Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Were We Indecent in 1980?

    Were We Indecent in 1980?

    In Graham v. Florida, the Supreme Court held that it violated the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments to imprison someone with no possibility of parole based upon crimes, other than homicide, committed while a juvenile.

    These lines (at page 40 of the pdf.) in the concurring opinion by Justice Stevens, joined by Ginsburg and Sotomayor, jumped out at me (emphasis mine):

    Society changes. Knowledge accumulates. We learn, sometimes, from our mistakes. Punishments that did not seem cruel and unusual at one time may, in the light of reason and experience, be found cruel and unusual at a later time; unless we are to abandon the moral commitment embodied in the Eighth Amendment, proportionality review must never become effectively obsolete …. Standards of decency have evolved since 1980. They will never stop doing so.

    Were we really indecent in 1980? It was not that long ago.

    The sweeping ruling means the following criminals will get a parole hearing as a constitutional right (these are both actual examples cited in Justice Robert’s separate opinion concurring in the result on the facts of Graham’s crimes, but not the sweeping ruling):

    Milagro Cunningham, a 17-year-old who beat and raped an 8-year-old girl before leaving her to die under 197 pounds of rock in a recycling bin.

    Nathan Walker and Jakaris Taylor, who together with their friends gang-raped a woman and forced her to perform oral sex on her 12-year-old son.

    Eugene Volokh puts it well, that these are judicial preferences masquerading as objective societal analysis (emphasis mine):

    They are applying their own views of what society should do, and then trying to add an objective sheen to those views by talking about impersonal “evolving standards of decency,” social change, accumulating knowledge, and reason and experience.

    Yes, indeed. Take the two examples quoted above from the Roberts opinion. Society hasn’t changed on how society wants such people punished. Society is smart enough to recognize that there are some crimes so horrific, and some criminals so depraved, that they should not be in society, ever.

    Society hasn’t changed since 1980. Only the Supreme Court has changed.

    ——————————————–
    Related Posts:
    Sotomayor Threw O’Connor Under The Bus
    Supreme Court Reverses Sotomayor
    Yes To Sotomayor

    Follow me on Twitter and Facebook
    Bookmark and Share

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments


    The thing is, even if society changes – the CONSTITUTION DOESN'T. The Supreme Court is supposed to hold us to the Constitution, not the other way around. These people sicken me.

    How about electing officials who will pass legislation limiting the jurisdiction of the courts? I think that is a Constitutional power of the Congress. Any constitutional lawyers out there?

    Because the Court decided that it is cruel and unusual to put a teenager in jail for life for all crimes other than homicide, does not mean that those that perpetrated your examples of depravity will actually be released. They may be granted parole hearing but a parole hearing does not necessarily lead to release.Remember most murderers in this country truly only serve on average 5 years in prison as well.The problem with sweeping legislation is that it attaches itself to the depraved and those that make the kind of mistakes whereby society helps them learn and change course.

    The Consitution is a living document, written in such a way that it can be interpreted by every generation because the founding fathers knew that society would change and would put its own stamp on society. In fact i believe if you read the federalist papers Madison actually even alludes to that being the reason for much of the Constitution's vagueness.

    It is also my understanding that since SCOTUS' jurisdiction is written into the Constitution you would need to amend the Constitution in order to change its purpose. The rest of the judiciary was created by The Judiciary Act and is therefore changeable by a simple law.

    Of course, this is just my reasoning and understanding of Consitutional law. However, I am not a law professor so I am willing to stand corrected and would be glad for a lesson if I need to be corrected.

    Well, yes we were indecent in 1980. Jimmy Carter was in the White House, Tip O'Neill was Speaker of the House and Jim Wright was majority leader, and Senate majority leader was ex-Klansman Robert Byrd. No coup here. Americans elected them.

    "Evolving standards of decency" are you serious? It is not that our society has become more decent it is the fact that we tolerate every kind of evil, because we are oblivious to it's very existence. Cruel and unusual punishment is what the victims suffer, not the criminals.


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend