- 'An End to the Southern Strategy, But No Post-Racial America' says David Love
- "A Question of Place": An essay on the power of community
- Just Equally Speaking….
- Eagles owe Philadelphia the 8 million it needs to keep libraries open
- who would like to see Verizon offer cable TV in Phila?
- Council Committee Passed the Freeze
- Carol Campbell Passes Away
- My first trip to the public library
- Fight digital exclusion
- What if half of Philadelphia didn't have roads?
Note to McCaffery: You're a Justice now
Submitted by HelenGym on Fri, 04/25/2008 - 1:01am.
Because, according to today’s story story, it seems as though Seamus McCaffery forgot:
Last week, he made a point of his police background during an oral argument in a death-penalty case - and his remarks have become a hot topic among judges and lawyers who handle criminal cases, with some expecting defense attorneys to challenge McCaffery's ability to be fair to death-row inmates.
The case focused on the novel question of whether defendant Thavirak Sam, who was sentenced to death in 1991, can be forcibly medicated so his appeal can proceed.
The question is important because Sam, who suffers from mental illness, can't be executed because he has been ruled mentally incompetent. If he is forcibly medicated with antipsychotic drugs, Sam might become competent, and that could set the stage for his execution.
As defense lawyer Jules Epstein made his case that it would be unconstitutional to forcibly medicate Sam, McCaffery leaned forward and told the packed courtroom that he could restrain himself no longer.
The justice said he felt compelled to point out that Sam's relatives had been waiting years for justice.
Referring to his years on the police force, McCaffery said, "I was the one who picked up the bodies" and notified family members about such deaths. "How about finality for these family members?" he asked.
In addition to interjecting overly personal statements about “picking up bodies” McCaffery said he couldn’t help himself.
Well, he needs to. He’s not on the court to be a knee-jerk reactionary to any murder situation he sees. This is a question of forced medication of a mentally ill man. His job is to listen to the arguments and consider them in light of constitutional rights of all parties.
If he can't help himself, then he needs to recuse himself from this and all other death penalty cases.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
A knee jerk reaction or
A knee jerk reaction or speaking out about feelings being a Supreme Court Justice is good and healthy I believe. When Justice McCaffery is one of 7 it is much different, because the other Justice's can weigh in with their opinion and hopefully a sound decision can be made.
It would be entirely different had Justice McCaffery been the only Justice.
The State has designed the Supreme Court with more than one Justice so the Justices can feel comfortable in their position and have the ability to feel and think and come to an opinion.
Whether some people like it or not every judge is human and has the right to feelings, and opinions, whatever they may be. I am also sure that Justice McCaffery is not alone in the way he feels.
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter".
Dr Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.
I think the point isn't that
I think the point isn't that he is speaking his mind- it is that he is injecting it into a case with a very specific question before him.
The case is not about whether the death penalty is a good thing or a bad thing, or about victim's rights. It is a question of law about forcing medication on an inmate in order to make him mentally competent. The idea of finality for the victim's family has no place in the question before him, and I agree with Helen, that it raises serious questions about how impartial he can be.
Kinda curious, Dan
Not an argument - a question.
At what point does a judge need to view a case in context? I tend to doubt that you're a strict "originalist." How do you think judges should balance questions about the social impact of their decisions? I'm not sure that the concept of "impartiality" isn't an illusion anyway, but assuming it isn't, and again assuming that you aren't a strict originalist, what's your criterion for when judges need to allow for their partiality?
I think that McCaffery is wrong - but my opinion is based on my subjective feeling about the death penalty, and about forcing medication on someone.
A good question, and one
A good question, and one that people write their entire careers on, and I am too dumb to answer well. I am certainly no strict constructionist or originalist, and I think this case shows why originalism is goofy. Ie, how would writers of a constitution ever take into account a legal test for insanity that 1)came much after them, 2) and the advent of anti-psychotic drugs?
But, I don't think it matters that much here- because whether you are a strict constructionist or not, you can answer this question while actually sticking to... the question.
Well, the running joke about originalism
at least as practised by its most vocal proponents on the Court, is that it seems somehow to give the politically-desirable result most of the time.
It's a good and big question. But I think you're more right when you say 'impartiality is an illusion' than in setting up an opposition between impartiality and allowing for "partiality."
The thing to look at is whether a judge is following the limits of his role and of accepted methods of judicial interpretation. There's a lot of room in there, obviously, to make decisions that tend to keep the law static and decisions that evolve the law. And within that you can't always tease out the reason a judge does one or the other. But some decisions or comments depart from these accepted methods: they ignore precedent, or they suggest that the judge is inserting preconceptions of how the law should work into a particular case.
Ie, or to put it more
Ie, or to put it more succinctly:
Isn't the whole point of an insanity test that- putting aside whether the person inflicted harm on someone- that we need to independently see if the person is competent to stand trial, etc?
I agree with Helen and Dan,
I agree with Helen and Dan, and I would take one of Dan's points even further. Dan writes:
I'm sure McCaffery can be impartial. The problem is that he doesn't want to be. The example Helen cites seems to be about McCaffery grandstanding and politicking - exactly the sort of thing the judiciary isn't supposed to do, and the reason we have separation of powers.
Best,
Matt
The irony of McCaffery's comment
and the blessing of judicial law, is that in striving to make his point, he endangers his whole entitlement to weigh in on the issue. If he doesn't recuse himself and indeed votes on this case, I would assume the brilliant Jules Epstein will have strong grounds to seek a review in federal court about the bias of one of the justices in a life or death case.
I would be careful about this. Of course, judges are human and certainly have feelings but they are not allowed to be predisposed to their felt bias in any case. That's the way the judiciary works "whether some people like it or not."
I have been struck repeatedly from trials as a juror because I have a stated bias against the death penalty that might predispose me, in certain circumstances, to be impartial in a dealth penalty case. But hey, I don't pretend to think I'm fit to be a Supreme Court Justice.