US Supreme Court strikes down death penalty for child rapists

I thought this case was interesting and was surprised to see no one brought it up.

Quote:

---

While the court ruling effectively ends the use of the death penalty for child rape, the court left open its use for crimes such as "treason, espionage, terrorism, and drug kingpin activity, which are offenses against the state," the ruling states. "As it relates to crimes against individuals, though, the death penalty should not be expanded to instances where the victim's life was not taken."

---

Let me start out by saying that I don't like the death penalty. I don't think that 'eye for an eye' is a good system of justice and that there is no particularly convincing evidence that the death penalty acts as a significant deterrent. However, I think the death penalty is within the authority of the state and can have it's place. As such, it should not be banned outright but it should be very limited in its application.

Having said all of that, I think this case was very poorly decided with little basis in anything other than the personal beliefs of the justices who supported the decision. None of them seem to argue that the death penalty in itself is a "cruel and unusual" punishment. What the court appears to be saying is that when, as they see it, the punishment is too severe for the crime a punishment that is normally acceptable somehow then becomes cruel and unusual- this makes no sense at all. If a punishment is cruel and unusual, then it is cruel and unusual all the time. When that punishment is handed out- whether for first, second, or third degree murder, child rape, or horse theft should be left up to the individual states and their elected legislatures to decide. By the court's reasoning, sticking bamboo shoots under your fingernails might not necessarily be cruel and unusual- just so long as the crime is heinous enough (in their view) to warrant it.

Personally, I don't really think that execution is appropriate for sex offenders- but me thinking that has no bearing on whether or not it's cruel and unusual. Thoughts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

this makes no sense at all. If a punishment is cruel and unusual, then it is cruel and unusual all the time.

---

My thoughts exactly.

Another usurpation of the legislature. I'm not sure why people arn't more concerned with the way the Supreme court acts in the cases. They make things up and impose the morality of 5 on the rest of the country. I don't believe that that the death penalty for rape is really a great idea, but it is not "cruel and unusual punishment" according to the Constitution. The Constitution makes no such claim and the reality is that capital punishment was applied for any number of offenses for a very long time, not just murder.

These 5 justices seem to believe that if it isn't specifically stated in the Constitution that it is their call. I would assume that if it is not specifically stated in the constitution that is the call of the various state and federal legislatures. Their "legitimacy" came from another incorrect decision by the courts that struck down death penalty laws for the rape of an adult woman citing "cruel and unusual punishment". The Constitution, Bill of Rights and Amendments never seem to be a determining factor for these 5.

Why do we even need a legislature? Why don't we just have Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer & Kennedy write all our laws for us. It might expedite this processes they've already engaged themselves in, saving a tremendous amount of resources. We wouldn't even need to make an amendment to the enumerated powers, we could instead inform them of the change and they would make it so. Ah, European problem solving.

I think that if liberals really understood the concept of Original meaning that many would champion the likes of Scalia. Dershowitz and Tribe agree with his judicial philosophy while disagreeing with most of his personal and political ideas - which I can live with.

The rule of law isn't the impediment to appreciating the conservative justices - ideology and a misunderstanding of the Supreme Court's function seems to be.

If you don't kill anyone death penalty is too much, give back what you take, if that's a life that's what you have to give. Cruel and unusual punishment for childrapist, I can think of a few.

Another thing: does not such a ruling just implicitly encourage more vigilantism? If my mother, daughter, wife, sister is raped, and I know that the state will not kill the perp... in my grief, anger, and frustration, why don't I take the law into my own hands? After which, of course, the State will kill me, for having killed the perp, that not being cruel and unusual punishment.

Redemption

You think that the Supreme Court has gone to hell in a hand basket and then they go and TOTALLY REDEEM THEMSELVES.

Well, not exactly "They" - more like Anthony Kennedy. And not exactly "totally redeem themselves" - more like put some caulk in the seems of a bursting dam.

The power that Kennedy holds makes him the most powerful man in the country. The court tends to be split 4-4. Kennedy is almost always the tie breaker, deciding things arbitrarily. I would love to know what his judicial philosophy is. Wait - I've got it; "Gonzo Constitutionalism", or "Gonzo Judiciary"? Some might call him a "moderate", but they probably think that moderation consists of arbitrarily deciding things without any foundation or by looking a a chart of what you last voted and voting opposite.

