March 20, 2009
Death Penalty for LWOP?
UCLA ConLaw Prof. Eugene Volokh notes that Life Without Parole – “LWOP” in prosecutor parlance – is the latest “human rights abuse” drawing the ire of the Ninny Brigades.
International Human Rights Law as Barring Sentencing Murderers to Life Without Parole? The New Zealand Herald reports:
Foreign Affairs officials are warning the Government that its hardline sentencing and non-parole policy risk damaging New Zealand's international reputation.
They say National's "no parole for the worst murderers" policy and the proposed "three strikes and you're out" law could breach international obligations on torture and civil rights.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade says such breaches would affect New Zealand's ability to influence other countries.
The ministry's advice, obtained by the Herald under the Official Information Act, says passing the laws "would pose reputational risks to New Zealand by resulting in international criticism".
The ministry has told the Government that no parole for the worst murderers — a National election policy — would enable "indefinite detention without the possibility of release", and would probably violate two human rights conventions monitored by the United Nations.
[The] Act's "three strikes" policy, which imposes a life sentence with a minimum non-parole period of 25 years on the third "strike" offence, "may result in disproportionate sentences that could also breach the human rights obligations assumed by New Zealand (and most other countries)"....
Volokh, who concedes more to the coddle-the-misunderstood-crook types than I think necessary, is otherwise spot on when he comments:
I would pretty strongly resist any attempt to have our laws on these subjects be governed by "human rights conventions" that chiefly represent the views of elite lawyers in Western countries rather than of American voters, constitution-makers, or even judges (who at least have been appointed and confirmed by American elected officials and could in time be replaced by American elected officials). I would hope that New Zealand would take a similar view.
It's also important to keep in mind that the "international law"-based argument against the death penalty wouldn't be limited just to the death penalty, and in fact might end up being deployed against the very punishment that is often urged as a reason why the death penalty is unnecessary.
First they came for the death penalty, and the ACLU said nothing “Yeah, man!” Then they came for LWOP and the ACLU said nothing “Speak truth to power, man!”
What’s curious to me about Volokh’s warning at the end of his piece is the caution that international law might be used to justify going after LWOP. Hasn’t that already begun, given the U.N. conventions and treaties cited in the New Zealand Herald article quoted by Volokh?
The leftward ratchet against punishing criminals seems almost anarchistic to me, motivated by a desire to see the Visigoths burn society down to the cobblestones. The only other explanation is a complete and utter inability to comprehend how savage humans can be when freed from the constraints of morality – which is another way of saying, freed from personal responsibility for their own actions against the life and property of law-abiding citizens.
Posted by Mike Lief at March 20, 2009 09:44 AM
| TrackBack
Comments
It was not until 1984 that California even got a ruling from the state supreme court that life without parole did not violate the Eighth Amendment. This is People v. Zimmerman, 36 Cal.3d 154.
Consistent with the game of footsie being played by the appellate defense bar and the California Supreme Court at the time, note that the defendant did not raise the state constitutional issue of cruel or unusual punishment, thus leaving open the chance for a different ruling on so-called independent state grounds.
When the penalty of death is taken off the table, the left's next project will be life without parole, followed by straight life, followed by whatever is the next most severe remaining penalty.
No matter what society sets forth as the punishment for crime, the left will attack it. The agenda is as you observe, ultimately, to tear down prisons.
I have often thought that it would be interesting to establish halfway houses especially for violent felons who are re-entering society. These should be located next door to the judges, foreign affairs officials, human rights advocates, and others who are always so eager to relax the laws society has established to protect the citizenry from criminal predation. I suspect that the zeal for such changes would diminish if the advocates had to actually live with the consequences of what they promote.
Posted by: ecmarm at March 20, 2009 10:13 AM
More internationalism creeping into our lives . . .
Posted by: The Little Coach at March 22, 2009 07:50 AM
Actually, I would support closing about a third of the prisons and jails if, at the same time, we empowered an armed citizenry to deal with crime on an informal basis. Not that the weepers are likely to see the point, so . . . I'm just sayin' . . .
Posted by: The Little Coach at March 22, 2009 07:54 AM