Americans are "losing faith" in capital punishment, according to this Financial Times piece. This passage, though, puzzled me:
Last week, a legislative commission in New Jersey recommended that the state abolish the death penalty, after it found "no compelling evidence" that capital punishment served a legitimate purpose, and increasing evidence that it "is inconsistent with evolving standards of decency".
What counts as "evidence" -- compelling or not -- that capital punishment serves a "legitimate purpose"? I suppose if the "legitimate purpose" in question is general deterrence, then we could have the usual arguments about whether the death penalty deters. But what about retribution? What would count as evidence that the death penalty serves this purpose of punishment? Or, does New Jersey think retribution is *not* a legitimate purpose? Is the evidence to which the passage refers the kind of data the Supreme Court used in, say, it's recent execution-of-the-developmentally-disabled case, i.e., observations about trends in various states and nations?
Does anyone have a link to the New Jersey commission's report?
Friday, January 12, 2007
Boston University law prof Katharine Baird Silbaugh has posted her new paper, The Practice of Marriage. (HT: Solum) Here is the abstract:
Over the past 40 years, robust law has developed addressing the treatment of non-marital cohabitants. Consequently, the government's gatekeeping role operates somewhat differently than before. States are now more clearly policing the social benefits and the symbolism accompanying marriage, having agreed to provide many of its legal benefits to non-marital couples. This article investigates the state's current role in articulating and managing, as well as responding to, the social meaning of marriage in the context of three recent high profile cases: the prosecution of polygamist Tom Green, the Goodridge same sex marriage case in Massachusetts, and the challenge to Michael Schiavo's ability to make health-care decisions for his wife. In all three cases we see an effort by courts to respond to dilemmas posed by the dynamic relationship between social and legal marriage. In these high profile cases, courts attempt to maintain control not only over the legal meaning of marriage, but its social meaning as well. This centralized social version of marriage is unfortunate, as it puts the state at the center of disputes over social meaning that it is ill-equipped institutionally to handle.
I look forward to reading this paper, as her analysis potentially speaks not only to family law, but to subsidiarity and the common good.
On the assumption that fraternal promotion is more noble than self-promotion, I'll offer a plug for my brother's new book recounting the rise and fall of the company (Big Idea) he envisioned as the "Christian Disney." For those interested in models of cultural enagement, Christian business and media, discerning God's presence in the wake of shattered dreams, or talking vegetables, it's an insightful read. And as Publishers Weekly puts it, the book is "hilarious even when describing [Phil's] headlong plunge into bankruptcy."
The disability rights community has been raging about the removal of 9-year-old Ashley's uterus and breasts for days. As you can probably imagine, the people who most keenly identify with the young girl who was the subject of these procedures, people living with disabilities, tend to be highly critical, to put it mildly. And much of their outrage is against the way the debate about it tends to utterly ignore their views -- yet again. This comment from "Edge-centric" on the CNN's coverage is representative:
In the continuing media attention given to Ashley's Treatment, CNN today posts what I suppose they consider a representative sample of emails they've received on the story. Reading Controversial care: Your e-mails - CNN.com makes you wonder if there has ever been such a thing as a disability rights movement.
As if to underscore the marginality of disabled people as to having any kind of stake in things that are done to them, the CNN Quick Poll appearing in the left-hand column of this web page asks, "Who should have the final say on allowing disabled people to have controversial surgeries?" Voters can select one of two choices: "Caregivers" [sic] -- or "Ethicists."
This speaks volumes.
Here are some other reactions.
On my listservs of caregivers, mostly parents of kids with disabilties, the reactions to the procedure itself seem to be equally negative. But you also see a lot of sympathy for her parents and outrage at the lack for social support for caregivers of people with disabilities that would cause her parents to consider this a compassionate and rational way to deal with the logistics of the lifetime of care that their daughter is going to need.
As for me, I find myself wondering if we've really come that far from the days of Buck v. Bell.
Lisa
In light of our concern for human dignity, is it permissible to deliberately stunt a disabled child's growth and prevent her from reaching puberty in order to maintain her "quality of life?" CNN reports:
Ashley, 9, has a condition called static encephalopathy, which means an unchanging brain injury of unknown origin. She's in a permanent infant-like state -- can't hold her head up, speak or roll over on her own.
When Ashley was 6 years old, her parents and doctors agreed to have her uterus and breast buds removed so she'll never reach puberty. She was given estrogen treatments and will never be more than 4 feet 5 inches and 75 pounds. Like the Terri Schaivo story before her, Ashley and her story have a lot to say about what it means to be disabled, what it means to be different and what it means to be human.
You can read an interview with the medical ethicist who approved the treatment here.