Anyway, I can't wait for the inevitable challenge to the NY gun laws. WEeeeeeee

I love what Jindal's doing in lieu of executing them.

From a German perspective it seems to me that the judges wanted to play the disproportionality card

I just wonder why the judges didn´t say so if they meant it that way.

Xiaohu, has the application of the Principle of Proportionality (TM) been an issue in US constitutional law before?

I don't agree with the death penalty in peacetime, but if you have it, use it for this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

I don't agree with the death penalty in peacetime, but if you have it, use it for this.

---

The real question is: who should be deciding this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief

I love what Jindal's doing in lieu of executing them.

---

Out of curiosity, what is an "aggravated crime against nature"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I thought this case was interesting and was surprised to see no one brought it up.
Let me start out by saying that I don't like the death penalty. I don't think that 'eye for an eye' is a good system of justice and that there is no particularly convincing evidence that the death penalty acts as a significant deterrent. However, I think the death penalty is within the authority of the state and can have it's place. As such, it should not be banned outright but it should be very limited in its application.

Having said all of that, I think this case was very poorly decided with little basis in anything other than the personal beliefs of the justices who supported the decision. None of them seem to argue that the death penalty in itself is a "cruel and unusual" punishment. What the court appears to be saying is that when, as they see it, the punishment is too severe for the crime a punishment that is normally acceptable somehow then becomes cruel and unusual- this makes no sense at all. If a punishment is cruel and unusual, then it is cruel and unusual all the time. When that punishment is handed out- whether for first, second, or third degree murder, child rape, or horse theft should be left up to the individual states and their elected legislatures to decide. By the court's reasoning, sticking bamboo shoots under your fingernails might not necessarily be cruel and unusual- just so long as the crime is heinous enough (in their view) to warrant it.

Personally, I don't really think that execution is appropriate for sex offenders- but me thinking that has no bearing on whether or not it's cruel and unusual. Thoughts?

---

I think it makes complete and perfect sense. You don't throw someone in jail for 25 years for jay walking and you don't kill someone for rape.

Where does the constitution mention the principle of proportionality? How about the Bill of rights or its addendum?

Nowhere? What authority does the Supreme Court of the United States have in adopting modern European political concepts in order to suppress U.S. legislative action?

"Cruel and Unusual" is the name of the game. I don't think that it is either. I wouldn't necessarily ask my representatives to endorse a bill in NY mandating the death penalty in cases of the rape of a child, but I damn sure wouldn't oppose other democratically elected legislatures in other states from making or upholding the laws.

Full text of the DC v Heller decision. If you'd rather have it in PDF format, that's okay too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Full text of the DC v Heller decision. If you'd rather have it in PDF format, that's okay too.

---

Lemur

What do you think of the decision, having read the full text?

Surely it's not cruel to execute traitors, but it is to execute those that take candy from children?

I reckon capital punishment should only apply in some cases, ie

The Scum of the Earth offences, such as Treason, Genocide etc

Murder after being released from prison following a murder conviction

Frankly the essence of the ruling is correct - elevating rape - even child rape to a capital offense is not portional to the crime.

Frankly the criminal justice system - ie the prisoners themselves do a better job of eaking out the punishment for child rapists

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Frankly the essence of the ruling is correct - elevating rape - even child rape to a capital offense is not portional to the crime.

Frankly the criminal justice system - ie the prisoners themselves do a better job of eaking out the punishment for child rapists

---

Proportionality is not for the SCOTUS to decide. A punishment is either cruel and unusual, or it is not- there's no sliding scale. Proportionality is completely subjective and is best left to the state legislatures and their criminal courts.

As I've said, using fuzzy standards like this, they could allow or disallow literally any punishment dependent only on their whim. Sure, flaying someone alive is cruel and unusual unless the crime is heinous enough- then it's fine. :dizzy2:

Right. The reality is that it is for the electorate to decide, whether on a state or federal level. I'm not saying that it is right, but who are 4 people to say it is wrong? Let the electorate say it is wrong if they are so inclined - make the case to them.

I'm actually inclined to agree with Tuff and Xiahou on this one.

