DOCSLIB.ORG

Unusual Punishments” in Anglo- American Law: the Ed Ath Penalty As Arbitrary, Discriminatory, and Cruel and Unusual John D

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Unusual Punishments” in Anglo- American Law: the Ed Ath Penalty As Arbitrary, Discriminatory, and Cruel and Unusual John D Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy Volume 13 | Issue 4 Article 2 Spring 2018 The onceptC of “Unusual Punishments” in Anglo- American Law: The eD ath Penalty as Arbitrary, Discriminatory, and Cruel and Unusual John D. Bessler Recommended Citation John D. Bessler, The Concept of “Unusual Punishments” in Anglo-American Law: The Death Penalty as Arbitrary, Discriminatory, and Cruel and Unusual, 13 Nw. J. L. & Soc. Pol'y. 307 (2018). https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njlsp/vol13/iss4/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern Pritzker School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy by an authorized editor of Northwestern Pritzker School of Law Scholarly Commons. Copyright 2018 by Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law `Vol. 13, Issue 4 (2018) Northwestern Journal of Law and Social Policy The Concept of “Unusual Punishments” in Anglo-American Law: The Death Penalty as Arbitrary, Discriminatory, and Cruel and Unusual John D. Bessler* ABSTRACT The Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, like the English Bill of Rights before it, safeguards against the infliction of “cruel and unusual punishments.” To better understand the meaning of that provision, this Article explores the concept of “unusual punishments” and its opposite, “usual punishments.” In particular, this Article traces the use of the “usual” and “unusual” punishments terminology in Anglo-American sources to shed new light on the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause. The Article surveys historical references to “usual” and “unusual” punishments in early English and American texts, then analyzes the development of American constitutional law as it relates to the dividing line between “usual” and “unusual” punishments. The Article concludes that customary punishments were often described as “usual punishments,” but that it was understood—and has long been understood by the U.S. Supreme Court itself—that punishments might become “unusual” over time. The Article further concludes that the protection against the infliction of “cruel and unusual punishments” arose out of a desire to protect against torture and the arbitrary infliction of punishments, including ones that were either out of step with societal values or that had become at odds with societal norms. In light of the decline in death sentences and executions, the Fourteenth Amendment’s post-Civil War guarantee of “due process” and “equal protection of the laws,” and the Eighth Amendment’s long-standing prohibition against torture, this Article concludes that America’s death penalty, which has always been cruel, has now become a highly arbitrary and unusual punishment. The Article concludes that life sentences are now the “usual” punishment for the most serious crimes, and that the death penalty is now “unusual” and that its use is incompatible with the text and guarantees of the U.S. Constitution. Not only are executions now extremely rare, especially in comparison to life sentences, but the death penalty is administered in an arbitrary, error-prone, discriminatory, and torturous manner. * Associate Professor, University of Baltimore School of Law; Adjunct Professor, Georgetown University Law Center; Visiting Scholar/Research Fellow, Human Rights Center, University of Minnesota Law School; Of Counsel, Berens & Miller, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota. NORTHWESTERN JOURNAL OF LAW AND SOCIAL POLICY [2018 I. INTRODUCTION The English Bill of Rights of 1689 included a prohibition on the infliction of “cruel and unusual punishments.”1 That provision was a byproduct of the Glorious Revolution of 1688, a revolution that overthrew King James II of England, a Catholic, and installed Dutch stadtholder William III of Orange-Nassau and his wife, Mary II, as England’s new king and queen.2 On February 13, 1689, William and Mary, while seated on armchairs “under a Canopy in the Banqueting-House,” listened as a clerk read a declaration recounting how King James II had abrogated the throne and violated the rights of the English people.3 To vindicate “their Ancient Rights and Liberties,” the “Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons”—those who had joined forces with William of Orange to put parliamentary limits on monarchical power—publicly