"Even the Court has its limits"

Denver Post Editorial

The Post comments on two recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions it does not appear to have read. At least not well.

It applauds the Court's ruling in Kennedy v. Louisiana. The Court held that is was unconstitutional to execute someone for raping a child.

I am against the death penalty in all cases, so I have no problem with the ruling.

As a libertarian, I am in favor of limited government power. Since I do not trust the government to timely and efficiently pick up my garbage, I certainly do not trust the government to decide who it should kill.

The Post, however, manages to misinterpret both the law and the Bible in one passage:

The Denver Post has long opposed the death penalty. But even citizens who support capital punishment should recognize that the Louisiana law was an atrocious example of vengeance without reason, since it violated the Judeo-Christian tradition that punishment should be proportionate to a crime, not more severe than the crime itself.

As The Post argued earlier this year in opposing a failed attempt by state Sen. Steve Ward, R-Littleton, to authorize the death penalty in Colorado for the rape of a child, such disproportionate punishment violates the biblical standard: "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth."

I do not pretend to know anything about Judaism, but I do know that multiple eye-witnesses are necessary to invoke the death penalty under Judaic law. Rabbi Dan Polish explains: "[T]he defendant may not be put to death unless two (or in some cases three) eyewitnesses testify against him or her."


I do know a little about Christianity. Years and years of Sunday School as a child paid off.

Jesus, while standing on a mount and giving a sermon, said to forget "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." He had a new rule.

I quote from the King James Version,

"[38]Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
[39] But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."

Matthew, 5:38-39.

Therefore, calling "an eye for an eye" a tenet of Christianity is simply wrong. It is akin to claiming that "parallel lines always intersect" is a tenet of geometry.

To quote "an eye for an eye" as a Judeo-Christian ethic is just lazy and simplistic. And wrong.

The Supreme Court based its decision on the Constitutional prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment," not the Old or New Testament.

Next, the Post applauds the Supreme Court's ruling in Exxon v. Baker.

The Court reduced the punitive damages levied against Exxon for the Exxon Valdez oil spill.

According to the Post, "We welcome the ruling because we've long felt there should be some reasonable limit on non-economic damages in civil cases."

Well, the ruling in this case applied admiralty law. Most civil cases do not. The Post acknowledges the limited applicability of the ruling, but nevertheless overstates its effect.

As final note, I encourage people to read the actual decisions for themselves. (I have linked to both opinions above.) Press accounts of court decisions almost always contain errors. Don't rely on someone else's interpretation.