View Full Version : Supreme Court: No Death Penalty for Juveniles
Roguish Lawyer
03-01-2005, 13:05
So, what do y'all think about our left-wing Supreme Court? :eek:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/01/scotus.death.penalty.ap/index.html
High court: Juvenile death penalty unconstitutional
Tuesday, March 1, 2005 Posted: 1:10 PM EST (1810 GMT)
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.
Roguish Lawyer
03-01-2005, 13:09
"It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty."
-- Justice Kennedy
So now the Court not only is going to change the Constitution based on U.S. public opinion of the moment, but also based on international opinion?
POTUS has some very important appointments to make. He'd better not screw them up!
So now the Court not only is going to change the Constitution based on U.S. public opinion of the moment, but also based on international opinion?
:mad: I think they need to go back and re-read their job discription. :mad: :mad:
And about 100 more little mad faces.
Pete
The Reaper
03-01-2005, 15:29
So a 16 year old can operate an 8,000 pound motor vehicle on the public roads.
At 17, they can join the military and make life or death decisions in combat,
But at 17 years, 364 days, 2359 hours, they can take a life (or lives) premeditately, in a wanton act of terrorism, and are not of sufficient age to know right from wrong, which they would in 60 more seconds? Give me a break!
Looks like the anti-death penalty (but PRO-abortion) movement is doing to the death penalty what the anti-gunners (also anti-death penalty, in many cases) are doing to the Second Amendment. Death by a thousand cuts.
TR
Goggles Pizano
03-01-2005, 16:02
So now the Court not only is going to change the Constitution based on U.S. public opinion of the moment, but also based on international opinion?
POTUS has some very important appointments to make. He'd better not screw them up!
I concur. I am also in agreement with TR that decision making and responsibility (and subesquent lack thereof with criminal youth) are fostered long before age 18. This is ridiculous. :mad:
Let me give you someone to beat up on since I was never one to get on the band wagon and never afraid to speak my mind.
I'm not sure I agree with the court's reasoning but I frankly don't like capital punishment anyway. I am not going to argue the fact but I don't think the possible taking of one innocent life by mistake is worth it. Too many convictions have been reversed recently due to DNA evidence.
Sacamuelas
03-01-2005, 16:41
I am not going to argue the fact but I don't think the possible taking of one innocent life by mistake is worth it. Too many convictions have been reversed recently due to DNA evidence.
How about felons convicted with DNA evidence? Or that admit to the crime(s), with DNA evidence supporting the admission? Do they get the chair, needle, or whatever?
Is it really the possibility of innocence or the actual death penalty itself that you don't agree with? I am not attacking you , QRQ30... I am asking. :munchin
I don't agree with the death penalty except for perhaps some very extraordinary circumstances.
Punishment isn't a deterrent, The probability og getting caught is.
To me we aren't talking of punishment but revenge.
If we want vengence, shoot them as they "attempt to escape" and save everyone a bundle of money. Too many movies have been made of the country club conditions in prison. Try spending a week in a 4X6 cell, locked up for 23 hours a day and a concrete slab for a bed/seat and a bucket to shit and pee in. Many have chosen death over such a life.
Too many court proceedings I have witnessed have had less to do with who's right and more with who wins. There is too ucch politics. I agree with previous examples of people at or just under 18 but how do we justify trying pre-teens, some with single digit ages, as adults?
Now as to the original premise, I don't understand how age has anything to do with the constitution.
Roguish Lawyer
03-01-2005, 16:59
Revenge is not a bad thing. Also, capital punishment prevents recidivism, and it could do so less expensively than permanent incapacitation if we did not allow endless appeals and collateral attacks on criminal judgments.
Sacamuelas
03-01-2005, 17:02
Too many movies have been made of the country club conditions in prison. Try spending a week in a 4X6 cell, locked up for 23 hours a day and a concrete slab for a bed/seat and a bucket to shit and pee in. Many have chosen death over such a life.
