Court Opinion

ID: 9744959
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 22:25:13.290448+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:53.929189
License: Public Domain

Tauro, C. J.
(concurring). Justice Quirico, speaking in dissent, states that the majority in this case as well as in O’Neal II feel that “the General Court has somehow lost the constitutional power ... to mandate, as matter of legislative judgment and policy, that the penalty for the crime of rape-murder shall be death,” and concludes that he and Justices Reardon and Braucher “[adhere] to the position that under the Constitution of this Commonwealth the General Court still has . . . [this] power.” I am quite confident that Justice Quirico does not wish to leave the impression (as might be inferred) that in *320rape-murder cases the Supreme Judicial Court has “somehow lost the . . . power” and responsibility, on review, to pass on the constitutionality of the statute in question — because this is all we have done, no more and no less. I am sure that even the most ardent advocate of the Legislature’s prerogatives would not argue that legislative views on the constitutionality of any statute are final and not subject to review by this court.
Of course the General Court has the power and the duty to exercise “legislative judgment and policy.” Such exercise of judgment and policy is entitled to the utmost respect by this court. Moreover, the Justices should never substitute their views on matters of judgment and policy for those of the Legislature. However, it always has been and still is our solemn constitutional and statutory obligation to make the ultimate decision on constitutional questions. This is precisely what the majority have done.