новости из Америки (решение Верховного Суда)

[avva]

Supreme Court американский решил вчера запретить применение смертной казни в случае умственно отсталых заключённых.

Судьи разделились 6:3, против оказались трое самых консервативных судей: Томас, Ренквист, Скалиа.

Ссылки: вкратце, мнение большинства, мнение Скалиа (опять забыл, как по-русски dissent говорят), мнение Ренквиста.

Мне кажется так: результат - хороший, юриспруденция - плохая ("bad law", по ёмко-английски; не путать с "плохой закон"). Ссылка на восьмую поправку не выдерживает критики. Мнение Скалиа написано исключительно едко и метко. Цитата:

But the Prize for the Court’s Most Feeble Effort to fabricate “national consensus” must go to its appeal (deservedly relegated to a footnote) to the views of assorted professional and religious organizations, members of the so-called “world community,” and respondents to opinion polls.

Ух, какой едкий старикашка!

Какой-то неожиданный всплеск судебного активизма мы наблюдаем, по-моему, в этом случае.

Comments

[saul-paradise.livejournal.com]

menia korobit' ot ego filosofii, but you have to admit that he has a point -- I think that it is not the Court's place to determine whether the standards of decency under the Eighth Amendment sufficiently changed to abolish death penalty in certain cases -- it is, a priori, a legislative function. As I said already, Congress is considered the most democratic institution and its conclusion that execution of retarded is no longer warranted would likely be accepted. Now, whether Congress could regulate this traditionally state law area is problematic. But only a legislative branch can do the type of statistical analysis required in these 8th Amendment cases. Any attempt by the Court to do so would be susceptible to attacks like Scalia's.

V odnom Avva prav -- resul'tat xorosh, analiz ne vyderzhivaet kritiki. Kak vprochem i vsja jurisprudcencia 8-i' popraviki. You have to abolish the death penalty through a Constit. Amendment, or by federal / state statutes..

Lichno ja resheniju rad, ibo protiv smertnoi' kazni v ljubyx slychajax, krome tjagchai'shix VOENNYX prestuplenii'.

[dyak.livejournal.com]

I agree with you entirely, except that I think that the "cruel and unusual" clause of the 8th Am. means more than just a prohibition on public beheadings. Scalia thinks that one day in jail for a minor parking offence is not a "cruel and unusual" (in the 8th Am. sense), I (and the majority of the court, apparently) think it is.

Re:

[saul-paradise.livejournal.com]

well, Scalia is a textual fuck...but he is using the legislative inaction and, I would say, ineptitude of his ideological opponents on the court (with the exception of Stevens) to push these ridiculous views. See Harmelin v. Michigan.

[dyak.livejournal.com]

Well, I am still waiting for him to declare that the 2nd Am. applies only to flitlocks, 'cause that's all that the founding fathers were aware of. Several quotes from Federalist Papers and private letters of Jefferson would be very helpful for such decision too. I love his textuality.

Re:

[saul-paradise.livejournal.com]

I agree with you there -- the pure textual approach is ridiculous...But if you watch his opinions carefully, he deviates from that once in a while...just in a very subtle manner.