Trust me, I am familiar with prison life in America. I worked at a prison for a couple of years. Life at a prison in the USA is nothing like what you describe. It's really to bad it isn't as you describe above for violent ones. That would be nice for those P.O.S.'s while they wait to get fried. :D
I don't agree with the death penalty except for perhaps some very extraordinary circumstances.
You take a life with intent and malice, you owe your life.
If a case was built only on an eye witness or two I would not be for the death penalty. Far too many eye witness' are not reliable.
In this day and age I am content to put maters into the hands of the jury. # 1.) Is there enough evidence to convict on "Murder 1" # 2.) Is there enough mitigating circumstances to opt for the death penalty. If it's Yes/Yes then give them a couple of quick appeals and then it's the long drop after a good meal.
Just my opinion of course.
Pete
As for the original premise, I think the Supreme court is doing too much legislating and too much executing and not enough judiciating (interpreting).
I will not participate in a forum on capital punishment. It is like arguing religion. I would vote against capital punishment if asked yet would still have no problem serving in a jury and judging fairly even if the death penalty would be the result. I just obey the laws and nobody says you have to like them.
NousDefionsDoc
03-01-2005, 17:25
I agree with the decision. I disagree with the motive.
Bravo1-3
03-02-2005, 00:51
So now the Court not only is going to change the Constitution based on U.S. public opinion of the moment, but also based on international opinion?
And this from a Reagan appointee?
They set the bar way too low in this opinon. The rationale that someone who is 17 years, 11 months and 27 days old can not form the same level of intent as someone can on their 18th birthday is beyond my ability to comprehend. They should have left capacity to form intent as an individual case by case burden on the prosecutors. This is dillution of states rights.
I'm not even thinking about the circumstances of the specific case in question, which is horrific on a level rarely seen. The death penalty was written for crimes of this nature.
While public opinion may have some merit in the interpretation of the Constitution, International opinion is way outside of the courts scope. I'm not one who normally second guesses the US Supreme Court, but in this case they got it wrong.
So, what do y'all think about our left-wing Supreme Court?
I can't tell you how many lectures I've sat through in which the annointed professor uses the term "This conservative Supreme Court", using the term conservative as a purjorative. I usually interrupt and ask them what is so conservative about a court that upholds affirmative action, refuses to hear appeals that could have adverse effects on Roe v. Wade, tells people on State Scholarships that they can't study Theology etc? What the hell do they want to see this court do? Take away private property and nationalize the means of production and distribution before they see this court for what it is?
Roguish Lawyer
03-02-2005, 00:53
Kennedy is very much a swing vote on the Court. He votes with the conservatives sometimes and the libs sometimes. But he seems to be moving to the left as he gets older. He's not nearly as bad as Souter, who the elder Bush appointed. He is a total leftie.
Roguish Lawyer
03-02-2005, 04:01
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006361
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
The Blue State Court
The Justices continue their liberal social activism.
Wednesday, March 2, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST
Justice Anthony Kennedy has many attributes, but judicial modesty isn't one of them. His latest legislative diktat in the guise of a legal decision--issued yesterday in Roper v. Simmons--overturns 19 state laws on behalf of a "national consensus" that he alone seems to have defined.
Yesterday's ruling concerned a death penalty case, which isn't something we usually write about. But what makes Roper notable, and worthy of wider debate, is the way it symbolizes the current Supreme Court's burst of liberal social activism. From gay rights to racial preferences and now to the death penalty, a narrow majority of Justices has been imposing its own blue-state cultural mores on the rest of the country. We suspect it is also inviting a political backlash.
No doubt most Americans will concede that the death penalty for 16- and 17-year-olds is a difficult moral question. That is why different U.S. states have different laws on the matter, and we'd probably oppose such executions if we sat in a legislature. But rather than defer to the will of voters as expressed through state legislatures and at least two ballot initiatives (in Arizona and Florida), Roper imposes the view of five justices that the execution of 16- and 17-year-olds is both wrong and unconstitutional. As Justice Antonin Scalia writes in a dissent that is even more pungent than his usual offerings, "The court thus proclaims itself sole arbiter of our nation's moral standards."
