The most recent declarations made by the United States Supreme Court has sparked a lot of debate. I have personally had several debates in regard to the decision on Guantanamo, the Second Amendment, and the Death Penalty. On the issue of the death penalty, I actually didn't argue over the decision, but over the morality of the act of capital punishment in our current historical context and the argument for the decision. Recently, it was said, that I am not "really a Democrat." In fact, I'm a "compassionate conservative." Maybe. I beg to differ. I can read my own blogs. I think I'm a liberal on most issues.
On the Supreme Court rulings...
One: The suspected terrorists being held at Guantanamo. I'm surprised that there was disagreement on this. I firmly believe that counter-terrorism is a pertinent issue and is profoundly complex to deal with. But the real issue in this case was about whether non-Americans have a constitutional right to file habeas corpus. The writ of habeas corpus was originally understood, and still does despite the expansion of access, to apply to those held in custody by officials of the Executive Branch of the federal government.
President Bush issued a Military Order back in November of 2001 claiming authority to detain suspects of terrorism, indefinitely without charges being filed against him or her, without a court hearing, and without entitlement to a legal consultant. Obviously, it was this controversial decision that led way to the case before the Supreme Court. I think the president's move was a direct violation of his constitutional powers, anti-habeas corpus, anti-human rights, and just unethical. Even when thwarted by the Supreme Court, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was passed by a then-Republican majority Congress and signed by, of course, the President.
I'm no legal scholar, but it seemed to me that the officials implementing the commissions would be making up the rules as they went along and there was no convincing evidence that I had seen or heard that the respect for the dignity of these persons on some basic level regardless of their crime was ensured. This was my first concern. Secondly, there was a lack of established rule of what amounts to evidence. Moreover, when asked why such suspects couldn't be tried before courts martial (military courts) or before U.S. federal courts, the Bush Administration argued that military commissions would save time, which is a weak argument. Why no supervision?
Basically, the Supreme Court in its decision declared that people have a right to appear before a neutral decision-maker. The Supreme Court said that even in times of war, people have a right to a hearing to say whether they are wrongfully or rightfully held. After all, habeas corpus is the right of a person to appear in a court of law to answer the charge made against him. It places the burden of proof on those detaining the person to justify the detention. If there is no evidence, what right do we have to detain a person? In the same way, would we detain an American citizen, in which, we have no reason to?
Military personnel could be appointed to the jury or other measures can be taken to ensure American interests in not giving up military intelligence, et cetera. But if we are going to accuse people of heinous crimes, then yes, I think they have a right of habeas corpus, a right to fair and just trial. And if found guilty, they should be punished, to the maximum, in the same court of law.
It isn't true that "all is fair" during times of war. Divine Revelation and human reason both assert the validity of and continuum of the moral law. The mere fact that there is war does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties. The Catechism affirms "Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely. Actions deliberately contrary to...universal principles are crimes."
Two: The Defense of Second Amendment rights. I don't support banning guns. I think the law in Washington, D.C. was in direct violation of the Constitution and should have been overturned. But that wasn't what I was arguing about. I may not be anti-guns (banning guns), but I am certainly pro-gun control. Given that, the Supreme Court decision I did not oppose, but I was concerned that it would reaffirm what I believe to be bad gun policies.
The gun policy in America is flawed because it is nearly nonexistent. The U.S., virtually alone in advanced countries, has combined the ready access to guns with minimal regulation to produce an ongoing public safety disaster. It is a given, I think, that guns do not necessarily cause more crime, but they intensify it and make it more dangerous and lethal. It is easier to rob someone, to threaten someone, and to kill someone with a gun than any other readily available weapon. It is a convenient tool and it can easily be used for evil.
Currently, up to 40 percent of guns sales are between private parties and that doesn't require background checks. As far as I know, the law on this hasn't changed. The government should close down the secondary market, in my opinion, and require mandatory registration of guns and requiring that all sales go through federally licensed dealers with adequate background checks. This isn't a measure to take away guns, but to save human lives.
