Juvenile death penalty unconstitutional

alonzomourning23

CAGiversary!
Feedback
26 (100%)
http://us.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/01/scotus.death.penalty.ap/index.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the Constitution forbids the execution of killers who were under 18 when they committed their crimes, ending a practice used in 19 states.

The 5-4 decision throws out the death sentences of about 70 juvenile murderers and bars states from seeking to execute minors for future crimes.

The executions, the court said, violate the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

The ruling continues the court's practice of narrowing the scope of the death penalty, which justices reinstated in 1976. The court in 1988 outlawed executions for those 15 and younger when they committed their crimes. Three years ago justices banned executions of the mentally retarded.

Tuesday's ruling prevents states from making 16- and 17-year-olds eligible for execution.

"The age of 18 is the point where society draws the line for many purposes between childhood and adulthood. It is, we conclude, the age at which the line for death eligibility ought to rest," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote.

Juvenile offenders have been put to death in recent years in only a few other countries, including Iran, Pakistan, China and Saudi Arabia. Kennedy cited international opposition to the practice.

"It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty, resting in large part on the understanding that the instability and emotional imbalance of young people may often be a factor in the crime," he wrote.

Kennedy noted most states don't allow the execution of juvenile killers and those that do use the penalty infrequently. The trend, he said, is to abolish the practice because "our society views juveniles ... as categorically less culpable than the average criminal."

In a dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia disputed that there is a clear trend of declining juvenile executions to justify a growing consensus against the practice.

"The court says in so many words that what our people's laws say about the issue does not, in the last analysis, matter: 'In the end our own judgment will be brought to bear on the question of the acceptability of the death penalty,"' he wrote.

"The court thus proclaims itself sole arbiter of our nation's moral standards," Scalia wrote.

The Supreme Court has permitted states to impose capital punishment since 1976 and more than 3,400 inmates await execution in the 38 states that allow death sentences.

Justices were called on to draw an age line in death cases after Missouri's highest court overturned the death sentence given to Christopher Simmons, who was 17 when he kidnapped a neighbor, hog-tied her and threw her off a bridge in 1993. Prosecutors say he planned the burglary and killing of Shirley Crook and bragged that he could get away with it because of his age.

The four most liberal justices had already gone on record in 2002, calling it "shameful" to execute juvenile killers. Those four, joined by Kennedy, formed Tuesday's decision: Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, Justice Clarence Thomas and Scalia, as expected, voted to uphold the executions. They were joined by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

The 19 states allow executions for people under age 18 are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Utah, Texas and Virginia.

On a side note, I never knew new hampshire had the death penalty.
 
Several states have the death penalty enacted but haven't exercised it. Pennsylvania has it and I believe we've executed one person in the last 30 years, Tom Ridge was governor.

I'm glad to see this. I'm for the death penalty but for minors it should never apply. I say the same thing about someone with a room temperature IQ. When governors go out and brag about their tough stance on crime while executing a near retard boils my blood. There's nothing moral about executing a person who doesn't understand either what's happening to them or what it is they did was wrong.

Bush and Clinton were both guilty of the latter during their initial Presidential bids and it sickened me.

Of all the things that I'm changing my views on as I age is the death penalthy. I no longer see it as black and white as I did due to the stories above and the new cases that are resolved and solved through new DNA testing. The thought that we're executing an innocent man makes me sick to the point of vomiting and wants to make me abolish this.

Then of course we have a John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy or Jeffery Dahmer that makes the death penalty seem tame as a punishment. This is an issue that is not as simple as oppents or supporters make it out to be and one area where I won't claim my opinion is entirely correct.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']
Of all the things that I'm changing my views on as I age is the death penalthy. I no longer see it as black and white as I did due to the stories above and the new cases that are resolved and solved through new DNA testing. The thought that we're executing an innocent man makes me sick to the point of vomiting and wants to make me abolish this.

[/quote]

That's where I started too, now I'm completely opposed to it. You should watch The Life of David Gale. Excellent movie that makes a good point about the death penalty. I don't believe in murder at all, no matter if its the government doing it or 2 people in an argument. I've been getting into more and more criminology theory lately as I've progressed into getting my degree (criminal justice) and almost all the major criminology theorists see the death penalty as barbaric. Funny thing is, for most of the theorists, its the only idea they had that we haven't taken into consideration for our criminal justice process.
 