Justice Kennedy rests his decision on his assertion that American society has reached a "national consensus" against capital punishment for juveniles, and that laws allowing it contravene modern "standards of decency." His evidence for this "consensus" is that of the 38 states that permit capital punishment, 18 have laws prohibiting the execution of murderers under the age of 18. As we do the math, that's a minority of 47% of those states. The dozen states that have no death penalty offer no views about special immunity for juveniles--and all 12 permit 16- and 17-year-olds to be treated as adults when charged with non-capital offenses.
This idea of invoking state laws to define a "consensus" also runs up against any number of notable Supreme Court precedents, including Roe v. Wade. When Roe was decided in 1973, all 50 states had some prohibition against abortion on the books. But never mind.
Even weaker is the Roper majority's selective reliance on scientific and sociological "evidence"--the kind that legislatures (and juries) are used to weighing. The American Psychological Association claims in this case that killers under the age of 18 are incapable of making appropriate moral judgments. But this is the same organization that has told the Court in the past that teen-age girls are mature enough to decide whether to have an abortion without parental input. Which is it?
Perhaps the most troubling feature of Roper is that it extends the High Court's recent habit of invoking foreign opinion in order to overrule American laws. "It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty," Justice Kennedy writes. We thought the Constitution was the final arbiter of U.S. law, but apparently that's passé.
In invoking international "opinion," however, the majority also seems rather selective. Justice Kennedy cites the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which outlaws the juvenile death penalty. But that Convention also prohibits imprisonment without parole for juvenile offenders--a penalty favored by some, if not all, 50 states. Is the Court ready to sign on to that international standard too?
Such inconsistency suggests that the real reason this Court has taken to invoking "international opinion" is because it is one more convenient rationale that the Justices can use to make their own moral values the law of the land. And it is no surprise that Justice Kennedy's majority opinion is joined by the four liberal Justices who have long been on record as opposing the juvenile death penalty--Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens. In Roper they finally found a case, and an inventive legal hook, on which they could lure Justice Kennedy.
If there is a silver lining to this case, it is that it probably disqualifies Justice Kennedy from any consideration to be promoted to Chief Justice when William Rehnquist resigns. Some in Washington, and even some in the Bush Administration, have floated this possibility as a way to ensure an easy Senate confirmation. But we doubt that the red-state voters who re-elected President Bush, and gave Republicans a larger majority in the Senate, did so to promote a Justice who thinks their values are an affront to "standards of decency."
Jack Moroney (RIP)
03-02-2005, 06:34
I think before the supreme court uses international opinion to decide our fate they need to get off their butts and spend a few weeks to see why those countries do what they do and how they evolved, or failed to evolve, to reach that state. All teenagers are not created equally and some grow old at a very early age. I have mixed feelings about capital punishment, however based upon what I have seen from our courts, should anyone ever do harm to my family or friends I am sure that I would prefer that those black dress wearing jurists not get involved with my desired dispensing of justice that I felt was most appropriate.
Jack Moroney
Take away the State's right to take the life of a person under the age of 18 that is convicted of a heinous crime?
This makes as much sense as taking away the right of a LEO to take the life of someone under the age of 18 that is shooting at them in the commission of a crime. Let's see, is he over 18? Can I shoot back? I'm 2 years away from retirement and don't want to go to jail with all of the people I put away in the last 28 years.
If we follow this logic, then underage participants in a combat zone should be spared too.
Maybe we should wait until they are out of ammo and then give them the hug that mommy and daddy didn't give them and send them on their way?
I am all for compassion, but I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one.
PC is for people not in the trenches. That's all this is, Politics.
I have up close and first hand professional experience on this topic.