The same legislators who call themselves "pro-life" vote against measures such as waiting periods, higher sales taxes, and limits on the numbers of guns purchased at a particular time to slow the flow of guns. The list goes on and much more can be said, but I'll say one thing. If a person vehemently opposes a waiting period and cannot wait 24, or even 48 hours to receive his or her gun, common sense, I repeat, common sense, dictates that they shouldn't get a gun because someone who needs a gun so direly and cannot wait a few days probably doesn't have good intentions.
In the same way, when certain weapons (machine guns) were banned, I had an argument about how that decision went against our second amendment rights. But then I wondered: why do we need machine guns? Imagine if everyone in your neighborhood had one or that anyone with a gun license, driving on the road might have one. And all the talk about "law-abiding" citizens truly irritates me. Aren't all criminals "law-abiding" citizens before their first crime? And just how realistic is to say that you need a gun that fires off entire rounds of bullets in a matter of seconds to protect your family? You don't need a rifle, you don't need revolver, you need an automatic or semi-automatic weapon.......
I am of the opinion that pro-second amendment conservatives (or liberals, e.g. Bob Casey, Jr.) approach the gun issue like most liberals tend to approach the abortion crisis. They talk about lowering the rates of violence by removing the underlying factors while simultaneously opposing any legal measures to ensure that guns don't get into the wrong hands. Isn't that almost identical in rhetoric as those who want to lower the abortion rate while simultaneously blocking any legal protection of unborn human life? It doesn't work. If you want to save unborn lives, you must have legal restriction, if not, abolition of abortion. If you want lower crime rates, you shouldn't be making guns so readily accessible without sufficient background checks and without any sort of waiting period or other measures of precaution. It's inconsistent with your rhetoric on other issues, with reality, and I'm sorry, it's just irrational.
Third: The Supreme Court and the Death Penalty. I firmly hold to the Church's teaching that capital punishment is excessive and unnecessary punishment because life imprisonment is sufficient to protect society. If we are going to be committed to the sanctity of human life, we must be consistent in that respect and not needlessly take human life, if it isn't necessary. A kill for a kill is not always justice. This is obvious.
Moreover, I find it problematic that the death penalty is applied later in life for crimes committed as a minor, going as low as sixteen years old or even younger. The only other places in the world that joins us in doing so is Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Yemen. The moral compass of those countries provides even less comfort.
But in regard to the Supreme Court decision, I have mixed feelings. I agree, yes. I am an opponent of the death penalty and would repeal its use in virtually all cases. I jumped for joy this time last summer when Republican Sen. Sam Brownback introduced the Abolish the Death Penalty Act of 2007.
Nevertheless, I am not precisely persuaded by the reasoning in Kennedy v. Louisiana. I'm also dismayed that four of the five Catholics disagreed, though Catholics are not obliged to oppose the death penalty. It seems preferable to err on the side of mercy, repentance, and second-chances. Kennedy conceded that the rape of a child is a depravity and admitted that there are "moral grounds for questioning" a ruling that restricts the use of the death penalty to homicide. I agree. Still, the five more liberal Justices concluded that the principle of proportionality in punishment, preclude the use of the death penalty in the cases of child rape.
The U.S. Constitution has much to say about the processes of criminal law, of search and seizure, interrogation, jury trials, etc., than about the inescapable moral problem, that is, justified punishment. The Constitution itself leaves the hard work of assigning blame and issuing sanctions to legislatures and juries. The challenge for the Court is to carefully say what is in the Constitution without overstepping and improperly substituting its own view for that of the American people and elected representatives.
I oppose the death penalty nearly as much as I oppose abortion and embryonic stem-cell research. But even I have a few reservations with Kennedy's logic, his understanding of the judiciary, and the logic used in reaching the court's conclusion. I believe many who oppose the death penalty as I do will wonder whether or not it is constitutional to have removed such a decision from legislators of whether or not to implement capital punishment against criminals convicted for child-rape.
A woman was quoted saying in regard to the decision: "Execute this man. Justice has a sword and this sword needs to swing today." Instead, both men will get new sentences and as undeserving of sinners as any of us, a chance at repentance and forgiveness.
It cannot go unsaid that the Lord God Himself has a sword of Justice and His sword will swing toward us on any given day. We had better pray that His Justice is His Mercy, for if it isn't, Heaven help us.