Depite my saying I understand the death penalty for Dahmer, Gacy, Bundy there's as much of me that would rather study their biological, enviromental and social conditions that made them what they were. There's nothing that would please society more than to have a "cure" for non-sensical or mass murder because we understand the nature of what causes it.

I saw the Life of David Gale, there's a huge difference between that and an innocent man, he wanted to be put to death. He wanted to create as many circumstances that would be put in context to put him to death under existing systems of justice. He wanted to abuse the system, have it work to expose it for an end cause.

My best media/story example of why my death penalty stance has softened was the story of Cyril O'Reilly on Oz. How he started out normal, was beaten and brain damaged to where he was an 8 year old mentally, then slowly slipped even further from understanding any kind of reality.

I can understand the major talking points on both sides.
 
Some kids do some pretty sick things. Like the two 10 year-olds in England that lured a 6 year-old out to play and then killed him by bashing his head in.

I have a real problem with 15-17 year-olds getting a free ride on their classification as minors. If minors aren't going to get the death penalty, I think a reclassification of "minor" is in order.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']

I saw the Life of David Gale, there's a huge difference between that and an innocent man, he wanted to be put to death. He wanted to create as many circumstances that would be put in context to put him to death under existing systems of justice. He wanted to abuse the system, have it work to expose it for an end cause.
[/quote]

Yeah that's the whole point. What the movie was saying is that it is possible to exploit the system to have an innocent man put to death.
 
[quote name='camoor']I have a real problem with 15-17 year-olds getting a free ride on their classification as minors. If minors aren't going to get the death penalty, I think a reclassification of "minor" is in order.[/quote]

The 15-17 age range is such a gray area in terms of their maturity. Legally, of course, they are not adults and thus their crimes are viewed differently. But really, I don't think the leap in maturity from 15 to 18 is all that great.

(IMO) By 15, you pretty much know right from wrong, and the values you've learned from your parents and social environment are engrained in you (much like an 18 y.o., a 22 y.o., and so on...) A 15/16-year old is able to to make decisions (good and bad) and know what the consequences are (whether they care or not is a different story). Again, the law does not view 15-17-year olds in this manner.

I think that this age range needs to be re-examined in terms of punishment for serious/violent crimes.
 
My thing is, if you can't vote or do any of the things that comes with being an adult, society has deemed you are not a fully competent adult and should not be punished as if you are.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']My thing is, if you can't vote or do any of the things that comes with being an adult, society has deemed you are not a fully competent adult and should not be punished as if you are.[/quote]

Very true. Another interesting thing, related but not the same, is the case of that 15 year old boy being sentenced to 30 years in prison last week. It was a pretty well reported case because he attempted to use the defense of being on Zoloft at the time. Regardless of that, he was 12 at the time of the killings. He set his grandparent's house on fire and killed them in the fire. I mean it would be one thing if he shot them or stabbed them, or otherwise did something right to their face but you can honestly tell me that at 12 years old he knew what murder really was? Now he's going to spend the next 30 years in jail, can anyone honestly tell me that when he's paroled he's going to be a "normal" 40 year old? They have essentially sentenced him to death (or something even worse) because he will never have a meaningful life now.
 
I'm glad to see the decision's result, even though there is some strange material in the decision itself which Justice Scalia rightly points out has no place in our jurisprudence.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']My thing is, if you can't vote or do any of the things that comes with being an adult, society has deemed you are not a fully competent adult and should not be punished as if you are.[/quote]

I agree, the ages for everything need to be reexamined.

Drinking age - Remove restrictions entirely (parents need to address this).
Movie ratings - Move the 18 mark to 15 (Cmon - you should be able to handle a pair of woman breasts by age 15)
Driving age - Just about right
Joining the military age - Just about right
 
[quote name='camoor'][quote name='alonzomourning23']My thing is, if you can't vote or do any of the things that comes with being an adult, society has deemed you are not a fully competent adult and should not be punished as if you are.[/quote]

I agree, the ages for everything need to be reexamined.