declared their rights, the tenth of which read: “That Excessive Bail ought not to be required, nor Excessive Fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual Punishments inflicted.”4 1 Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 577 (2005); Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 966 (1991). That protection has been described as a “fundamental principle of the Government of England” intended “to establish mercy, even to convicted offenders.” JEAN LOUIS DE LOLME, THE CONSTITUTION OF ENGLAND; OR, AN ACCOUNT OF THE ENGLISH GOVERNMENT 385 (1789); see also id. at 385–86 (citing Article 10 of the English Bill of Rights and noting “Torture has, from the earliest times,” been “unknown in England”): From the same cause also arose that remarkable forbearance of the English Laws, to use any cruel severity in the punishments which experience shewed it was necessary for the preservation of Society to establish: and the utmost vengeance of those laws, even against the most enormous Offenders, never extends beyond the simple deprivation of life. Nay, so anxious has the English Legislature been to establish mercy, even to convicted offenders, as a fundamental principle of the Government of England, that they made it an express article of that great public Compact which was framed at the important æra of the Revolution, that “no cruel and unusual punishments should be used.” 2 See generally STEVE PINCUS, 1688: THE FIRST MODERN REVOLUTION (2009). 3 ABEL BOYER, THE HISTORY OF KING WILLIAM THE THIRD 354–56 (1702). That declaration recited that “Excessive Bail hath been requir’d of Persons committed in Criminal Cases,” that “Excessive Fines have been impos’d,” and that “Illegal and Cruel Punishments inflicted.” Id. at 355. 4 Id.; see also Meghan J. Ryan, Does the Eighth Amendment Punishments Clause Prohibit Only Punishments that are Both Cruel and Unusual?, 87 WASH. U. L. REV. 567, 575 (2010): There is no clear evidence as to what Parliament intended to probibit by the language of Article 10. The preamble of the English Bill of Rights denounces King James II’s subversion of English laws and liberties by, among other things, suspending laws without Parliament’s consent, prosecuting prelates for petitioning the King, and prosecuting individuals for ecclesiastical offenses. The document also charges that “excessive fines have been imposed; and illegal and cruel punishments inflicted.” Historically, scholars have disagreed whether the document prohibited cruel methods of punishment or cruel and illegal punishments, but they seem to agree that, whatever the meaning of the document, it was enacted “to prevent a recurrence of recent events” in England. 308 Vol. 13:4] John D. Bessler Like the British, Americans opposed “cruel and unusual punishments,” though that concept was left undefined in American constitutions. Prior to the Revolutionary War (1775–1783), American colonists, as British subjects living in the Age of the Enlightenment, felt grossly abused and oppressed by George III.5 After unsuccessfully seeking fair and equitable treatment in comparison to those in the British Isles, the colonists rebelled, declared their independence, promulgated bills of rights and constitutions containing important legal protections, and became American citizens.6 In light of that history and the fervent desire of the colonists to safeguard their individual rights, privileges, and liberties, it is hardly surprising that the long-standing English prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishments” was widely copied—sometimes verbatim—in American declarations of rights and in constitutions in the newly forged republic, the United States of America.7 The legal protection against “cruel and unusual punishments,” a prohibition early Americans eagerly embraced, first found its way into American law through an 5 BARBARA BARDES, MACK SHELLEY & STEFFEN SCHMIDT, AMERICAN GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS TODAY: THE ESSENTIALS 31 (2008) (“The conflict between Britain and the American colonies, which ultimately led to the Revolutionary War, began in the 1760s when the British government decided to raise revenues by imposing taxes on the American colonies.”); compare 1 ALBERT H. PUTNEY, INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF LAW: LEGAL HISTORY 210 (1908): The Revolutionary War, in its broadest significance, was not so much between America and England, as one in which the radical forces in both countries were arrayed against the conservative elements in each. William Pitt openly rejoiced that America had resisted, while Fox, in his speeches in the House of Commons habitually referred to Washington’s forces as “our army,” and even adopted the famous blue and buff of the continental army as the colors of the Whig party. With the mass of the English people the war was so unpopular that the troops for the war mainly had to be hired in Germany. On the other hand, probably at least one-third of the whole population of the colonies were Tories in their sympathies, and this third included the majority (the great majority outside of Massachusetts) of the wealthy and educated classes. 