The SCOTUS today offered a decision putting the US Constitutional law in line with Noahide law, that only if one takes a life it is just to take a life. Specifically that capital punishment is forbidden for a state to enact in response to the a particularly vicious rape of an 8 y/old girl in Louisiana. My remarks follow:

  • If a people grant the authority for such to the state, it has the right to take life via due process.
  • As a proponent of pushing authority down and not federalizing and centralizing power, I disagree with this as wise decision. States and in fact smaller regions should have the power to act. What is a capital crime may not be the same in backwoods Louisiana compared to tony New Hampshire burbs compared to Montana ranches.
  • If capital punishment would be to be offered for other than treason and murder … this sort of case would be it.
  • I think the best argument against capital punishment for a variety of crimes is that the expense of the required appeal process exceeds that of life internment. If we want to have capital punishments we should stop paying lawyers (and others involved in the legal process) so much.
  • I’m less impressed by the problem of “no recovery” from error. After all there are two points against that argument. Errors in long term imprisonment discovered decades after the crime can’t “undo” the incarceration and loss of freedom, relationships damaged, and youth incurred.  Secondly, I’m Christian, and as such have ontological freedom granted by Baptism and my Faith. Death has no sting … really.

Filed under: ChristianityJudiciaryMark O.Religion

Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!