United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia revealed Tuesday that he wouldn’t be surprised if the nation’s highest court invalidates the death penalty — and it could be coming soon.
Scalia referenced rulings to restrict capital punishment and changing sentiment within the Supreme Court at an address at the University of Minnesota Law School. The death penalty came up as Scalia described his judicial view that the Constitution is an “enduring” document that shouldn’t be open to broad interpretation — while sharing frustration that his colleagues too readily find flexibility in it.
Scalia said death penalty decisions from the court have made it “practically impossible to impose it but we have not formally held it to be unconstitutional.” Earlier in his remarks, Scalia said “it wouldn’t surprise me if it did” fall, a comment that drew a surprised reaction in the mostly full, 2,700-seat auditorium.
He said the high court has increasingly made it difficult impose the death penalty. He said rulings have added mitigating circumstances that must be considered or made it impermissible to automatically sentence people to death for certain crimes, such as killing a police officer.
The Supreme Court this month began its latest term and has already heard one death penalty challenge out of Kansas. While that case is limited in scope it was the first high court hearing on death penalty cases since a bitter clash over lethal injection procedures exposed deep divisions among the justices last term. The court intends to consider a case from Florida that questions whether judges, rather than juries, can impose a death sentence, especially when the jury is not unanimous in recommending death.
In his 30th year on the Supreme Court, Scalia is the longest-tenured current justice. The 79-year-old said he’s in no hurry to leave when asked by an audience member if justices should be forced to leave after a certain number of years rather than hold indefinite appointments.
“As soon as I think I’m getting lazier and I just can’t do the job as well, I’m going to get off there. I want to preserve whatever reputation I have,” Scalia said, adding, “If you’ve lost your smarts, yeah you should get off. But that hasn’t been the case.”
Until then, Scalia indicated he’ll forcefully hold to views that make him a stalwart on the court’s conservative wing. He said he has no ambition to be a swing vote — “I’d rather be right,” he said. His often-colorful opinions have drawn him wide attention and sheer time has put him toward the top of all-time dissenters.
“I have never aspired to have the most dissents in the court’s history,” Scalia said. “I’m in third place now. I hope I’m never in first place.”
The Associated Press contributed to this article
The supreme court needs to stay out of the State’s Right to kill certain criminals, as for lethal injection why not use the confiscated illegal drugs that must be incinerated after a conviction of possession.
more bad guys should be put to death sooner, instead of us paying to house them for years and years or releasing them to be bad again!
So many things are wrong with that argument: (1) People convicted of capital crimes are never released from prison, whether they are executed or not. (2) It costs A LOT MORE to put people on death row than to keep them in prison for life, because of all of the costly appeals and court proceedings. (3) The bad guys must never be put to death “sooner”, if we want a free country and the Rule of Law; that only happens under fascists and dictators. (4) How can anyone justify putting a person to death, if he or she is already caged and no longer a threat to society? Seems like God might be just a little pissed off about that . . .
This is possibly the most absurd response ever posted, but there’s far too much competition for that honor to be certain.
Back up your statements with explanations where possible. You can’t justify (1) no matter how you try. There are plenty of examples of murderers being released from life sentences for capital crimes. Start with (2) – explain where your data comes from because it’s counterintuitive at best. Continue to (3) – if the court sentence was death, then completing that sentence immediately is perfectly reasonable – in fact, delay could just as reasonably be considered cruel and unusual punishment – so explain your rationale. Don’t bother with (4) – just read the Bible for many examples where G-d told His people to wipe out entire groups of people, leaving nothing behind. There is no commandment against justified killing; the word translated as “shall not kill” is actually the Hebrew word for “murder” – the unjustified killing of an innocent person. That does not apply to war or to those convicted in a just court and sentenced to death.
Idiot, why should some scumbag still be breathing at our expense when their innocent victim has not been breathing for 20 years?
Jondarmes I feel the same way considering I was there also. No one should be allowed to vote NO for the death penalty unless they were there
Jondarmes I feel the same way considering I was there also. No one should be allowed to vote NO for the death penalty unless they were there
The death penalty should be MANDATORY for ALL 100% PROVEN murderers to send a message to all those who are thinking of murdering someone else before they CHOOSE to do so.Who’s afraid of committing any crime anymore when one is taken care of so well in our prison which are not ‘punishment’.Freebies galore as well as a paycheck for their ‘jobs’ in prison.
I agree wholeheartedly in your comments on what we are doing when someone that is emprisoned has it better than what they had before committing the offense by knowing what they can do once they have been incarcerated.
The Bible talks about a time when people will call good evil and evil good. Look around, I think we’re there.
Abortion, lies, cheating, illegal entry into the country, releasing criminals who belong locked up. And turning
morals upside down and removing God from everywhere in public. Soon murder will get you a year or two
in a half way house. Just doesn’t seem to be much common sense left.
What ever became “an eye for an eye”. For those that bad people should not be put to death think if it were your son,daughter,mother,father,wife ,husband.Murders do not deserve enjoy life while they have taken someones away.
You live by the sword you die by the sword.