6 The Declaration of Independence, referring to “a long train of abuses and usurpations,” “absolute Despotism,” and “repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States,” asserted that it was the “right” and “duty” of the people “to throw off such Government.” THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE (U.S. 1776). Among the indictments of George III in the Declaration of Independence: “He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.” Id. 7 JOHN D. BESSLER, CRUEL AND UNUSUAL: THE AMERICAN DEATH PENALTY AND THE FOUNDERS’ EIGHTH AMENDMENT 155 (2012); see also Steven G.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • In Lockdown America: the Corruption of Capital Punishment
    University of Dayton eCommons History Faculty Publications Department of History 6-2001 In Lockdown America: The orC ruption of Capital Punishment William Vance Trollinger University of Dayton, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ecommons.udayton.edu/hst_fac_pub Part of the Christian Denominations and Sects Commons, Christianity Commons, and the History Commons eCommons Citation Trollinger, William Vance, "In Lockdown America: The orC ruption of Capital Punishment" (2001). History Faculty Publications. 34. https://ecommons.udayton.edu/hst_fac_pub/34 This Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of History at eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in History Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. The corruption of capital punishment In Lock down America by William Vance Trollinger Jr. FINISH THIS REVIEW in the shadow of Timothy tal punishment. But r cent polls show that, Timothy McVeigh's execution. But while Ame1ica's most no­ McVeigh notwithstanding, th 1 vel of suppo1t for capital torious mass murderer is dead, and whi~e the.p~mdits punishment is declining. That tr nd wilJ continu if Ran­ I continue to argue the merits and meanmg of his exe­ dolph Loney, Austin Sarat and Mark L wis Taylor hav cution, news about capital punishment just keeps coming. anything to say about it. Their three books could not have Next after McVeigh on the federal death list is Ju an Raul been written 25 y ars ago, as th y ar rooted in th rea.Uties Garza, but because of th e dramatic racial and g ographic of the capital punishment "syst m" as it has operat cl in the disparities in federal death sentences, religious and civil U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Extent to Which the Common Law Is Applied in Determining What
    THE AMERICAN LAW REGISTER, APRIL, 1867. THE EXTE'N"IT TO WHICH THE COM ON LAW IS APPLIED IN DE- TERMINING WHAT CONSTITUTES A CRIME, AND THE NATURE AND DEGREE OF PUNISHMENT CONSEQUENT THEREUPON. PART III. (Concluded from the January.umber.) 1. Subject of Third. Part stated. 2. Statement by .Mr. Wheaton on tie question. 3. Exceptional states as to common-law application. 4-6. With what qualifications the common law has been adopted. 7-9. Felonies provided for by statute. Reasoning in relation thereto. 10, 11. Early and important case on the question. 12-18. Acts of public evil example; acts tending to breach of peace; con- -piracy, &c., indictable at common law. 19-21. Offences against Christianity; against the marital relation; obscenity, &c., also been held indictable. 22-24. Cases peculiar to this country also brought within common-law influence. 25, 26. 'Numerous acts of malicious mischief that are punishable at common law. 27-30. Also nuisances ; disturbing the peace; acts tenxding to defeat public justice. and various miscellaneous offences. 31, 32. Other instances named of common-law influence. 33-36. Brief review of the treatise; and 38. Conclusion. 1. IF a satisfactory conclusion has been reached in reference to the vexed question which has now been considered, and which has given rise to such strongly-conflicting opinions, by jurists of the highest eminence and ability, the remaining question, where, with one or two narrow exceptions, the eases and opinions are in VOL. XV.-21 (321) APPLICATION OF THE COMMON LAW almost perfect accord, cannot be attended with much difficulty.
