The New York Times gets one right in this editorial regarding yesterday's death penalty decision.

Justice Stevens, in a welcome surprise, said that he had come to the conclusion that the death penalty carries such high risks of error and discrimination, while doing so little good, that it is unconstitutional. He voted to uphold KentuckyÂ’s procedures because he believed precedent required it, but he said it is time for the court and legislatures to take a hard look at whether the death penaltyÂ’s substantial costs outweigh its benefits.

WednesdayÂ’s ruling clears the way for states that had put their executions on hold to resume them. Lawyers for death-row inmates insist, however, that the legal test the Roberts decision used gives them a basis for more challenges to lethal injection. That means more fights over how much needless pain is too much.

The better course would be for the nation to undertake Justice Stevens’s hard look at capital punishment — and leave it behind.

Now I disagree with the "leave it behind" conclusion, but at least the editors are constitutionally honest here. They know that the death penalty is unambiguously constitutional, and that any decision that declared otherwise would be an abrogation of the language of the Constitution itself.

On the other hand, I've no problem with a discussion of the death penalty -- indeed, I have already made clear the preferred, relatively painless method of execution that I believe would meet the Robert's test. The Texas Moratorium Network has continued to allow its heart to bleed over the poor murderers rather than their innocent victims.

Let the discussion over capital punishment (not capital rehabilitation or capital deterrence -- capital PUNISHMENT) continue. If the democratic process leads to its repeal, then so be it. but i believe most folks recognize that there are crimes for which the ultimate penalty is the only appropriate one.

Posted by: Greg at 10:35 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 321 words, total size 2 kb.