Unit 4 Part 4 (May 4, 2016)
In California Case, Justice Breyer
Assails Capital Punishment
Justice
Stephen G. Breyer spoke out against in a dissenting
opinion on the courts choice of a stare
decisis on the issue of the death penalty in California. He believes
that in an act of judicial activism
that the court should have taken the opportunity to revise and or dismissed the
notion of a death penalty in the state of California. Breyer writes that it is
unfair to the convicted inmates that they must wait decades with the knowledge of
imminent death playing in their mind. He states that more California death row inmates
have died of natural causes and suicide than the death penalty itself. Breyer
brings up the argument of a doctrine of
political question in the idea that the death penalty in its current form,
or possibly any other form breaks the eighth amendment. He feels as though
there enough of a question that it must be debated upon weather the death
penalty in cruel and unusual punishment. Breyer has spoken out in dissenting opinion
on the topic every chance he has been allotted, first occurring in the year
1999.
This topic is a very important yet incredibly divers in
its opinions. The court should listen to the opinion of Justice Breyer in his
plead for the court to hear the cases. This would be a very important case of Judicial Review deciding on the
constitutionality of the death penalty as a whole. The court would have the
power to not only to change the California death penalty laws, but the laws of
the entire country on this controversial topic. Their Judicial review powers
would come into play when deciding on the death penalty in terms of the eighth
amendment, no cruel or unusual punishment. The case could dismiss the death
penalty all to getter or reform it as Justice Breyer wishes. Either way the
United States may not know for some time to come on the future of the death
penalty because of the court’s rejection of the case.
No comments:
Post a Comment