Too Little, Too Late? Justice John Paul Stevens Takes Aim at the Death Penalty

In his 2011 memoir Five Chiefs, retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens said he was wrong to repeatedly vote in favor of the death penalty during his lengthy legal career. “I should have voted differently” in one such case from Texas, Stevens wrote. “I regret that vote because experience has shown that the Texas statute played an important role in authorizing so many death sentences in that state.”

Stevens has now written a new book, Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution, and as Andrew Cohen observes at The Atlantic, the retired justice has doubled down on his opposition to the death penalty. For example, here is one of Stevens’ proposed tweaks to the text of the Constitution:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments such as the death penalty inflicted.

CafePressCafePressCohen admires Stevens’ aggressive new opposition to capital punishment but is more than a little annoyed about how long it took him to change his mind. “It's never too late for redemption, I suppose (unless you are one of those innocent men executed in America since capital punishment returned in its modern form in 1976),” Cohen quips. Perhaps Stevens’ days as a darling of the left are finally numbered.

But there’s one more big issue lurking under the surface here: respect for legal precedent. In the 2008 case Baze v. Rees, the Supreme Court ruled that Kentucky’s use of lethal injection did not qualify as “cruel and unusual” under the Eighth Amendment. Justice Stevens joined in that outcome, but also filed a separate concurrence where he said the death penalty was unconstitutional in all forms. How did he reconcile those clashing positions? “This Court has held that the death penalty is constitutional,” Stevens wrote, “and has established a framework for evaluating the constitutionality of particular methods of execution. Under those precedents...I am persuaded that the evidence adduced by petitioners fails to prove that Kentucky’s lethal injection protocol violates the Eight Amendment.” Put differently, Stevens did not like those precedents, but he believed he was bound to follow them.

Was he right to do so? Or should Stevens have come out squarely against the death penalty, precedent be damned?

Setting aside the particulars of the death penalty debate, my own view is that the Supreme Court should be paying more attention to the text and history of the Constitution and less attention to its own precedents. Unfortunately, that view has yet to command a lasting majority on the Supreme Court.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Whether you go by precedent or by "text and history," the death penalty looks constitutional to me.

    Under the Fifth Amendment, you can't be held to answer for a *capital* crime except on the presentment or indictment of a grand jury, nor deprived of *life* without due process of law. The anti-DP interpretation of the 8th Amendment is that nobody can be held to answer for a capital crime at all or be deprived of life even *with* due process of law (although these anti-DP justices generally allow an exception of a cop killing someone who's resisting arrest, subject to safeguards).

    Stevens is advocating a constitutional amendment against the DP. Is he also saying he should have effectively voted to amend the Constitution under the guise of interpreting it.

  • Swiss Servator, Frühling?||

    Agh! REFRESH!!!

  • gimmeasammich||

    I am against DP as well. Who wants their junk that close to another guy's di...

    *dawning realization*

    OHHHH. Death Penalty. That makes more sense.

  • Swiss Servator, Frühling?||

    Best get to revoking that pesky Amendment with the "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law" whilst you are amendin'.

  • Paul.||

    What other votes does Mr. Stevens regret?

  • prolefeed||

    Based on this other of his six proposed amendments, pretty much anything to do with freedoms not cherished by leftists:

    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms when serving in the militia shall not be infringed."

  • Rhywun||

    I'm not much of a gun person - but that doesn't even make sense. What the hell else would a militia consist of... Nerf swords?

  • Michael Price||

    Basically he proposed adding "when serving in the militia" to the 2nd Amendment, thereby transforming it from a right to keep and bear arms to a right to do what the government tells you to do.

    I mean it's absurd, when did anyone need protection for the right to be conscripted into a military force?

  • Capo||

    How about a constitutional amendment that puts a sunset on legal precedents in this country?

    Or even better, an amendment that puts a sunset on any law created by a Federal Agency? (or even Congress frankly)

  • JeremyR||

    I really don't get what is not libertarian about the death penalty. If anything, punishments that require minimal government infrastructure are the best.

    The trouble with the death penalty is of course the certainty of guilt. It shouldn't be for anything except very blatant cases of multiple murder (serial killers, basically)

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement