Still more baby mama perspectives, this time from Marquette University professor of law Michael O'Hear (one of whose scholarly specialities is sentencing law and policy). Very interesting stuff.
Of course, had the court of appeals imported into its decision the social sciences literature that Prof. O'Hear mentions, some observers would have thrown a hairy fit on those grounds alone.
Personally, I don't have a problem with the courts doing that — so long as it's empirically sound — and neither did the framers of the federal sentencing guidelines, as Prof. O'Hear demonstrates.
The body of law should, and does, evolve. I'm amused by those who deride the strawman of "living Constitution proponents." The text of the Constitution may not change, but when it finds application in a changing and (hopefully) maturing society, those results may vary.
Not because the Constitution has changed, but because we have.
Just out of curiosity, how have we changed?
ReplyDeleteLet's see ... we're burning fewer witches?
ReplyDeleteLet's see ... we're burning fewer witches?
ReplyDeleteThere are some who think that's a mistake.
More tolerance is the major change you see to justify an evolving interpretation of the constitution?
ReplyDeleteGreater tolerance=burning fewer witches?
ReplyDeleteAnon, wouldn't you say the people's idea of what constitutes "cruel and unusual" has changed somewhat since the 18th century?
ReplyDeleteI mean, assuming you're not a senior attorney with the Bush Justice Department ...
"people's idea of what constitutes "cruel and unusual" has changed somewhat since the 18th century?"
ReplyDeleteIt appears you're still talking tolerance as your only justification to change the constitution.
I never said a thing about changing the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteThe text of the Constitution may not change, but when it finds application in a changing and (hopefully) maturing society, those results may vary.
ReplyDeleteI thought you were pretty clear, Tom.
I am sorry; you did say the constitution does not change.
ReplyDeleteI meant to say it appears that tolerance is your only justification for changing what the constitution means.
Anon, what process is due?
ReplyDeleteIT -
ReplyDeleteHow have we changed?