
My Catholic beliefs leave me opposed to the death penalty, though I have empathy for those who have suffered at the hands of heinous criminals.
But then, I also don’t want some lowlife to murder my wife and kids, then be pampered on death row for 15 years – only to win a last-minute appeal from some liberal governor who is more worried about votes than the lives of my family.
No, I’d rather let my God judge the matters relating to life or the arbitrary taking of it, because I don’t think you and I – or the Supreme Court – are qualified to do that. Here’s why.
Regarding the ruling involving mentally unfit criminals, justices used a dubious standard to make their determination. They insist “that the nation has rejected capital punishment for the mentally retarded as cruel and unusual, and hence in contravention of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution,” WorldNetDaily syndicated columnist Ilana Mercer wrote on Wednesday.
So we’re to believe the Supreme Court polled the entire nation to discover this? And even if they did, should courts let public opinion or the rule of law decide cases?
“The basis for this manufactured consensus comes from the fact that, of the states that endorse capital punishment, less than half have rejected the death penalty for the mentally retarded,” Mercer wrote – laying bare the capricious and arbitrary nature of the high court’s ruling.
Regarding the decision involving judges, the justices correctly ruled that the Constitution guarantees the accused the right to trial by jury. But then, in writing for the 7-2 majority, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg found that right that would be “senselessly diminished” if jurors did not also weigh whether a particular killing merits death or life in prison.
Isn’t that what juries are already instructed to do? And shouldn’t this standard be applied uniformly to all criminal cases, not just those involving the death penalty? In some immigration and intelligence cases, Uncle Sam has been trying accused people in secret for years – “trial by jury,” anyone?
Then there is the ultimate in hypocrisy involving the high court and life – the issue of abortion. How can any Supreme Court justice, in good conscience, rule that prisoners who have committed odious crimes deserve to live more than an innocent, unborn child – a child that was created through no effort (or fault) of its own? Why isn’t the high court defending the rights of those who cannot speak for themselves?
It’s no wonder why we should be leaving the issue of deciding who lives or dies to a higher authority. Simply put, we humans are not qualified to make such decisions because history proves we’re too influenced by emotion, personal opinion and unseen factors not related to the rule of law.
Political considerations have always been a lousy replacement for sound legal and moral judgment, and yet we allow that principle, above all others, to guide our highest court’s most important decisions – those dealing with life. Moronic, unfair and ridiculous.
So what would I rather see happen to any lowlife who would kill my wife and kids? I’d rather see him repaying his debt to me and to society by busting rocks, picking up trash and cleaning sewers for the rest of his life.
OK – and maybe searching for landmines in Bosnia.
God can decide whether or not he finds a live one.
Let’s curb the kangaroo court of anonymous sources
Tim Graham