A little background: In September 1995, I was hired as the senior investigator for the New York State Capital Defender Office. My jurisdiction was central and western New York. My responsibilities involved interviewing the defendant at length, spending months and at times years talking to them about all aspects of their alleged involvement in the murder. Also I did the complete soup to nuts forensic workup to include visiting the crime scene and securing the services of SME(s). I located and interviewed witnesses and examined and analyzed all LE, ME and lab documents. Essentially, I was primarily responsible for preparing the case for the 1st phase of the trial which was the determination of culpability.
Prior to taking the job, I was a strong supporter of the death penalty. However, after years of working within the system and observing all of its faults, I cannot with clear conscience support the death penalty as it is used in some states. Trust me when I say, I was not converted as a result of getting to know these very disturbed individuals. In fact, in some of the cases, I was revolted to the core of my being as it related to the facts and circumstance of the crime and I had no sympathy for the defendant, no matter the outcome of the trial.
However, in many instances I have personally witnessed extreme injustices to include working up a 1st degree murder case acquittal in New York State, one of the first since the laws return in 1995. In that particular case, I not only knew the defendant was “innocent” but I had located and interviewed one of the two individuals who I believed, and the evidence pointed to, had committed the murder. Do you know what the “murderer” said to me personally? He said the D.A. had instructed him not to talk to anyone. This meant that the D.A. was obstructing an on-going investigation, all because he had a “high-profile” case and was actually contemplating seeking the death penalty. Moreover, we provided the D.A. with a good-faith letter, outlining all the reasons why, to include identyfying the other indiviiduals who we belived had committed the crime, that he should dismiss the charges against the defendant. Well the D.A. took an even lower road, he chose not to seek death, but he still took the case forward as 1st degree Life Without Parole. In other words, he knew he had the wrong case, but, he thought he was too far into this and it was his first 1st degree case. Well as I noted above, it went to trial and the all white jury from the suburbs returned a not guilty verdict for the defendant who was a inner-city, middle aged, poor, African-American alcoholic.
Justice was served in that particular case, but only because the case was vigorously investigated from the very beginning not when the defendant is seeking relief in Federal Courts after being sentenced to death. Too many states, especially in the south, the courts only provide minimal financial resources. Not too long ago, Alabama provided defense counsel with $2,000 for the initial legal, investigative and administrative costs. When I had my own business, I typically billed that much in three to four days of investigation. Therefore, it is a fact, without dispute in my opinion, that the administration of the death penalty is terribly flawed and in many states, terminally so. (pardon the pun)
This doesn’t mean I totally oppose capital punishment, it simply means the death penalty should only be applied in a very small number of cases and only after a very thorough COMPETENT and comprehensive guilt phase investigation.
Just my take!
(edited to include additional pertinent information)
I rest my case with
www.fayettevillenc.com/story.php?Template=local&Story=6876230
They did it. They were chased down the highway and caught by LEOs who were in pursuit. They both got the death sentance but because one was 17 at the time he now is saved by our friends on the high court.
Read about all the murders at the end of the story. None of the defendants argue that they are inocent, just that they were under 18.
Take a life, give up your life.
Pete
brownapple
03-02-2005, 07:50
It's interesting that in a nation where people mature earlier by every scientific measure, we treat them as children longer.
In the 1800s, it wasn't uncommon for a teenager to have to take on the responsibilities of adults, even at 13 or 14. To be treated as an adult for all intensive purposes. And by every physical and psychological measurement, people mature faster today than ever before. Of course, they don't learn responsibility because they don't need to. We give them excuses. "They're only children".
And now the Supreme Court has given another excuse for not holding them responsible for their actions.
A 17 year old knows the difference between right and wrong. So does a 15 year old. So should a 12 year old. Crimes which call for the death penalty are not accidents, they are crimes that the person committing knew were wrong.
This is a step backward for American Justice.
GreenSalsa
03-02-2005, 08:55
As soon as you make some of these kids "immune" they will become the perfect assassin / thug…they will know they cant be touched.
I do believe in the death penalty in extreme and proven cases (if we put "mad dogs down" why cant we do the same to non-productive members of society).
