Fact Suppression and the Subversion of Capital Punishment: What Death Penalty Foes on the Supreme Court and in the Media Do Not Want the Public to Know

L. Jackson
{"title":"Fact Suppression and the Subversion of Capital Punishment: What Death Penalty Foes on the Supreme Court and in the Media Do Not Want the Public to Know","authors":"L. Jackson","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1346142","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The U.S. Supreme Court and other courts, aided by the media in suppressing critical information about case facts and case law, have all but abolished capital punishment, turning what's left into a costly and agonizing farce. While pretending to superlative morality, dishonesty, especially half-truth, is central to their cause. An egregious example was Roger Coleman, widely but with knowing falsity portrayed as a choir boy executed because heartless judges impatiently refused to hear evidence of his innocence. Going further, in myriad cases, death sentences are reversed or banned when guilt is not even disputed. This is achieved by focusing upon the alleged plight of brutal murderers, while callously withholding compassion, information and even thought about the massive suffering they inflict upon innocent law-abiding victims. Yet, the public still supports the death penalty with little understanding of the true reasons why it is so rarely enforced. Abolition would fail if the people were well informed of case facts and arrogantly imposed disingenuous legal absurdities, not the least of which is a Supreme Court majority's ipse dixit that the Constitution gives them the right and power to decide if democratically determined criminal penalties are unacceptable and to reject them. Other absurdities, wholly unrelated to innocence, concocted by judges who aver lack of confidence in decent jurors and the superiority of their own independent judgment include: A murderer should have a serious chance to succeed with the argument that he would not pose a future threat to society if sentenced to life without parole because he was only dangerous to old ladies. A man can be mentally retarded, yet carefully plan rape and murder calculated to avoid return to prison. Because it is indecent and uncivilized to expect a nearly 18-year-old person to appreciate the wrongfulness of premeditated torture-murder and joyfully boasting about it, he must be allowed to attain a mature understanding of his own humanity. A murderer under 18 is a juvenile, a boy, but a victim of 16 is an adult woman. When a 300-pound man rapes an 8-year-old girl, requiring surgery, this is inadequate moral depravity; so his dignity must be respected to allow him to understand the enormity of his offense, one not enormous enough to justify execution. It is not clear that a rapist really intends to kill a victim he stabs 53 times, including 18 in the genital area. One cannot be expected to foresee new murders when he merely smuggles a gun-filled chest into a prison to help two convicted murderers escape, one serving a life sentence for murdering a guard during a prior escape. In aggregate, the depraved should be rewarded with reduced punishment because their numbers have increased. For individuals, increased depravity qualifies one for a court-created purported constitutional right to commit more without punishment. Rape under threat of death, three weeks after giving birth, is not harmful. Trial judges must mislead juries to save the lives of convicted murderers. All this is the result of unelected justices imposing, less than honestly, their own unpopular moral values upon the citizenry, raising doubt whether the Supreme Court merits continued respect and legitimacy. This is not a matter solely for legal experts. The death penalty debate should confront the public with critical facts and questions to decide if foes deserve the high ground they claim in what they deem a moral issue.","PeriodicalId":413978,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Judges (Criminal Procedure) (Topic)","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-02-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Judges (Criminal Procedure) (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1346142","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The U.S. Supreme Court and other courts, aided by the media in suppressing critical information about case facts and case law, have all but abolished capital punishment, turning what's left into a costly and agonizing farce. While pretending to superlative morality, dishonesty, especially half-truth, is central to their cause. An egregious example was Roger Coleman, widely but with knowing falsity portrayed as a choir boy executed because heartless judges impatiently refused to hear evidence of his innocence. Going further, in myriad cases, death sentences are reversed or banned when guilt is not even disputed. This is achieved by focusing upon the alleged plight of brutal murderers, while callously withholding compassion, information and even thought about the massive suffering they inflict upon innocent law-abiding victims. Yet, the public still supports the death penalty with little understanding of the true reasons why it is so rarely enforced. Abolition would fail if the people were well informed of case facts and arrogantly imposed disingenuous legal absurdities, not the least of which is a Supreme Court majority's ipse dixit that the Constitution gives them the right and power to decide if democratically determined criminal penalties are unacceptable and to reject them. Other absurdities, wholly unrelated to innocence, concocted by judges who aver lack of confidence in decent jurors and the superiority of their own independent judgment include: A murderer should have a serious chance to succeed with the argument that he would not pose a future threat to society if sentenced to life without parole because he was only dangerous to old ladies. A man can be mentally retarded, yet carefully plan rape and murder calculated to avoid return to prison. Because it is indecent and uncivilized to expect a nearly 18-year-old person to appreciate the wrongfulness of premeditated torture-murder and joyfully boasting about it, he must be allowed to attain a mature understanding of his own humanity. A murderer under 18 is a juvenile, a boy, but a victim of 16 is an adult woman. When a 300-pound man rapes an 8-year-old girl, requiring surgery, this is inadequate moral depravity; so his dignity must be respected to allow him to understand the enormity of his offense, one not enormous enough to justify execution. It is not clear that a rapist really intends to kill a victim he stabs 53 times, including 18 in the genital area. One cannot be expected to foresee new murders when he merely smuggles a gun-filled chest into a prison to help two convicted murderers escape, one serving a life sentence for murdering a guard during a prior escape. In aggregate, the depraved should be rewarded with reduced punishment because their numbers have increased. For individuals, increased depravity qualifies one for a court-created purported constitutional right to commit more without punishment. Rape under threat of death, three weeks after giving birth, is not harmful. Trial judges must mislead juries to save the lives of convicted murderers. All this is the result of unelected justices imposing, less than honestly, their own unpopular moral values upon the citizenry, raising doubt whether the Supreme Court merits continued respect and legitimacy. This is not a matter solely for legal experts. The death penalty debate should confront the public with critical facts and questions to decide if foes deserve the high ground they claim in what they deem a moral issue.