    [Show full text]
  • Settlers, Africans, and Inter-Personal Violence in Kenya, Ca. 1900-1920S
    International Journai of African Historicai studies Vol. 45, No. 1 (2012) 57 Settlers, Africans, and Inter-Personal Violence in Kenya, ca. 1900-1920s By Brett Shadle Virginia Tech ([email protected]) As Fanon noted, violence was inherent in inter-racial relations in settler colonies, and Ngugi reiterated this point specifically in regard to Kenya.' When attempting to write a cultural history of white settlers, Ngugi found nothing of value. He observed only garish paintings in upscale Nairobi bars featuring scenes of colonial life: scrawny Africans pulling whites in rickshaws, a "long bull-necked, bull-faced settler" holding a sjambock (Afrikaans: whip) and his loyal (and well-fed) dog at his side. It was just such a scene, Ngugi refiected, that summed up white settlement: "The rickshaw. The dog. The sjambock. The ubiquitous underfed, wide-eyed, uniformed native slave."2 In the end, as Ngugi put it, "Reactionary violence to instill fear and silence was the very essence of colonial settler culture."3 As is so often the case, Ngugi cut to the heart of the matter: one cannot envision the settler without the sjambock, or in Kenyan parlance, the kiboko (hippopotamus-hide vvhip).'^ Often settlers considered beatings as part and parcel of life in Africa, almost akin to milking the cows or cleaning the kitchen (if, in fact, Europeans ever performed such menial tasks). In the flrst several decades of colonial Kenya, settlers certainly did not hesitate to discuss their use of the lash. In a letter to the East African Standard in 1927, Frank Watkins bragged that, "I thrash my boys if they deserve it and I will let [African defender and settler critic] Archdeacon Owen or anyone else enquire into my methods of handling and working labour."5The Times of East Africa believed, "Probably there is not ' Franz Fanon, Wretched of the Earth (New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1963); Ngugi wa Thiong'o, Detained: A Writer's Prison Diary (London: Heinemann, 1981), Chap.
    [Show full text]
  • Outlaw: Wilderness and Exile in Old and Middle
    THE ‘BESTLI’ OUTLAW: WILDERNESS AND EXILE IN OLD AND MIDDLE ENGLISH LITERATURE A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Sarah Michelle Haughey August 2011 © 2011 Sarah Michelle Haughey THE ‘BESTLI’ OUTLAW: WILDERNESS AND EXILE IN OLD AND MIDDLE ENGLISH LITERATURE Sarah Michelle Haughey, Ph. D. Cornell University 2011 This dissertation, The ‘Bestli’ Outlaw: Wilderness and Exile in Old and Middle English Literature explores the reasons for the survival of the beast-like outlaw, a transgressive figure who highlights tensions in normative definitions of human and natural, which came to represent both the fears and the desires of a people in a state of constant negotiation with the land they inhabited. Although the outlaw’s shelter in the wilderness changed dramatically from the dense and menacing forests of Anglo-Saxon England to the bright, known, and mapped greenwood of the late outlaw romances and ballads, the outlaw remained strongly animalistic, other, and liminal, in strong contrast to premodern notions of what it meant to be human and civilized. I argue that outlaw narratives become particularly popular and poignant at moments of national political and ecological crisis—as they did during the Viking attacks of the Anglo-Saxon period, the epoch of intense natural change following the Norman Conquest, and the beginning of the market revolution at the end of the Middle Ages. Figures like the Anglo-Saxon resistance fighter Hereward, the exiled Marcher lord Fulk Fitz Waryn, and the brutal yet courtly Gamelyn and Robin Hood, represent a lost England imagined as pristine and forested.