Drinking age - Remove restrictions entirely (parents need to address this).
Movie ratings - Move the 18 mark to 15 (Cmon - you should be able to handle a pair of woman breasts by age 15)
Driving age - Just about right
Joining the military age - Just about right[/quote]

Movie ratings need to focus more on violence, I like canada's system better (18a, 14a, pg, g). A lot of R rated american movies get a pg here, since they only got the r rating due to some sex and language. And a lot of violent movies, that got a pg13 in the u.s., get an 18a here. We just focus on sex when it should be on violence.

And removing the drinking age would be a disaster, it is not in our society to handle that. Some can, but not ours. Having 10 year old kids getting drunk will happen regularly, and there brain development will suffer for it. I want to say drop it to 18, but I also want to limit somewhat its use in high schools. I'd prefer 19, and 13 with parental suprvision and set limits (basically, a can of beer, glass of wine, a 12 oz glass of vodka would be illegal), though, admitadly, the limits could really only be enforced in restaurants, or if the drunk kid starts wandering around and a cop sees him. I'm not sure if I'd make the 13 so they could only drink in restaurants with parental supervision, instead of just anywhere (both combinations which are done in some countries).
 
I can't say I'm totally opposed to the death penalty because I shed no tears when true scum like Tim McVeigh or someone is executed. But I do think the system we have for determining who is true scum is too flawed to even allow us to debate the morality of executing convicts.
 
[quote name='ElwoodCuse']I can't say I'm totally opposed to the death penalty because I shed no tears when true scum like Tim McVeigh or someone is executed. But I do think the system we have for determining who is true scum is too flawed to even allow us to debate the morality of executing convicts.[/quote]

My thing is, there's no harm in letting a mcveigh or bundy sit in jail. You prevent innocent people from being executed, or people given excessive punishments (same crime committed by a white man and a black man and the black man is more likely to be executed). So a serial killer sits in jail his whole life, at least the innocent man never loses his chance to eventually overturn his conviction.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23'][quote name='camoor'][quote name='alonzomourning23']My thing is, if you can't vote or do any of the things that comes with being an adult, society has deemed you are not a fully competent adult and should not be punished as if you are.[/quote]

I agree, the ages for everything need to be reexamined.

Drinking age - Remove restrictions entirely (parents need to address this).
Movie ratings - Move the 18 mark to 15 (Cmon - you should be able to handle a pair of woman breasts by age 15)
Driving age - Just about right
Joining the military age - Just about right[/quote]

Movie ratings need to focus more on violence, I like canada's system better (18a, 14a, pg, g). A lot of R rated american movies get a pg here, since they only got the r rating due to some sex and language. And a lot of violent movies, that got a pg13 in the u.s., get an 18a here. We just focus on sex when it should be on violence.

And removing the drinking age would be a disaster, it is not in our society to handle that. Some can, but not ours. Having 10 year old kids getting drunk will happen regularly, and there brain development will suffer for it. I want to say drop it to 18, but I also want to limit somewhat its use in high schools. I'd prefer 19, and 13 with parental suprvision and set limits (basically, a can of beer, glass of wine, a 12 oz glass of vodka would be illegal), though, admitadly, the limits could really only be enforced in restaurants, or if the drunk kid starts wandering around and a cop sees him. I'm not sure if I'd make the 13 so they could only drink in restaurants with parental supervision, instead of just anywhere (both combinations which are done in some countries).[/quote]

Great point about movie ratings - Ahnold can rip off a guy's arms, beat him with them, and get a PG-13 while one half-tit or F-word will get you the R (thank you to the inconsistent Christians hijacking the FCC)

As for the drinking - I've always been one who trusts the people over an overprotective parental-style government. Except when it comes to fingerprint resistent semi-automatic assault rifles. Who's really hunting ducks with those things?
 
From Amnesty International

The Death Penalty Gives Up On Juvenile Offenders

An almost universal prohibition exists on the execution of persons who were under the age of 18 at the time of the crime.

Since 2000, only five countries in the world are known to have executed juvenile offenders: China, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Iran, Pakistan, and the United States. Pakistan and China have abolished the juvenile death penalty, but there have been problems in nationwide compliance with the law.

