Supreme Court/Death Penalty

Former Member

OK, this isn't a thread to discuss the pros and cons of the Death Penalty, that's been done to death (excuse the pun).

What I was interested in is the recent Supreme Court rulings. Firstly, last week, they rules that the "mentally retarded" should never face execution and then yesterday they announced that they were overturning more than 100 convictions. This was because the judge had set the death penalty rather than the jury. Naturally each case will be reassessed and in many cases the execution order will be reset.

But does this show a softening of the US approach to the death penalty, or are the Supreme Court just clarifying the laws...?

Former Member

Think it was clarifying. Don't think that "softness" is a good expression, when discussing laws. But of course, the human side in it should always be there.
So probably they didn't soften up, just made a choice on what is most logical...

Former Member

It's just clarification.

The Supreme Court ruled against a Texas inmate that was facing the death penalty earlier this year. If I remember correctly the object of contention was that he was only 17 when the crime was committed. So I don't think the court has gotten any more liberal regarding the death penalty.

The issue of the judge setting the penalty rather than the jury has been floating around for the last five years or so. I did a paper on a similar case when I took Constitutional law two years ago. Like most cases, it took several tries before they would hear it.

I wonder if any of those other inmates were executed before they decided to hear this case.

Former Member

Re: Supreme Court/Death Penalty

Originally posted by Man Of Kent
that's been done to death (excuse the pun).

No

Its seems to me that its just clarification. All laws need to be re-assesed at regular intervals, especially if they are going to decide if people live.