Beyond "reasonable doubt" is the standard for conviction, the death penalty should be elevated to beyond a "shadow of a doubt"…in cases where there is overwhelming eyewitness and scientific evidence.
Once he (or she) is convicted, simply give them one last automatic appeal to review the legal process, and then type and cross match the accused for "organ harvesting". The accused will be wheeled into an operating room, and donors will be lined up. Simply put in my opinion, it is the only way that individual can repay his debt to society
:boohoo
Pete,
Thanks for the link. TR and I discussed this case today. I was coming back on I-95 from bow-hunting for deer when SGT Lowry passed me and pulled these two over. I did not see the shooting incident go down.
As a Soldier I didn't like it when the powers that be failed to support my mission. We owe it to these fallen LEO's to support them and render the death penalty to these two prisoners. I guess that's not going to happen with one of the two brothers now.
RIP Officers.
DOL
I rest my case with
www.fayettevillenc.com/story.php?Template=local&Story=6876230
They did it. They were chased down the highway and caught by LEOs who were in pursuit. They both got the death sentance but because one was 17 at the time he now is saved by our friends on the high court.
Read about all the murders at the end of the story. None of the defendants argue that they are inocent, just that they were under 18.
Take a life, give up your life.
Pete
I was coming back on I-95 from bow-hunting for deer when SGT Lowry passed me and pulled these two over. I did not see the shooting incident go down.
Without reading through all the back stories, IIRC somebody not too far behind you noticed the shooting and pulled over. When the "Poor Children" passed him he followed and using his cell phone relayed locations to LEOs. The brothers shot or tried to shoot at him a couple of times. His info was what allowed the police to corner them a bit up the road by Dunn somewhere.
He was just an average guy on the highway until he saw the shooting and then he did what more Americans should do. He got involved.
Too bad you were not just a bit slower getting in the car that day.
Pete
Without reading through all the back stories, IIRC somebody not too far behind you noticed the shooting and pulled over. When the "Poor Children" passed him he followed and using his cell phone relayed locations to LEOs. The brothers shot or tried to shoot at him a couple of times. His info was what allowed the police to corner them a bit up the road by Dunn somewhere.
He was just an average guy on the highway until he saw the shooting and then he did what more Americans should do. He got involved.
Too bad you were not just a bit slower getting in the car that day.
Pete
You are correct in what happened.
IIRC Pete his name was Ron Waters and he passed away several years ago.
He did an incredible deed that day.
RIP
http://www.nccrimecontrol.org/Newsrels/ronwater.htm
You guys can do a web search and get more info.
Ambush Master
03-02-2005, 18:52
Not to hijack, but there was a case here in Texas a few years back, where a hunter on his way home saw a perp overpower a DPS Officer. They wrestled for his gun and the Officer was killed. The hunter pulled over, got out of his vehicle and dropped the guy with his deer rifle. The DPS anonymously awarded the guy a Presentation .45 for his involvement !!
Later
Martin
Roguish Lawyer
03-02-2005, 19:06
Not to hijack, but there was a case here in Texas a few years back, where a hunter on his way home saw a perp overpower a DPS Officer. They wrestled for his gun and the Officer was killed. The hunter pulled over, got out of his vehicle and dropped the guy with his deer rifle. The DPS anonymously awarded the guy a Presentation .45 for his involvement !!
Later
Martin
Don't mess with Texas.
Bravo1-3
03-02-2005, 19:46
While many states are shying away from the death penalty, Texas is installing an express lane.
Goggles Pizano
03-02-2005, 20:20
Gratuitous Ron White plagiarisation B13? :D
...Texas is installing an express lane.And giving juvenile offenders equal access. 29 on death row.
The Reaper
03-02-2005, 20:59
I am going to lay it out for you people as I see it. This is just my personal observation and opinion.