    [Show full text]
  • War of Roses: a House Divided
    Stanford Model United Nations Conference 2014 War of Roses: A House Divided Chairs: Teo Lamiot, Gabrielle Rhoades Assistant Chair: Alyssa Liew Crisis Director: Sofia Filippa Table of Contents Letters from the Chairs………………………………………………………………… 2 Letter from the Crisis Director………………………………………………………… 4 Introduction to the Committee…………………………………………………………. 5 History and Context……………………………………………………………………. 5 Characters……………………………………………………………………………….. 7 Topics on General Conference Agenda…………………………………..……………. 9 Family Tree ………………………………………………………………..……………. 12 Special Committee Rules……………………………………………………………….. 13 Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………. 14 Letters from the Chairs Dear Delegates, My name is Gabrielle Rhoades, and it is my distinct pleasure to welcome you to the Stanford Model United Nations Conference (SMUNC) 2014 as members of the The Wars of the Roses: A House Divided Joint Crisis Committee! As your Wars of the Roses chairs, Teo Lamiot and I have been working hard with our crisis director, Sofia Filippa, and SMUNC Secretariat members to make this conference the best yet. If you have attended SMUNC before, I promise that this year will be even more full of surprise and intrigue than your last conference; if you are a newcomer, let me warn you of how intensely fun and challenging this conference will assuredly be. Regardless of how you arrive, you will all leave better delegates and hopefully with a reinvigorated love for Model UN. My own love for Model United Nations began when I co-chaired a committee for SMUNC (The Arab Spring), which was one of my very first experiences as a member of the Society for International Affairs at Stanford (the umbrella organization for the MUN team), and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Later that year, I joined the intercollegiate Model United Nations team.
    [Show full text]
  • Bills of Attainder and the Formation of the American Takings Clause at the Founding of the Republic Duane L
    Campbell Law Review Volume 32 Article 3 Issue 2 Winter 2010 January 2010 Bills of Attainder and the Formation of the American Takings Clause at the Founding of the Republic Duane L. Ostler Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.campbell.edu/clr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation Duane L. Ostler, Bills of Attainder and the Formation of the American Takings Clause at the Founding of the Republic, 32 Campbell L. Rev. 227 (2010). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Repository @ Campbell University School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Campbell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Repository @ Campbell University School of Law. Ostler: Bills of Attainder and the Formation of the American Takings Clau Bills of Attainder and the Formation of the American Takings Clause at the Founding of the Republic DUANE L. OSTLER* I. INTRODUCTION .............................................. 228 II. TAKINGS IN AMERICA PRIOR TO 1787 ....................... 228 A. Takings in the Colonies Prior to Independence ....... 228 B. The American Revolution and the Resulting State Constitutions ................................... 231 III. THE HISTORY BEHIND THE BAN ON BILLS OF ATTAINDER AND THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TAKINGS CLAUSE ................... 236 A. Events Leading to the Fifth Amendment .............. 236 B. Madison's Negative Opinion of a Bill of Rights ....... 239 C. Madison's Views on the Best Way to Protect Property Righ ts ................................................ 242 IV. SPECIFIED PROPERTY PROTECTIONS IN THE BODY OF THE CONSTITUTION .......................................... 246 A. Limits Specified in Article 1, Section 10 .............. 246 B. The Ban on Bills of Attainder .................... 248 V.
    [Show full text]
  • The Bill of Attainder Clauses: Protections from the Past in the Modern Administrative State
    Copyright © 2014 Ave Maria Law Review THE BILL OF ATTAINDER CLAUSES: PROTECTIONS FROM THE PAST IN THE MODERN ADMINISTRATIVE STATE John J. Cavaliere, III † INTRODUCTION To the Framers, enshrining prohibitions against bills of attainder in the Constitution1 was essential to prevent tyranny. These provisions serve the twin aims of protecting individuals from an improper use of legislative power and reinforcing the doctrine of separation of powers.2 The Constitution of the United States contains two clauses proscribing the issuing of bills of attainder—one applying to the federal government,3 and the other to the states.4 At first blush, this may seem like either a stylistic embellishment or an over-scrupulous redundancy. But this repetition was far from superfluous. Article I treated the legislative power of both the federal and state governments. Thus, the Framers were compelled to provide a separate clause restricting the states because this protection was so important.5 Not even the † J.D. Candidate, 2014, Ave Maria School of Law; B.A., 2010, Florida State University. The author is grateful for his wife’s unwavering support throughout law school. The author further wishes to acknowledge the invaluable feedback and assistance from Prof. Patrick T. Gillen of Ave Maria School of Law, and the editorial staff of the Ave Maria Law Review. 1. U.S. CONST. art. I, § 9, cl. 3; U.S. CONST. art. I, § 10; see also U.S. CONST. art. III, § 3 (“The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attained.”).