事实的压制与死刑的颠覆:最高法院和媒体上反对死刑的人不想让公众知道的事情
在媒体的帮助下,美国最高法院和其他法院压制了有关案件事实和判例法的关键信息,几乎废除了死刑,把剩下的变成了一场代价高昂、令人痛苦的闹剧。虽然假装道德高尚,但不诚实,尤其是半真半假,是他们事业的核心。一个令人震惊的例子是罗杰·科尔曼(Roger Coleman),他被广泛地、但却带有故意的虚假描述为一个唱诗班男孩,因为无情的法官不耐烦地拒绝听取证明他清白的证据而被处决。更进一步说,在无数案件中,甚至在罪行没有争议的情况下,死刑判决被撤销或禁止。做到这一点的方法是,把注意力集中在所谓的残忍杀人犯的困境上,同时冷酷无情地拒绝同情、拒绝提供信息,甚至不考虑他们给无辜的守法受害者造成的巨大痛苦。然而,公众仍然支持死刑,却很少了解死刑很少执行的真正原因。如果人民充分了解案件事实并傲慢地强加不诚实的法律谬论,废除死刑就会失败,其中最重要的是最高法院多数派认为宪法赋予他们权利和权力来决定民主决定的刑事处罚是否不可接受并拒绝它们。其他一些完全与无罪无关的谬论,是由法官们捏造出来的,他们对体面的陪审员缺乏信心,对自己独立判断的优越性缺乏信心,包括:杀人犯应该有很大的机会成功,因为他只会对老太太造成危险,如果被判终身监禁不得假释,他将来不会对社会构成威胁。一个人可能智力迟钝,但却精心策划强奸和谋杀,以避免再次入狱。因为指望一个快18岁的人认识到有预谋的酷刑和谋杀是错误的,并高兴地吹嘘它是不得体和不文明的,所以必须允许他对自己的人性有一个成熟的理解。18岁以下的杀人犯是少年,是男孩,而16岁以下的受害者是成年女性。当一个300磅重的男人强奸了一个8岁的女孩,需要做手术时,这是不够道德败坏的;所以我们必须尊重他的尊严,让他明白自己的罪行有多么严重,还不足以被处死。目前尚不清楚一名强奸犯是否真的有意杀害受害者,他刺了受害者53刀,其中包括18刀在生殖器部位。如果一个人仅仅把装满枪的箱子偷偷带进监狱,以帮助两个被定罪的杀人犯逃跑,其中一个因在先前的逃跑中谋杀了一名警卫而被判无期徒刑,那么他就不能指望预见到新的谋杀。总的来说,堕落的人应该得到奖励,减少惩罚,因为他们的数量增加了。对于个人来说,堕落的增加使一个人有资格获得法院创造的所谓宪法权利,可以在不受惩罚的情况下犯下更多罪行。在分娩后三个星期以死亡威胁进行强奸是无害的。审判法官必须误导陪审团,以挽救杀人犯的生命。所有这一切都是未经选举的法官不诚实地将他们自己不受欢迎的道德价值观强加给公民的结果,这让人怀疑最高法院是否值得继续受到尊重和合法性。这不仅仅是法律专家的问题。关于死刑的辩论应该让公众面对关键的事实和问题,以决定敌人是否应该在他们认为是道德问题的问题上占据制高点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信