There are animals among us of all ages, whether born or made that way by their environment. They will never be tamed or domesticated, no matter how many times you turn your cheek, they will be there to strike. The BTK Killer, Jeffrey Dahmer, David Berkowitz, Charles Manson, will never be normal functioning members of society. They are wolves among us in a society comprised mostly of sheep. Others of us choose to be the sheepdogs. Whether their crimes were committed at 12, 16, or 18, these wolves are incorrigable. They are sufficiently mature and intelligent to know right from wrong, but they do not believe it, do not care, or think that they are beyond the law. I think by the time we trust you to drive a car safely, you know that it is wrong to kidnap, torture, rape, and murder a 10 year old girl. Some people know right from wrong at 8, and some do not at 80. A young punk of 17 should know that it is wrong to kill another human. I do not want my kids exposed to the one who has failed to understand that, even if the murderer has been a model inmate for 50 years. I do not believe that these people are reformed.
Some of these people slide into an escalating series of criminal behavior, others just leap into their abberrant behavior full tilt. Few begin as hard core murderers. As Rudy noted, one broken window unrepaired leads to a lot of broken windows and broken lives, eventually. We don't execute kids for breaking windows. Most do a lot of bad things before reaching the point of being tried in a capital case. They need to learn action equals consequence and personal responsibility before they reach that state.
The ones that are the most heinous and are found to have absolutely committed cold, calculating, premeditated murder (and the states consider mitigating and extenuating circumstances) should be put to death in the same manner as their victims. We do not attempt to reason with rabid dogs, or man-eating tigers. We kill them. I do not care what your IQ is, your sanity was, your race or ethnicity might be, or your age. You should die for your crime, preferrably in a horrible manner. Executions should be returned to public places, not hidden as they are now. You should see these people die, and it should be carried out in a timely fashion. There are people on Death Row today who have exceeded their life expectancy on the street because they are incarcerated. protected by the state, and using the appeal system (with the assistance of the lib lawyers on the left) to draw out their evil existence. You should be tried, and if found guilty of a capital crime by your peers, executed in a public place near the scene within 12 months of your crime.
You drown your kids in a car; abduct, rape, torture and murder a mother; tie up, rape, and set afire a great-grandmother; kill a law enforcement officer in an ambush; or bury someone alive; I do not care one whit what your age is, you are one dangerously crazy SOB and should not be living on this planet.
Many here should remember when insanity became the plea excusing people from all sorts of hideous crimes. Look at women coldly and methodically killing their own kids in a horrible manner. Kill your kids, go to the mental asylum for a few years, and become sane again to be let out. Not Guilty by reason of insanity. Want her for a neighbor? What do you think the chances of her becoming a contributing member of society are? It became a crutch.
You let kids of 16 and 17 kill without facing the death penalty, they will be operating with impunity till they are caught, and after they are released. This ruling sends a very bad message to those who think that they are above the law.
No, I feel strongly that while some people who commit a capital crime may be too immature to understand the nature of their crime, the calendar is not the best determiner of that and the corect people to determine that are a jury of their peers, not the Supreme Court.
That's all I have to say about that.
TR
Roguish Lawyer
03-02-2005, 21:05
Well put, TR. I agree.
NousDefionsDoc
03-02-2005, 21:29
I am going to lay it out for you people as I see it. This is just my personal observation and opinion.
There are animals among us of all ages, whether born or made that way by their environment. They will never be tamed or domesticated, no matter how many times you turn your cheek, they will be there to strike. The BTK Killer, Jeffrey Dahmer, David Berkowitz, Charles Manson, will never be normal functioning members of society. They are wolves among us in a society comprised mostly of sheep. Others of us choose to be the sheepdogs. Whether their crimes were committed at 12, 16, or 18, these wolves are incorrigable. They are sufficiently mature and intelligent to know right from wrong, but they do not believe it, do not care, or think that they are beyond the law. I think by the time we trust you to drive a car safely, you know that it is wrong to kidnap, torture, rape, and murder a 10 year old girl. Some people know right from wrong at 8, and some do not at 80. A young punk of 17 should know that it is wrong to kill another human. I do not want my kids exposed to the one who has failed to understand that, even if the murderer has been a model inmate for 50 years. I do not believe that these people are reformed.
