Smith’s case, known as Hamm v. Smith, first arrived on the Court’s doorstep in August 2023. Since then, the justices have met more than two dozen times to decide what to do about the case, and each time they’ve put the decision off until a future meeting.
No one outside of the Court can know for sure why the justices keep delaying, but if you follow the Court’s Eighth Amendment cases closely, it’s easy to see how the Hamm case could open up all kinds of internal rifts among the justices.
The Eighth Amendment, which has a vague ban on “cruel and unusual punishments,” is at the center of the Hamm case because, for decades, the Court has held this amendment forbids executions of intellectually disabled offenders (and offenders who commit a crime while they are juveniles). The idea is that both groups have diminished mental capacity, at least as compared to non-disabled adults, and thus bear less moral responsibility even for homicide crimes.
That idea, however, has long been contested by the Court’s various ideological factions, and the Hamm case potentially reopens up all of the Court’s issues with the amendment at once. Indeed, in the worst-case scenario for criminal defendants, the justices could potentially overrule more than 60 years of precedents protecting against excessive punishments.
Archived at https://ghostarchive.org/archive/SU1Ce
The U.S. just needs to move into the modern era and abolish capital punishment.
How else does it remove undesirables. /s
Or service it’s hard on for revenge
The idea is that both groups have diminished mental capacity, at least as compared to non-disabled adults.
Following this logic, inebriated or otherwise under the influence adults should also be judged to have less moral culpability.
Apples and oranges. People with diminished mental capacity did not make a choice to have diminished mental capacity, and children did not make the choice to be children with underdeveloped brains.
You’re right. It’s called an exigent circumstance instead.
I don’t think that follows, because those are temporary conditions, and consuming the drug is a choice made by an individual not currently under the influence. So it’s the person’s responsibility before they consume the drug to prepare their environment for when they are under the influence. If they’re so destructive under the influence that they can’t not commit a crime, it is their responsibility not to take the drug at all.
No it doesn’t because a person chooses to get intoxicated. One does not choose to be a child or be mentally impaired.
