Infinite Monkeys

"Evolving standards of decency" and the natural right to self-defense

Child rapists might be sleeping easier tonight, knowing that perhaps the worst they face for their vile crimes is life imprisonment without the possibility of parole and not -- as the people of Louisiana would have had it -- death by lethal injection. I wonder, though, if today's decision in Kennedy v. Louisiana is a net gain or a net loss for the country? It's not as though death for rapists is a novel idea in America. And is putting child rapists to death really so barbaric?

I don't know -- I am but a humble (unemployed) writer -- but I can't wait to read what the editors of the New York Times and the Washington Post have to say on the subject. In lieu, I suggest reading Investor's Business Daily's take, which notes that "Reasonable people can disagree as to whether the sexual assault of children, along with other despicable non-homicidal crimes — torture, say, or treason — warrant the death penalty." But, as IBD's editors argue, "What is unreasonable is to dictate that the people, through their elected representatives, may not decide for themselves which of those horrific crimes deserve payment of the ultimate price." I'm not sure I could agree more. (Please do read the whole thing.)

And I do wonder how well child rapists -- or any criminal who would trespass with intent to do violence -- will sleep tomorrow night, after we learn the Supreme Court's decision in D.C. v. Heller.

There are court watchers who try to divine what the justices will do on certain cases based on their opinions in other cases during the term. I do not pretend to understand the reasoning, and I'm not certain it's anything more than wild speculation dressed up as educated guessing. But Eugene Volokh suggests that an Antonin Scalia opinion may be in the offing. Here's hoping.

I won't presume to guess how the court will come down on the District of Columbia's gun ban. (Joel and I wrote about the case here.) Whatever the court says, I don't think there can be any argument that the state trumps the individual right to self-defense. Ever. Fact is, Washington D.C.'s gun ban turned law-abiding citizens into subjects cowering in their own homes. The question now is whether the Supreme Court will abide by the Bill of Rights or further amend the Constitution.