<< Columbus Massacre by Early Release Trafficker Gets Traction in the Senate | Main | Congressional Supporters of Sentencing Reform Need to Look at California >>


The Slow Drip of the Eighth Amendment

| 0 Comments
My friend Prof. Josh Blackman at the Law School of the University of South Texas is more pessimistic than I about the prospects that the Supreme Court will outlaw the death penalty, but he does a brilliant job of describing the Court's potentially "abolition-by-slow-drip" jurisprudence:

I freely admit that I find the 8th Amendment uninteresting. At least five Justices have made up their mind that the death penalty needs to be eliminated, but because they don't want to do it all at once, they are systematically, step-by-step, making it harder and harder to execute someone.

The article is worth your read for Josh's acidly humorous description of the back-and-forth between Justices Scalia and Kennedy. 

I am not for the moment going to describe at length why I think Josh is wrong about the death penalty's ultimate fate.  Suffice it to say that I'm decently sure that rejecting per se abolition has four sure votes (Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito) and two likely ones (Kennedy and Kagan).

Justice Kennedy has a good deal of skepticism about the death penalty (see, among numerous other sources, his opinion for the Court in Kennedy v. Louisiana), but is slightly too mindful of precedent  --  and perhaps the longstanding national consensus favoring capital punishment  -- to go for outright abolition (see his agreement without concurrence in the Court's opinion in Glossip).

Justice Kagan said at her confirmation hearing that she did not share the view of Justice Marshall (for whom she clerked) that the death penalty is per se unconstitutional.  Instead, she said capital punishment is settled law "going forward."  She also did not join Justice Breyer's broad-brush dissent in Glossip, and was with the majority in last week's opinion in Kansas v. Carr, in opposition to Justice Sotomayor. 
UPDATE:  Writing almost simultaneously, Prof. Doug Berman agrees that a facial challenge to the death penalty will be waiting a long time.  As he says here:

I know that a lot of folks eager to have the death penalty completely abolished in the United States are ever hopeful, especially in the wake of Justice Breyer's Glossip dissent, that the Supreme Court will consider anew a wholesale Eighth Amendment challenge to any and every death sentence.  But I have always considered quite significant the fact that Justice Breyer's dissent in Glossip was joined by only one other Justice; moreover, just last week every member of the Court except Justice Sotomayor voted to reinstate a number of Kansas death sentences as consistent with the Eighth Amendment (as blogged here). 

I fully understand why Justice Breyer's dissent in Glossip is now prompting many capital defense attorney to raise and seek to preserve an Eighth Amendment broadside attack on the death sentence given to his or her client.  But, especially after the Supreme Court's most recent capital case work from Kansas and elsewhere, I am one "court watcher" who does not expect this kind of claim to be taken up by the Justices anytime soon.



Leave a comment

Monthly Archives