February 3, 2004
Letters
The Columbus Dispatch
34 South Third Street
Columbus, Ohio 43215
Dear Letters:
In his letter published February 3, regarding capital punishment Thomas W. Billing makes a couple of interesting points. “The death penalty is nothing but revenge,” he writes. “It is barbaric and should have no place in a so-called civilized society.”
Leaving aside considerations of morality, the issue of capital punishment, whether it be right or wrong, is a matter of law. The most fundamental question here is whether a state deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed ought to have the power to deliberately cause the death of one of those citizens for the cause of having violated one of its laws.
At various points in our history, serious omissions in our United States Constitution regarding the fundamental rights of citizens were corrected by resort to the amending process, contained in Article V of that document. Among the Amendments, Article Thirteen was adopted in 1868, abolishing the institution of slavery. In 1920, Article Nineteen was adopted, enfranchising women.
At her confirmation hearing, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, when asked about her views on the death penalty, sagely replied that by the inclusion of the words “capital,” and “deprived of life,” contained in Article Five of the Amendments, it was clear what the framers intended. Furthermore, Article Fourteen makes reference to the power of “any State (to) deprive any person of life,” so long as it is consistent with “due process of law.”
Returning to the question, ought a democratic state have the power to terminate the right of one of its citizens for a violation of the law; the fact is, the United States government has that power. While the document itself was ratified directly by a majority of the enfranchised citizens of the country, the first ten articles of the Amendments to the U.S. Constitution were ratified indirectly on their behalf by elected State legislatures, in 1791. Whether the citizenry, if asked directly, would have consented to allowing the state to inflict capital punishment is certainly a matter for conjecture. I wonder what would be the consensus today?
If there were a consensus for the abolition of capital punishment in the United States, an amendment might be crafted expunging the pertinent references in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments underpinning its institution. That would be a worthy cause.
Letters
The Columbus Dispatch
34 South Third Street
Columbus, Ohio 43215
Dear Letters:
In his letter published February 3, regarding capital punishment Thomas W. Billing makes a couple of interesting points. “The death penalty is nothing but revenge,” he writes. “It is barbaric and should have no place in a so-called civilized society.”
Leaving aside considerations of morality, the issue of capital punishment, whether it be right or wrong, is a matter of law. The most fundamental question here is whether a state deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed ought to have the power to deliberately cause the death of one of those citizens for the cause of having violated one of its laws.
At various points in our history, serious omissions in our United States Constitution regarding the fundamental rights of citizens were corrected by resort to the amending process, contained in Article V of that document. Among the Amendments, Article Thirteen was adopted in 1868, abolishing the institution of slavery. In 1920, Article Nineteen was adopted, enfranchising women.
At her confirmation hearing, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, when asked about her views on the death penalty, sagely replied that by the inclusion of the words “capital,” and “deprived of life,” contained in Article Five of the Amendments, it was clear what the framers intended. Furthermore, Article Fourteen makes reference to the power of “any State (to) deprive any person of life,” so long as it is consistent with “due process of law.”
Returning to the question, ought a democratic state have the power to terminate the right of one of its citizens for a violation of the law; the fact is, the United States government has that power. While the document itself was ratified directly by a majority of the enfranchised citizens of the country, the first ten articles of the Amendments to the U.S. Constitution were ratified indirectly on their behalf by elected State legislatures, in 1791. Whether the citizenry, if asked directly, would have consented to allowing the state to inflict capital punishment is certainly a matter for conjecture. I wonder what would be the consensus today?
If there were a consensus for the abolition of capital punishment in the United States, an amendment might be crafted expunging the pertinent references in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments underpinning its institution. That would be a worthy cause.