    [Show full text]
  • IMPEACHMENT AS a POLITICAL WEAPON THESIS Presented to The
    371l MoA1Y IMPEACHMENT AS A POLITICAL WEAPON THESIS Presented to the Graduate Council of the North Texas State University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS By Sally Jean Bumpas Collins, B. A. Denton, Texas December, 1977 Collins, Sally J, B., Impeachment as a Political Weapon. Master of Arts (History), December, 1977, 135 pp., appendices, bibliography, 168 titles, This study is concerned with the problem of determining the nature of impeachable offenses through an analysis of the English theory of impeachment, colonial impeachment practice, debates in the constitutional convention and the state rati- fying conventions, The Federalist Papers and debates in the first Congress, In addition, the precedents established in American cases of impeachment particularly in the trials of Judge John Pickering, Justice Samuel Chase and President Andrew Johnson are examined. Materials for the study included secondary sources, con- gressional records, memoirs, contemporary accounts, government documents, newspapers and trial records, The thesis concludes that impeachable of fenses include non-indictable behavior and exclude misconduct outside official duties and recommends some alternative method of removal for federal judges. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF IMPEACHMENT ,, . ! e ! I 9I1I 1 ITI THE IMPEACHMENT ISSUE IN EARLY AMERICAN HISTORY I I I I I I I I 12 III. THE PICKERING TRIAL . 32 IV. THE CHASE TRIAL ... ... 0 . .0. .. 51 V. EPILOGUE AND CONCLUSION 77 .... 0 0 -APPENDICES0.---
    [Show full text]
  • Vania Is Especi
    THE PUNISHMENT OF CRIME IN PROVINCIAL PENNSYLVANIA HE history of the punishment of crime in provincial Pennsyl- vania is especially interesting, not only as one aspect of the Tbroad problem of the transference of English institutions to America, a phase of our development which for a time has achieved a somewhat dimmed significance in a nationalistic enthusiasm to find the conditioning influence of our development in that confusion and lawlessness of our own frontier, but also because of the influence of the Quakers in the development df our law. While the general pat- tern of the criminal law transferred from England to Pennsylvania did not differ from that of the other colonies, in that the law and the courts they evolved to administer the law, like the form of their cur- rency, their methods of farming, the games they played, were part of their English cultural heritage, the Quakers did arrive in the new land with a new concept of the end of the criminal law, and proceeded immediately to give force to this concept by statutory enactment.1 The result may be stated simply. At a time when the philosophy of Hobbes justified any punishment, however harsh, provided it effec- tively deterred the occurrence of a crime,2 when commentators on 1 Actually the Quakers voiced some of their views on punishment before leaving for America in the Laws agreed upon in England, wherein it was provided that all pleadings and process should be short and in English; that prisons should be workhouses and free; that felons unable to make satisfaction should become bond-men and work off the penalty; that certain offences should be published with double satisfaction; that estates of capital offenders should be forfeited, one part to go to the next of kin of the victim and one part to the next of kin of the criminal; and that certain offences of a religious and moral nature should be severely punished.