I say, let the legislature/people decide. I, personally, am very for capital punishment. I think that the death penalty is no where near cruel and unusual in its current incarnation. You get decades to appeal and your death is now painless and relatively quick. The only form of punishment that seems cruel and unusual for me would be anything involving torture or extending punishment to those related to the criminal, but not participants of the crime

"The Supreme Court is composed of seven elderly men, who remember the past, and forget about the future."

~FDR

Amendment VIII to the US Constitution:

Quote:

---

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted

---

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...#amendmentviii

The constitution, like usual, is very vague on the subject.

I'm going to have the agree with SOTUS on this such case: Something can be cruel and unusual on one crime, but not on another.

It would be cruel and unusual to execute someone for a parking ticket.

However, it would not be cruel and unusual to execute someone for giving sensitive data to the enemy in wartime resulting in the deaths of hundreds of Americans.

So if they allowed the death penalty for child rape would that mean that the fundmentalist mormons would be facing the chair as surely their practices would amount to them being classed as repeat offenders

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

So if they allowed the death penalty for child rape would that mean that the fundmentalist mormons would be facing the chair as surely their practices would amount to them being classed as repeat offenders

---

SCOTUS' decision does prevent such a sentence. Yes, Texas was one of the states wherein this penalty was available to prosecutors.

However, the case against the FLDS is apparently running into evidentiary problems. Getting proper evidence against individuals may prove difficult and they're facing "fruit of the poisoned tree" issues as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

None of them seem to argue that the death penalty in itself is a "cruel and unusual" punishment. What the court appears to be saying is that when, as they see it, the punishment is too severe for the crime a punishment that is normally acceptable somehow then becomes cruel and unusual- this makes no sense at all. If a punishment is cruel and unusual, then it is cruel and unusual all the time.

---

:2thumbsup: Absolutely. They (and some posters here) seem to be confusing proportionality (ie punishment fitting the crime) with "cruel and unusual". These are two separate ideas and shouldn't be conflated -- UNLESS there is some previous ruling that disproprtionate sentencing is by definition cruel and unusual, but I don't know whether there is or not.

I seem to recall hearing something in the past year or so that certain methods of applying the death penalty have been suspended due to reasons that could classify under "cruel and unusual" - ie drawn out agony, unreliable effects etc etc, but even so, that doesn't apply to the SENTENCE, only the method.

FWIW I do not support capital punishment, mostly because I've seen too many innocent people pardoned and released years after conviction, and I believe the role of criminal justice should be focussed on protecting the innocent above punishing the guilty :bow:

Another case of court activism.

Anyways, what was especially stupid was they used the 'evolving standards of decency' or whatever - in essence, that public opinion doesn't support this.

But public opinion supports this, and in a poll at CNN (unscientific I know, but CNN is hardly a right-wing bastion) 75% of people supported it.

A pathetic ruling; they've taken it upon themselves to dictate the national opinion and use it to alter law as they see fit.

CR

Even criminals have the right to life - the death penalty is wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Even criminals have the right to life - the death penalty is wrong.

---

The constitution of the United States does not share that opinion. Neither do the vast majority of Americans. There are instances in which the practice is allowable, defensible and consistent with most types of human ethical philosophies.

Who says it is wrong? Why should your opinion obfuscate those of our constitution and and popular opinion?

It sounds like you've got some work to do convincing everybody.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

The constitution of the United States does not share that opinion. Neither do the vast majority of Americans. There are instances in which the practice is allowable, defensible and consistent with most types of human ethical philosophies.

---

The constitution is nuetral on the death penalty. It's language leaves it up to society to determine what penalty will be handed out to those convicted of crimes. At one time the Supreme Court of the United States even ruled that the death penalty violates the constitution. So be careful in attempting to place an absolute on the constitution that is not inherent in the language of the constitution. Especially given the fact that the death penalty is often challenged based upon the 8th and 14th Amendments to the document.

Quote:

---

Who says it is wrong? Why should your opinion obfuscate those of our constitution and and popular opinion?

It sounds like you've got some work to do convincing everybody.

---

Personally I have no problem with people who oppose the death penalty. Freedom of speech allows them to voice that opinion regardless if they are the minority opinion or the majority opinion. Remember at one time for a short period of time the Death Penalty was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

The minute we attempt to silence the dissent on a social issue, is the minute that we lose the fundmental reason why the constitution is one of the greatest governmental documents in history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

The constitution is nuetral on the death penalty. It's language leaves it up to society to determine what penalty will be handed out to those convicted of crimes. At one time the Supreme Court of the United States even ruled that the death penalty violates the constitution. So be careful in attempting to place an absolute on the constitution that is not inherent in the language of the constitution. Especially given the fact that the death penalty is often challenged based upon the 8th and 14th Amendments to the document.