Some of these people slide into an escalating series of criminal behavior, others just leap into their abberrant behavior full tilt. Few begin as hard core murderers. As Rudy noted, one broken window unrepaired leads to a lot of broken windows and broken lives, eventually. We don't execute kids for breaking windows. Most do a lot of bad things before reaching the point of being tried in a capital case. They need to learn action equals consequence and personal responsibility before they reach that state.
The ones that are the most heinous and are found to have absolutely committed cold, calculating, premeditated murder (and the states consider mitigating and extenuating circumstances) should be put to death in the same manner as their victims. We do not attempt to reason with rabid dogs, or man-eating tigers. We kill them. I do not care what your IQ is, your sanity was, your race or ethnicity might be, or your age. You should die for your crime, preferrably in a horrible manner. Executions should be returned to public places, not hidden as they are now. You should see these people die, and it should be carried out in a timely fashion. There are people on Death Row today who have exceeded their life expectancy on the street because they are incarcerated. protected by the state, and using the appeal system (with the assistance of the lib lawyers on the left) to draw out their evil existence. You should be tried, and if found guilty of a capital crime by your peers, executed in a public place near the scene within 12 months of your crime.
You drown your kids in a car; abduct, rape, torture and murder a mother; tie up, rape, and set afire a great-grandmother; kill a law enforcement officer in an ambush; or bury someone alive; I do not care one whit what your age is, you are one dangerously crazy SOB and should not be living on this planet.
Many here should remember when insanity became the plea excusing people from all sorts of hideous crimes. Look at women coldly and methodically killing their own kids in a horrible manner. Kill your kids, go to the mental asylum for a few years, and become sane again to be let out. Not Guilty by reason of insanity. Want her for a neighbor? What do you think the chances of her becoming a contributing member of society are? It became a crutch.
You let kids of 16 and 17 kill without facing the death penalty, they will be operating with impunity till they are caught, and after they are released. This ruling sends a very bad message to those who think that they are above the law.
No, I feel strongly that while some people who commit a capital crime may be too immature to understand the nature of their crime, the calendar is not the best determiner of that and the corect people to determine that are a jury of their peers, not the Supreme Court.
That's all I have to say about that.
TR
Yes, but how do you feel?
Roguish Lawyer
03-02-2005, 21:48
Yes, but how do you feel?
LMAO
You take a life with intent and malice, you owe your life.
There's no equity in that. Take the example of Deputy Hathcock and Trooper Lowry lives compared to the lives of the Golphins. The Golphins did nothing but cause trouble, pain and sorrow. The Deputy Hathcock and Trooper Lowry gave of themselves to their communities, departments and families.
My opinion is the Golphins both deserve to die for their crime because it's the punishment for what they did. No way can taking their lives be equal or judgement for the ones they took.
In most cases the lives of the murderer can't hold a candle to that of the victim. You kill them as punishment for the crime not for a "life for a life."
There's no equity in that.
Nowhere in my post did I place their souls on a scale and see how they ballanced out. Since there were some pretty long post in here I made it short and to the point. You take a life with planning and intent then you owe your life.
Do not read things into posts that are not there.
Pete
You take a life with planning and intent then you owe your life.
Do not read things into posts that are not there.
Pete
Without reading anything into it, I don't agree with that. It's also why I think setting an age limit is a bad idea. I don't think something like the death penalty is that cut and dried.
Without reading anything into it, I don't agree with that. It's also why I think setting an age limit is a bad idea. I don't think something like the death penalty is that cut and dried.
Here I thought you agreed with me and were for the death penalty. Oh, well, I guess I was wrong.
Pete
Here I thought you agreed with me and were for the death penalty. Oh, well, I guess I was wrong.
Pete
I do agree with and am for the death penalty in a number of cases. What I don't agree with is the idea of saying you take life - you owe a life because in my opinion that boils it down to the lowest common denominator, and it's not that simple. It's just like putting a cap on the age a person can be held accountable. I know 16 and 17 year olds who have better judgement than a number of 26 or 36 year olds. But here the Court has gone and said unless a person is 18 they aren't accountable (at least where the death penalty is concerned) for their actions. They've set an arbitrary cut off date. I don't think that's right.
