Wilson Ring
7/6/08
The Boston Globe
Click Here For Article
This is an almost perfect example of Federalism Vs. Anti-Federalism, (ideally the conflict would be that the federal government does not want the death penalty, and the state government does). The state law dictates that no person can face capital punishment, under any circumstances, so an Anti-Federalist would argue that a person shouldn't just be able to use Federal law to their advantage, because state law should have more power. However, a Federalist would argue just the opposite - the state should be allowed to follow it's own laws, and override them to call upon Federal laws when necessary.
I am torn on this issue, because I don't feel like the Central Government should have quite as much
power over the states as it does now, but I also feel that the states shouldn't have an excessive amount of power. I believe that in a case such as this, the prosecutors would be right to call upon Federal law, and request capital punishment. However, in other cases, what may be best for the country as a whole may not be best for that particular region. There is no one side to this issue, and I cannot decide between any of them. Therefore, I remain an impartial observer.
Although it has been over 50 years since the state of Vermont had anyone executed, that is now what they are considering doing for the alleged kidnapper in a missing c
hild's case. This issue was sparked after the disappearance (and presumed death) of 12 year old Brooke Bennett. The death penalty was outlawed in Vermont in 1965, however, the current Federal law allows for capital punishment. This is a conflict that the people involved with the case are now having to deal with. They need to decide whether they should only go for maximum punishment of what the current state law allows, or go with a law that has been been outlawed and invalidated.
hild's case. This issue was sparked after the disappearance (and presumed death) of 12 year old Brooke Bennett. The death penalty was outlawed in Vermont in 1965, however, the current Federal law allows for capital punishment. This is a conflict that the people involved with the case are now having to deal with. They need to decide whether they should only go for maximum punishment of what the current state law allows, or go with a law that has been been outlawed and invalidated.This is an almost perfect example of Federalism Vs. Anti-Federalism, (ideally the conflict would be that the federal government does not want the death penalty, and the state government does). The state law dictates that no person can face capital punishment, under any circumstances, so an Anti-Federalist would argue that a person shouldn't just be able to use Federal law to their advantage, because state law should have more power. However, a Federalist would argue just the opposite - the state should be allowed to follow it's own laws, and override them to call upon Federal laws when necessary.
I am torn on this issue, because I don't feel like the Central Government should have quite as much
power over the states as it does now, but I also feel that the states shouldn't have an excessive amount of power. I believe that in a case such as this, the prosecutors would be right to call upon Federal law, and request capital punishment. However, in other cases, what may be best for the country as a whole may not be best for that particular region. There is no one side to this issue, and I cannot decide between any of them. Therefore, I remain an impartial observer.
No comments:
Post a Comment