In August 2000, the UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights resolved that the execution of people who were under the age of 18 at the time of the crime “is contrary to customary international law.” A principle of customary international law is a general practice accepted as law. It is binding on all countries, regardless of which treaties they have or have not ratified.

The United States and Somalia are the only countries in the world that have not ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/juveniles.html
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']From Amnesty International

The Death Penalty Gives Up On Juvenile Offenders

An almost universal prohibition exists on the execution of persons who were under the age of 18 at the time of the crime.

Since 2000, only five countries in the world are known to have executed juvenile offenders: China, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Iran, Pakistan, and the United States. Pakistan and China have abolished the juvenile death penalty, but there have been problems in nationwide compliance with the law.

In August 2000, the UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights resolved that the execution of people who were under the age of 18 at the time of the crime “is contrary to customary international law.” A principle of customary international law is a general practice accepted as law. It is binding on all countries, regardless of which treaties they have or have not ratified.

The United States and Somalia are the only countries in the world that have not ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/juveniles.html[/quote]

With as much sarcasm as possible, but we're the most advanced, moralstic society in the world. I mean we lead the globe in progessive movements don't we?
 
[quote name='camoor'][quote name='alonzomourning23'][quote name='camoor'][quote name='alonzomourning23']My thing is, if you can't vote or do any of the things that comes with being an adult, society has deemed you are not a fully competent adult and should not be punished as if you are.[/quote]

I agree, the ages for everything need to be reexamined.

Drinking age - Remove restrictions entirely (parents need to address this).
Movie ratings - Move the 18 mark to 15 (Cmon - you should be able to handle a pair of woman breasts by age 15)
Driving age - Just about right
Joining the military age - Just about right[/quote]

Movie ratings need to focus more on violence, I like canada's system better (18a, 14a, pg, g). A lot of R rated american movies get a pg here, since they only got the r rating due to some sex and language. And a lot of violent movies, that got a pg13 in the u.s., get an 18a here. We just focus on sex when it should be on violence.

And removing the drinking age would be a disaster, it is not in our society to handle that. Some can, but not ours. Having 10 year old kids getting drunk will happen regularly, and there brain development will suffer for it. I want to say drop it to 18, but I also want to limit somewhat its use in high schools. I'd prefer 19, and 13 with parental suprvision and set limits (basically, a can of beer, glass of wine, a 12 oz glass of vodka would be illegal), though, admitadly, the limits could really only be enforced in restaurants, or if the drunk kid starts wandering around and a cop sees him. I'm not sure if I'd make the 13 so they could only drink in restaurants with parental supervision, instead of just anywhere (both combinations which are done in some countries).[/quote]

Great point about movie ratings - Ahnold can rip off a guy's arms, beat him with them, and get a PG-13 while one half-tit or F-word will get you the R (thank you to the inconsistent Christians hijacking the FCC)

As for the drinking - I've always been one who trusts the people over an overprotective parental-style government. Except when it comes to fingerprint resistent semi-automatic assault rifles. Who's really hunting ducks with those things?[/quote]

I forget the exact rules, but pg-13 movies are allowed one fuck depending on the manner which it is used.
 
14 year olds can now commit horrible murders...I am not sure a 14 or 15 year old that commits a serious murder is ever going to be anything but a criminal..especially since they will most likely be institutionalized no matter what the death penalty age is. Imagine some ass wipe gang member at the age of 14 kills someone while commiting a crime. How long does this person go to jail for? Do you really want this person in society again? Will this person really be reformed?
 
[quote name='defender']14 year olds can now commit horrible murders...I am not sure a 14 or 15 year old that commits a serious murder is ever going to be anything but a criminal..especially since they will most likely be institutionalized no matter what the death penalty age is. Imagine some ass wipe gang member at the age of 14 kills someone while commiting a crime. How long does this person go to jail for? Do you really want this person in society again? Will this person really be reformed?[/quote]

A gang member is a very good candidate for reform, especially a 14 year old one. Someone who commits a murder for a gang, or because someone disrespected the gang, is much more likely to be able to be reformed. The unprovoked, premeditated murders, without outside influences are the hardest to reform.
 
bread's done
Back
Top