Court Opinion

ID: 9712819
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:00:39.698008+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:14.599044
License: Public Domain

Hennessey, J.
(concurring). I have joined Justices Kaplan and Wilkins in a concurring opinion which emphasizes, among other things, the importance of art. 26 of the Declaration of Rights of the Massachusetts Constitution. See the similar emphasis by the Chief Justice in n. 5 of the main opinion. I must add that I do not share the apparent reservations of Justices Kaplan and Wilkins about the pertinence of the Federal due process clause and the related compelling State interest test. Such a discussion would be relevant and useful, particularly because this line of reasoning apparently has not previously been explored. As stated by Mr. Justice Harlan, “[T]he very breadth and generality of the [Fourteenth] Amendment’s provisions suggest that its authors did not suppose that the Nation would always be limited *453to mid-19th century conceptions of ‘liberty’ and ‘due process of law’ but that the increasing experience and evolving conscience of the American people would add new ‘intermediate premises.’” Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145, 175 (1968) (Harlan, J., dissenting). This court must examine all relevant reasoning, including the argument that new standards of compassion have made the death penalty unconstitutional. Furman v. Georgia, 408 U. S. 238, 371 (1972) (Marshall, J., concurring).