Thursday, March 03, 2005
Well, Krusty, this is your Waterloo. Soon you'll be Napolean Blownapart!
Did I ever mention how much I like Rude Pundit? Ummm. Yes. I have. I heartily strongly and without reservation recommend making him part of your daily Internet wanderings, to the extent that current events interest you.
Even I, a brand new Republican(tm), find him provocative, funny, and quite convincing.
Today brings us a post on the Supreme Court's decision to outlaw the imposition of the death penalty on minors. His quote, "But, now, aww, fuck, it's like gettin' a hard-on and havin' nowhere to shove it," is a masterpiece of political analogy. He also talks about the important Padilla decision.
I was certainly happy to hear that kids can't be killed anymore (or even adults who committed their atrocities as kids). I haven't read much about the decision, or the decision itself, but the news is tending to focus on the "changing standards" line of reasoning used by the Court. To me, although it may seem shaky and "unjudicial" it makes sense. I mean, these people can't even vote (if they wanted to, say, elect anti-death penalty politicians); and are considered effective property of their parents (thus without the moral authority to make key decisions about their lives). It's hypocritical to say they're not responsible enough to, say, consent to sex with an adult but they are responsible enough to be killed for a crime (that, hell, they may not have committed, we'll find out in 20 years).
The thing that really bothers me about the death penalty, however, is the makeup of the juries. You're not even ALLOWED to serve on a capital case jury if you're morally opposed to the death penalty. How is a defendant going to get a fair hearing if you exclude the large minority of citizens who might be more likely to, say, listen to the prosecuters with a critical ear? That's like saying pacifist legislators shouldn't be allowed to vote on a war resolution.
I know none of my fellow Republicans really want anti-death penalty folks (i.e., in theory, all Catholics) on juries anyway (soft on crime and all that). But I'd like to hear an argument as to how this isn't a violation of the right to a fair trial.
Even I, a brand new Republican(tm), find him provocative, funny, and quite convincing.
Today brings us a post on the Supreme Court's decision to outlaw the imposition of the death penalty on minors. His quote, "But, now, aww, fuck, it's like gettin' a hard-on and havin' nowhere to shove it," is a masterpiece of political analogy. He also talks about the important Padilla decision.
I was certainly happy to hear that kids can't be killed anymore (or even adults who committed their atrocities as kids). I haven't read much about the decision, or the decision itself, but the news is tending to focus on the "changing standards" line of reasoning used by the Court. To me, although it may seem shaky and "unjudicial" it makes sense. I mean, these people can't even vote (if they wanted to, say, elect anti-death penalty politicians); and are considered effective property of their parents (thus without the moral authority to make key decisions about their lives). It's hypocritical to say they're not responsible enough to, say, consent to sex with an adult but they are responsible enough to be killed for a crime (that, hell, they may not have committed, we'll find out in 20 years).
The thing that really bothers me about the death penalty, however, is the makeup of the juries. You're not even ALLOWED to serve on a capital case jury if you're morally opposed to the death penalty. How is a defendant going to get a fair hearing if you exclude the large minority of citizens who might be more likely to, say, listen to the prosecuters with a critical ear? That's like saying pacifist legislators shouldn't be allowed to vote on a war resolution.
I know none of my fellow Republicans really want anti-death penalty folks (i.e., in theory, all Catholics) on juries anyway (soft on crime and all that). But I'd like to hear an argument as to how this isn't a violation of the right to a fair trial.