Personally I have no problem with people who oppose the death penalty. Freedom of speech allows them to voice that opinion regardless if they are the minority opinion or the majority opinion. Remember at one time for a short period of time the Death Penalty was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

The minute we attempt to silence the dissent on a social issue, is the minute that we lose the fundmental reason why the constitution is one of the greatest governmental documents in history.

---

I'm not trying to stifle dissent. I'm trying to say that the arguement should be posited toward voters, not courts

"no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property... without the due process of law"

If read sensibly this line litterally means that, through the due process of law, a person can be deprived of life, liberty or property.

Proportionality is not established except in cases of excessive fines or bail.

I don't believe that the death penalty, particularly mandatory death penalties based on certain charges are a great idea because they may deter a confused morallistic jury into not guilty verdicts when the evidence is in favor of guilty (among other reasons), but It is pretty clear that people can be deprived of life with due process of law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

The constitution of the United States does not share that opinion. Neither do the vast majority of Americans. There are instances in which the practice is allowable, defensible and consistent with most types of human ethical philosophies.

Who says it is wrong? Why should your opinion obfuscate those of our constitution and and popular opinion?

It sounds like you've got some work to do convincing everybody.

---

Frankly I don't care about your Constitution - I think the document is incredibly outdated and vague on many important issues (Such as gun control and being part of a militia). My country and indeed almost the entirety of Europe, South America and Central America have abolished it (link for reference). So it looks like you are the ones flying in the face of popular opinion.

Eh, we're not flying in the face of American opinion. And seeing as this is America, that is what counts.

The constitution contains protections for our important civil rights. Funny how quick you are to call that outdated. But I guess those pesky personal rights get in the way of The State asserting its will - for the good of the people, of course.

CR

If it's outdated and/or vague, there's always the possibility of amending it. That's why the Founders put it there. It is not SCOTUS's job to amend the Constitution, only see what is already there.

I've always been curious - what is the procedure for amending the American Constitution?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Frankly I don't care about your Constitution - I think the document is incredibly outdated and vague on many important issues (Such as gun control and being part of a militia). My country and indeed almost the entirety of Europe, South America and Central America have abolished it (link for reference). So it looks like you are the ones flying in the face of popular opinion.

---

The United States has consistently flown in the face of popular opinion. If we hadn't we never would have written the Constitution or formed a Democratic Republic in the first place.

In my opinion the U.S. Constitution is the bulwark between the United States and the rest of the world. Who doesn't like that?

as far as amending the Constituion...

2/3 majority in congress and must be ratified by the States. Presidential veto wouldn't really apply due to the 2/3 majority.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Congress has to pass the amendment, and then 3/4s of the state legislatures have to approve it. Or something like that.

The process is there, but leftists know they could never get things done the democratic way.

So they complain about 'outdatedness' in order to devise illegal changes in the way it is read.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Congress has to pass the amendment, and then 3/4s of the state legislatures have to approve it. Or something like that.

The process is there, but leftists know they could never get things done the democratic way.

So they complain about 'outdatedness' in order to devise illegal changes in the way it is read.

CR

---

2/3rds! it isn't even that difficult. It's sheer unreasonable laziness when people use the court to bludgeon unpopular ideas. The legislative branch has become used to a paternalistic Supreme court which is sad and arguably unconstitutional in its actions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

The constitution contains protections for our important civil rights. Funny how quick you are to call that outdated. But I guess those pesky personal rights get in the way of The State asserting its will - for the good of the people, of course.

---

Nice Strawman, really. I hate all the infringements on Civil Liberties that Governments make. I challenge you to find me one non-gun control related quote from me where I support Government control in an individual's private life.

Anyway, whatever - I just don't think that "You kill us, we kill you" is something the Government should do.

You support the government controlling what wage a person makes and numerous other regulations of private contracts for work and the like, do you not? You want the whole host of socialist programs that interfere in a person's life, like medical choices, don't you?