    [Show full text]
  • Video-Recorded Decapitations - a Seemingly Perfect Terrorist Tactic That Did Not Spread Martin Harrow DIIS Working Paper 2011:08 WORKING PAPER
    DIIS working paper DIIS WORKING PAPER 2011:08 Video-recorded Decapitations - A seemingly perfect terrorist tactic that did not spread Martin Harrow DIIS Working Paper 2011:08 WORKING PAPER 1 DIIS WORKING PAPER 2011:08 MARTIN HARROW MSC, PhD, Consulting Analyst at DIIS [email protected] DIIS Working Papers make available DIIS researchers’ and DIIS project partners’ work in progress towards proper publishing. They may include important documentation which is not necessarily published elsewhere. DIIS Working Papers are published under the responsibility of the author alone. DIIS Working Papers should not be quoted without the express permission of the author. DIIS WORKING PAPER 2011:08 © Copenhagen 2011 Danish Institute for International Studies, DIIS Strandgade 56, DK-1401 Copenhagen, Denmark Ph: +45 32 69 87 87 Fax: +45 32 69 87 00 E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.diis.dk Cover Design: Carsten Schiøler Layout: Ellen-Marie Bentsen Printed in Denmark by Vesterkopi AS ISBN: 978-87-7605-449-6 Price: DKK 25.00 (VAT included) DIIS publications can be downloaded free of charge from www.diis.dk 2 DIIS WORKING PAPER 2011:08 CONTENTS Abstract 4 Introduction 5 Decapitation as a weapon 5 Video-recorded decapitations 2002-2009 8 The reproductive dynamics of terrorist tactics 11 The accessibility of video-recorded decapitations as a tactic 12 Effectiveness of terrorism – impacting two different audiences 14 Why not video-recorded decapitations? 18 Iraq 18 Afghanistan 19 The West 20 Conclusion 21 List of References 23 DIIS WORKING PAPER 2011:08 ABSTracT Video-recorded decapitations have an enormous impact, they are cheap and easy, and they allow the terrorists to exploit the potential of the Internet.
    [Show full text]
  • Individual Liberty and the Common Good - the Balance: Prayer, Capital Punishment, Abortion
    The Catholic Lawyer Volume 20 Number 3 Volume 20, Summer 1974, Number 3 Article 5 Individual Liberty and the Common Good - The Balance: Prayer, Capital Punishment, Abortion Brendan F. Brown Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/tcl Part of the Constitutional Law Commons This Pax Romana Congress Papers is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Catholic Lawyer by an authorized editor of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY AND THE COMMON GOOD-THE BALANCE: PRAYER, CAPITAL PUNISHMENT, ABORTION BRENDAN F. BROWN* In striking the balance between individual freedom and the common good of society, judges are relying "on ideology or policy preference more than on legislative intent."' Professor Jude P. Dougherty, President-elect of the American Catholic Philosophical Association, has declared that "this is particulary apparent in actions of the United States Supreme Court where the envisaged effects of a decision are often given more weight than the intentions of the framers of the Constitution or of the legislators who passed the law under consideration."' The dominant trend of the United States judiciary is to begin its reasoning with "liberty" or "free- dom" as the ultimate moral value in the Franco-American sense of maxi- mum individual self-assertion, and then to maximize it. It will be the purpose of this paper to show that "liberty" or "freedom" is only an instrumental moral value, and that by treating it otherwise, the courts are damaging the common good of society.
    [Show full text]
  • "Judicial Corruption"
    16/06/2017 Gmail - "JUDICIAL CORRUPTION" William Finnerty <[email protected]> "JUDICIAL CORRUPTION" William Finnerty <[email protected]> Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 3:10 PM To: "First Minister of Northern Ireland Arlene Foster LL.B. MLA" <[email protected]>, [email protected], "Northern Ireland Justice Department, Case Ref: COR/1248/2016" <private.office@justice- ni.x.gsi.gov.uk>, Northern Ireland Justice Minister Claire Sugden MLA <[email protected]>, Northern Ireland Minister For Finance Máirtín Ó Muilleoir MLA <[email protected]>, Northern Ireland Minister for Health Michelle O'Neill MLA <[email protected]>, [email protected], "Lawyer Paul J. O'Kane LL.B." <[email protected]>, "Lawyer Aoife McShane LL.B." <[email protected]>, Lawyer Rory McShane <[email protected]>, Lawyer Mary Doherty <[email protected]>, "Lawyer Ronan McGuigan, LL.B. Solicitor Advocate" <[email protected]>, "Lawyer Jacqueline Malone LL.B. Solicitor Advocate" <[email protected]>, "Lawyer Louise Moley LL.B." <[email protected]>, "Lawyer Ann Marie Featherstone LL.B. LL.M." <[email protected]>, Sheila McGuigan <[email protected]>, McGuigan Malone Solicitors <[email protected]>, "Lawyer Ronan Haughey of ML White Solicitors Ltd, Newry, Northern Ireland" <[email protected]>, "John Mackell, Director of Client (Solicitor)
    [Show full text]