To answer you question “what ever became of an eye for an eye” I guess we Christians would answer with “you have heard it said ‘an eye for an eye’ but I tell you….” Whether accepting the teaching of Jesus or not ,most of the civilized world, has rejected capital punishment as the barbaric practice that it is.
Making the death penalty mandatory for all “100%” proven would include children. Nothing should be mandatory. The death penalty should be abolished for all who are “proven” guilty on the word of “witnesses” who may or not be tainted. The same goes for “circumstantial” evidence. It is a punishment that cannot be reversed. We have had too many death penalties reversals to depend on circumstantial evidence and compromised witnesses.
Unfortunately most of us are not seeking justice, we are seeking revenge. I agree with Steve.
Don and Avner, would you be willing to handle the killing for the rest of us? I think that you can probably apply to be the executioner in some states. I personally would not want to kill anyone unless it was in defense of the life of another who was not ready to die. I wouldn’t even kill to defend my own life.
That’s your opinion, and you’re welcome to it if that’s how you feel. Sadly, there are plenty of others who also fail any sort of logic test and also vote with their feelings. Yours might change if you were actually faced with the prospect of defending your life or those of your children or grandchildren where the only way to stop the threat was the use of deadly force.
However, if that’s how you truly feel, please wear a sign so none of those around you would make the mistake of defending you when your life was being beaten or stabbed out of you. The protectors in our midst would not want to hurt your feelings as the assailant took your life.
There is a difference in defending the lives of your loved ones (and there is no question that I would defend my grandchildren no matter what) and killing someone who is already locked up in a cage. We can protect society by locking away those who would threaten the lives of innocent people without sinking to the level of those we would execute.
I think this falls under States Rights. We need a man like Ted Cruz to argue this,to bad there is only one Ted!
Amen !……Ted Cruz is our best hope !
The death penalty should not be an easy process. Since executions are permanent, it is essential for any chance of error to be removed before someone is put to death. The death penalty should remain in the arsenal of options for prosecutors. Some crimes are so heinous they deserve death. Sometimes the evidence is so overwhelming that there is no chance the defendant is innocent of the accused crime.
I hope Justice Scalia remains on the bench for a long time to come. He seems to actually care about the Constitution. Some of the judges in our judicial system seem to be more interested in advancing an agenda. Most of those agendas force things onto the citizenry that would never be forced upon them legislatively.
Time for some TERM LIMITS on these ROGUE JUDGES . //////////////////////////////////////////////////
SIX years and your out – no retirement either . ////////////////////////////////////////
A fair trial, one appeal within 90 days, out of here in 120.
How is it that the Court can make a law? We have been executing people for many many years. Now suddenly the Court can get involved?
We had slavery for so many years, too. Think of all the laws, especially in the Southern red states, that kept Black citizens from exercising their rights that the Court had to wipe away. Moral progress brings a new understanding of our God-given rights. Because our framers of the Constitution didn’t declare slavery unconstitutional doesn’t mean any court today would argue slavery could be permitted.
We should demonstrate mercy by giving criminals the opportunity to make peace with god after being sentenced to death.
If they aren’t given the death penalty the often live in their sick, deluded worlds, thinking they were somehow justified in their crime.
However, when given the death sentence as a “wake up call” they have an opportunity to stop and think about their actions and, hopefully, repent.
In other words, although many shallow thinkers don’t understand this, death is an important part of life, and for a perpetrator of murder, it can be a gift and a last chance at redemption
Tell me how this works in the USA. Members of the public are ELECTED to office to legislate laws for their protection, and UNELECTED single sitting Judges (protecting their bread and butter reprobates) can declare the Law illegal and abolish them!!. Is not this undermining the fabric of society!?. Is this treason? I thought Laws could only be abolished if they were first REPEALED by an Elected body of Law Legislators. I also thought all leading Civilised countries adhered to this. Well I live in another country (UK) that does the same thing but I didn’t know it also happened in the USA. Question: Why are these two countries IMPOSING their will through Threats, Armed incursions; Embargo’s and other Economic means on countries trying to do the right thing on the same problems they have at home!?. IT is no wonder the populace is agitated when those that make the laws don’t make this position clear to everyone and remove Judges who should know better.
Why do you think that crime has increased? There is no real punishment to deter these crimes. We coddle PRISIONERS. No longer are they required to work, instead they have big screen tv, weight rooms, air conditioning, & libraries full of law books so they can drag their case out forever. Sorry, I think they should have to farm & grow their own food, they should have a dairy & take care and learn to care for them. In this country you were promised a swift & speedy trial, that rarely happens. It is necessary to have the worry of severe punishment or you will have more crime. Wake up people you cannot mother criminals.
I used to be amazed at the sttatements of folks. Now all I feel is pity for the totally devoid of sanity expressed. When I read that a rapist was released from jail then committed several more offences, or a murderer did the same with murder. If you lived next door I would put a sign out stating, next door the folks dont believe in punishment for crimes committed.
Feels like Hussein obama is directing the Supreme court again!
I still believe the states should have the choice to use the death penalty or not. This should NOT be a decision of the 9 Justices on the Supreme Court in Washington DC as this is NOT in the Constitution, therefore it should be left up to the individual states.