The death penalty is the only way to ensure that a murderer/child rapist will not strike again, and has been shown in some studies to prevent several murders for each person executed.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

You support the government controlling what wage a person makes and numerous other regulations of private contracts for work and the like, do you not?
CR

---

A minimum wage is against the US constitution? Which clause would it violate? Is there NO regulation of private contracts in the US? What about rent control? Zoning for land use? Is gambling and prostitution legal in every state?

Quote:

---

You want the whole host of socialist programs that interfere in a person's life, like medical choices, don't you?

---

You will have to explain this one. I don't understand it. Are you suggesting that a social health care programme interferes with a person's medical choices? If so, you will have to explain how.

Quote:

---

The death penalty is the only way to ensure that a murderer/child rapist will not strike again,

---

It is certainly a way to ensure zero recidivism but there are others, but is this the aim of the justice system. To ensure that no murderer or rapist re-offends you have to kill them all and this does not happen. The death penalty in the US is a good way of reducing re-offending rates for poor people and those from ethnic minorities but less good when it comes to rich white folks. They tend not to be executed. A more important question is whether the justice system is intended simply to prevent the convicted person from committing a similar crime in the future. Kill all convicts if that is the case.

Quote:

---

and has been shown in some studies to prevent several murders for each person executed.

---

Name three.

Is it unusual to sentence a person who stole a candy bar to 25 years of jail? Oui, monsieur. Proportionality is a form of the "usual/unusual" part of the amendment, in my opinion.

My understanding is that the public support for the death penalty drops dramatically when there is the alternative of "life without parole". Seems to me this option has all the benefits of the death penalty without the disadvantages (no possibility of re-offending, but no innocent people executed). Personally I'm hoping that this method will quietly replace the death penalty, leaving the latter penalty as something which will remains on the statute books but is never used in practice. Certainly if this is an option I cannot see any reason for continuing to impose the death penalty besides pure revenge.

I must say, I struggle to see how society can be willing to condone the cold-blooded killing of a prisoner who is at our mercy, a pretty despicable kind of act in my view, yet still claim to have the moral authority to decide who deserves to live or die.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Frankly I don't care about your Constitution - I think the document is incredibly outdated and vague on many important issues (Such as gun control and being part of a militia). My country and indeed almost the entirety of Europe, South America and Central America have abolished it (link for reference). So it looks like you are the ones flying in the face of popular opinion.

---

That's really nice, but that document is the highest law of the land here in the United States. If it needs changed, the house and senate to need to propose an amendment and 3/4 of the states need to ratify it or vice versa.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Frankly I don't care about your Constitution - I think the document is incredibly outdated and vague on many important issues (Such as gun control and being part of a militia). My country and indeed almost the entirety of Europe, South America and Central America have abolished it (link for reference). So it looks like you are the ones flying in the face of popular opinion.

---

Your thinking is incrediably wrong - the United States Constitution is a living docuement. I wonder if you understand what that means?

Now as for the death penalty as mentioned before it was declared unconstitutional not to long ago, and then reviewed and re-instated. Now you might not agree with that process, but to call it an outdated docuement seems to be a major fallacy on your part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Nice Strawman, really. I hate all the infringements on Civil Liberties that Governments make. I challenge you to find me one non-gun control related quote from me where I support Government control in an individual's private life.

Anyway, whatever - I just don't think that "You kill us, we kill you" is something the Government should do.

---

Unfortunately for you your arguement in itself is a bad arguement. If you support governmental control on guns - you have alrealdy infringed upon the civil liberties of an individual.

You can claim you support gun control and claim you hate all infringements on Civil Liberties. Especially since you voice support of an infringement on an individuals civil liberty.

If you guys see weapon control as a infrigement on your civil libertys where does it end ? are there weapons which you can ban without infringing on civil liberties or is any weapon ban a civl liberty infringement ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

If you guys see weapon control as a infrigement on your civil libertys where does it end ? are there weapons which you can ban without infringing on civil liberties or is any weapon ban a civl liberty infringement ?

---

Unfortunately for you - the 2nd Amendment made the private ownership of weapons a civil liberty in the United States. So to answer your question the private ownership of weapons is indeed a civil liberty. My position is not that one can not infring upon that civil liberty - only that if one speaks in absolutes about hating all infringements on civil liberty, one can not in the same breath speak of gun control by the government being acceptable. Its an inconsistent statement in itself.

