And If Belgium Jumped Off the Roof. . . .

Note to the Blogosphere: We've discovered the secret to attracting readers: Dis Los Lobos! After our (frankly, mild) statements expresing lack of interest in the music of Los Lobos, we were inundated by irate comments. Suffice to say, we have satisfactorily answered for ourselves the question of whether anyone's favorite band is Los Lobos.

To all those Loboistas: While we respect your passion, we stand by our judgment. To each his/her own. For all we know, you have similar apathy towards truly great artists like Elvis Costello or Bruce Springsteen--we're cool with that.

We can't help but wonder, though: Do these guys spend their days trawling Technorati for perceived slights to Los Lobos? If so, we hope the band is at least paying their expenses or giving them autographed t-shirts or something.
******************************************
Now, to today's business:


The Supreme Court has ruled that sentencing juveniles to life without the possibility of parole (LWOP--seriously, that’s how people acronymize it!) for crimes that do not result in fatalities constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Fair enough. We have no problem with the decision on the merits (the Supremes are no-doubt relieved to hear that their decision is kid-friendly, Solipsist-approved). Whether it is “cruel and unusual” to sentence a teenager to “living death” is open to debate, but it’s a philosophically questionable policy. A 16-year-old's heinous (though non-homicidal) crime may seem to call for permanent removal from society. Still, by the time, say, 20 years have passed, that 36-year-old inmate is not the same person who committed the crime; he may be better, he may be worse, but it's reasonable to at least consider the possibility of redemption, the possibility that this person may become a productive member of society instead of a perpetual and permanent drain.

While we applaud the decision, though, we have some questions about the underlying reasoning, part of which rests on the fact that LWOP for juveniles is a rare sentencing option in the civilized world: “The judgment of the world’s nations that a particular sentencing practice is inconsistent with basic principles of decency,” Justice Kennedy wrote, “demonstrates that the court’s rationale has respected reasoning to support it.”

But this raises the question of whether the Supreme Court should consider international jurisprudence when deciding American cases. As much as we hate to agree with Clarence Thomas--and believe us, we HATE to agree with Clarence Thomas--we think the answer is, “No.” In an otherwise frothing and frankly wackadoodle dissent--

[Digression: To emphasize how much we disagree with nutbag Thomas, we highlight his conclusion that LWOP is appropriate because the Founding Fathers would have sentenced these youth to death. As retiring icon Justice John Paul Stevens aptly riposted: “Justice Thomas would apparently not rule out a death sentence for a $50 theft by a 7-year-old. Knowledge accumulates. We learn, sometimes, from our mistakes." EOD)

--as we were saying, in an otherwise frothing and frankly wackadoodle dissent, Thomas states that "foreign laws and sentencing practices” are “irrelevant to the meaning of our Constitution.”

He's right. The fact that most other countries forbid LWOP for juveniles is exactly as relevant to American jurisprudence as the fact that some other countries think the appropriate punishment for petty theft is non-surgical amputation, or that the appropriate punishment for rape is execution--of the victim. Rather than cite the fact that other countries do or do not do something as a justification, the justices would do better to cite the reasoning behind these other countries' actions--or better yet, offer logical reasoning of their own.

Monkey see, money do may be a truism, but it's lousy jurisprudence.