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?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/01/sc....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

Quote:

"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!

**Pete** · 03-01-2005, 13:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roguish Lawyer

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?

I think they need to go back and re-read their job discription.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roguish Lawyer

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.

QRQ 30 · 03-01-2005, 16:20

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by QRQ 30

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.

QRQ 30 · 03-01-2005, 16:56

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by QRQ 30

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.

**Pete** · 03-01-2005, 17:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by QRQ 30

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

QRQ 30 · 03-01-2005, 17:13

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roguish Lawyer

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.

Quote:

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.