If you have ever read my postion on gun control you will find that I support the position that certain weapons should not be in the hands of the public, but in order to restrict those weapons the 2nd Amendment must be amended through the constitutional process not the courts. Restrictions are indeed needed and have been supported by several interpetations by the Supreme Court, some will not be.

For instance one can own a fully automatic weapon if one files for the required license and permits.

This is where people out side of the United States fail to understand the situation, and often mistakenly can the constitution outdated.

Now, one can certainly make an argument about proportionality. But as has been said, a punishment is either cruel and unusual or not cruel and unusual. Having a sliding scale invalidates the law, since it implies that we can torture people who do really bad things.

But a punishment that may be fit for one crime may not be fit for another - it would be disproportionate. That would be the reason one would not have capital punishment for most crimes.

The thing is though, that is to be decided by legislatures. That's why it's called representative democracy.

CR

Torture is illegal - not unconstitutional.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Unfortunately for you - the 2nd Amendment made the private ownership of weapons a civil liberty in the United States. So to answer your question the private ownership of weapons is indeed a civil liberty. My position is not that one can not infring upon that civil liberty - only that if one speaks in absolutes about hating all infringements on civil liberty, one can not in the same breath speak of gun control by the government being acceptable. Its an inconsistent statement in itself.

---

To an American, it isn't inconsistent to anyone who lives in a country where gun ownership isn't a civil liberty.

Unfortunately for you - the 2nd Amendment made the private ownership of weapons a civil liberty in the United States. So to answer your question the private ownership of weapons is indeed a civil liberty.

Well i understand why it is a civil liberty in USA but what i was actually looking for was whether you viewed it as a civil liberty, because i personally do not see owning weapons as a civil liberty so do not have a problem with stating that i am for civil libertys and for gun control, similar to the way people or libertarian and against abortion....

Abortion and gun control in one paragraph, i feel that all im missing is some obscure reference to the nazis...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

Unfortunately for you - the 2nd Amendment made the private ownership of weapons a civil liberty in the United States. So to answer your question the private ownership of weapons is indeed a civil liberty.

Well i understand why it is a civil liberty in USA but what i was actually looking for was whether you viewed it as a civil liberty, because i personally do not see owning weapons as a civil liberty so do not have a problem with stating that i am for civil libertys and for gun control, similar to the way people or libertarian and against abortion....

---

Then you have your answer, you might not see it as a civil liberty because of where you live, but what you have to address in any comment to an American in regards to Civil Liberties is the Bill of RIghts, the first 10 amendments to the constitution. Just like the Supreme Court often reviews the death penalty statues of the states - Amendment 8 addresses what types of punishment can be given by the states.

Crazed Rabbit is correct that the state legislatures must decided what punishment can be allocated to a specific crime. What the Supreme Court is allowed to do is rule on wether that law is constitutional or not based upon a review. They can not make law from the bench, but they can send something back to the states and congress to be redone to fall within the constitution.

This is what the Supreme Court has actually done from what I can determine with this ruling - now some would say they are making law from the bench - I don't see it that way, they have determined a state law is unconstitutional.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conradus

To an American, it isn't inconsistent to anyone who lives in a country where gun ownership isn't a civil liberty.

---

When the individual was speaking in absolutes - then he is being inconsistent regardless of where he comes from.

Have fun with that one.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

When the individual was speaking in absolutes - then he is being inconsistent regardless of where he comes from.

Have fun with that one.....

---

Well I'm trying...:stupido:

But that's accepting that civil liberties are universal and that gun ownership is one of those universal civil liberties. And considering that most civilized nations do not think of it as such, I'm hardly convinced it is one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conradus

Well I'm trying...:stupido:

---

Keep trying....:yes:

Quote:

---

But that's accepting that civil liberties are universal and that gun ownership is one of those universal civil liberties. And considering that most civilized nations do not think of it as such, I'm hardly convinced it is one.

---

Good try but that does not address the absolute statement that the individual made. He stated all civil liberties, which normally means all, regardless of where he comes from.

Now if he had said any infringement on civil liberties, I would give him the benefit of doubt that his definition could very well be different then an American prespective.

However has stated he stated all infringements on civil liberties by governments. So I find the defense of his position very weak because of his absolute position.