Pete, you're an SF guy surely you know by now you are rarely, if ever, wrong. It's just a failure of clear communication. ;)
C.
Pete, you're an SF guy surely you know by now you are rarely, if ever, wrong. It's just a failure of clear communication.
Wrong? Oh I've been plenty wrong a time or two. Good thing a CSM outranks an LTC on some things :) .
Opinions are opinions and one's opinion is never wrong. It might be based on bad information, poor judgement or just a messed up mind but it is still just an opinion. When a person uses false "facts" to back up their opinion is where they start to start sinking in the swamp.
Any plans for SFAS? If you do and get selected I'll take you out for steak and a drink (beer if you're over 21).
Pete
Be forewarned, I am addressing the age issue and not the death penalty per se. :munchin
A line has to be drawn. To leave it to total arbitration will only add more confusion, litigation and appeals. Age lines are used all throughout society. One must be 16 to drive. Some 18 yr olds are too immature and some 14 year olds are more than suffuciently mature. However the line must be specific. The same for drinking, voting, and legal issues.
At age 18, in this country, an individual becomes an adult and legally can act for himself and conduct business without his guardian's permission. That seems a reasonable point to draw the line.
IMO "Try as an adult" has become a political cry of politically ambitious DA's. :munchin
A line has to be drawn. To leave it to total arbitration will only add more confusion, litigation and appeals
I agree with you Terry, the problem I have is with the line as the courts see it. The courts have placed "lines" all over the map. 16 to drive, 18 for the death penalty and voting, 21 to drink and abortion without parental notification at any age. We can all argue the placement of the lines but it will not solve the problems.
My opinion on drinking age. This follows the old "If you're old enought to die for your country" line. Keep the drinking age at 21 but any soldier with an active duty ID card can drink at any age, even at 17. If you want a beer that bad go for it.
What say you guys in the pipe line on this subject?
Pete
With two 15 year old girls who love to be DDs.
Any plans for SFAS? If you do and get selected I'll take you out for steak and a drink (beer if you're over 21).
Pete
I'm too old for SFAS plus the wrong gender. I'll take you up on the steak and beer though. We agree on the issue of opinions too.
Keep the drinking age at 21 but any soldier with an active duty ID card can drink at any age, even at 17. If you want a beer that bad go for it.
.
Soldiers could drink on Ft Bragg but not in Fayetteville at one time. Can't you get an age waiver or your parents signature to join the military prior to 18?
Soldiers could drink on Ft Bragg but not in Fayetteville at one time. Can't you get an age waiver or your parents signature to join the military prior to 18?
The reason for that was that the Federal age was 18. Military reservations are Federal Land and were subject to Federal Law. I don't know when things changed. Today they abide by the local laws although the Fed has raised the drinking age anyway. I don't know when that happened in Fayetteville. It had to be recent. When I went through Basic and AIT in California and later Language school, GI's from other states had problems with the 21 year old limit of CA. I used to look young for my age and even though I was 23 when I enlisted, bartenders always checked my ID first. When I passed they presumed my friends were old enough and let them slide. ;)
....plus the wrong gender :eek: . I'll take you up on the steak and beer though :eek: :eek: ......
We'll have to invite all the Fayetteville area QPs to that one plus my better half. It's too cold around here right now to be sleeping in the dog house.
Pete
We'll have to invite all the Fayetteville area QPs to that one plus my better half. It's too cold around here right now to be sleeping in the dog house.
Pete
Love the wide-eyed blue faces. Here's my other half's take - You tell those guys I don't care if you eat with them but I'm not paying for their meals only for yours.
As old and married as I am I could give you tips on staying warm in the dog house. Gleaned from the other half , of course ;) He says cedar and a good poncho liner...ROFLMAO!! Like he ever spent the night out there!!