castledoom.com

[JuntaJoe]

Here's the article. My opinions follow on the next post.

High Court Ends Death Penalty for Youths

March 01, 2005 6:01 PM EST

WASHINGTON - A closely divided Supreme Court outlawed the death penalty for juvenile criminals on Tuesday, declaring there was a national consensus such executions were unconstitutionally cruel and ending a practice that had brought international condemnation.

The 5-4 decision, which overturns a 1989 high court ruling, throws out the death sentences of 72 murderers who committed their crimes as juveniles and bars states from seeking to execute others. Nineteen states had allowed death sentences for killers who committed their crimes when they were under 18.

The ruling was greeted with enthusiasm by numerous death penalty opponents, here and abroad.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, said many juveniles lack maturity and intellectual development to understand the ramifications of their actions.

"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," Kennedy said.

The United States has stood almost alone in the world in officially sanctioning juvenile executions, a "stark reality" that can't be ignored, 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.

"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," Kennedy wrote.

In an angry dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia disputed that a "national consensus" exists and said the majority opinion was based on the "flimsiest of grounds." The appropriateness of capital punishment should be determined by individual states, not "the subjective views of five members of this court and like-minded foreigners," he wrote.

The ruling continues the court's practice of narrowing the scope of the death penalty, which it reinstated in 1976. Executions for those 15 and younger when they committed their crimes were outlawed in 1988. Three years ago, justices banned executions of the mentally retarded, citing a "national consensus" against executing a killer who may lack the intelligence to fully understand his crime.

In finding a similar consensus against juvenile executions, the court noted that most states bar them and those that allow them do so infrequently. Only three states - Oklahoma, Texas and Virginia - have executed juveniles in the past 10 years.

Legal experts said the ruling could have widespread ramifications for the future of capital punishment, with courts empowered to strike down the practice on evolving notions of decency.

"The lasting significance of this case is that it opens the door to the abolition of the death penalty judicially," said Jordan Steiker, a death penalty expert at the University of Texas law school. "If a national consensus can emerge without a majority of the death penalty states moving toward abolition, then it suggests that judicial abolition is a genuine prospect."

The impact was immediate. In Prince William County, Va., officials said Tuesday they will not prosecute a murder case against teen sniper Lee Boyd Malvo, who is already serving life in prison in two of the 10 sniper killings that terrorized the Washington area in 2002.

Prince William County Commonwealth's Attorney Paul Ebert had hoped to get the death penalty for Malvo, who was 17 at the time of the killings, but he said another trial would now be an unnecessary expense.

"Today, the court repudiated the misguided idea that the United States can pledge to leave no child behind while simultaneously exiling children to the death chamber," said William F. Schulz, executive director of Amnesty International USA.

Former President Carter, along with several other Nobel Prize winners, filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case last year. In a statement he said the ruling "acknowledges the profound inconsistency in prohibiting those under 18 years of age from voting, serving in the military or buying cigarettes, while allowing them to be sentenced to the ultimate punishment."

Dianne Clements, president of the Houston-based Justice for All victims' advocacy group, criticized the decision and said she hopes that when there is a Supreme Court vacancy a strong death penalty supporter is nominated.

"The Supreme Court has opened the door for more innocent people to suffer by 16- and 17-year-olds," she said. "I can't wait for the Supreme Court to have judges more concerned with American values, American statutes and American law than what the Europeans think."

Justices were called on to draw an age line for executions 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 Supreme Court justices - John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer - had gone on record in 2002 opposing the death penalty for juveniles, calling it "shameful." Those four, joined by Kennedy, formed Tuesday's decision.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas joined Scalia in seeking to uphold the executions.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor filed a separate dissent, arguing that a blanket rule against juvenile executions was misguided. Case-by-case determinations of a young offenders' maturity is the better approach, she wrote.

"The court's analysis is premised on differences in the aggregate between juveniles and adults, which frequently do not hold true when comparing individuals," she said. "Chronological age is not an unfailing measure of psychological development, and common experience suggests that many 17-year-olds are more mature than the average young 'adult.'"

The 19 states that 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.

The federal government does not execute juveniles.

The case is Roper v. Simmons, 03-633.

---

On the Net:

The decision in Roper v. Simmons in available at:

http://wid.ap.org/documents/scotus/050301roper.pdf

Copyright 2005 Associated Press.

[JuntaJoe]

This is one of the dumbest things I've ever seen the High Court do.

Why is a 17 year old less responsible than an 18 year old?

Gang bangers will see this as a license to kill.

We've had 16 year olds go on killing and rape sprees here and they deserve to be put down like the rabid dogs that they are.


I guess I need to reiterate my support for capital punishment. In Texas we have no life-without-parole. This is the way I like it. Either a person is redeemable or they are not. A life sentence here means that a killer has been judged to be redeemable and will get another chance at life in a couple decades. The ones who get the death penalty are judged to be permantly useless to society and are removed from existance rather than locked away with no hope. We deal with our problem citizens. We don't sweep them under the rug and forget them. I consider the life-without-parole to be cruel and un-American. You take away the one true American right, liberty, forever. And then make them suffer that cruelty for the rest of their days. Yes, I know that execution actually costs us more than warehousing them. But it's a matter of principle to me. A person is redeemable or they are not. If you won't give them a chance to make things right then kill them and end the horror of forever pennances. Life-without-parole removes hope from the equation. How cruel is that? At least an executed man can hope for redemption in his sacrifice or afterlife. I also fear that juries will not search their souls in murder trials. Having to choose between death or a chance to let the murderer earn his freedom makes them do the hard work. Life-without-parole can be a crutch to juries. A copout, imo. When you decide a man's fate in this life then you had better bring your best efforts and not pick a safe choice. It's a person's life, dammit. Do your job right! Decide his fate with all your ethical values and sift the facts like a person's life depends on it. Because it does depend on it. You must search your heart and your mind as deep as you can and make a firm commitment that you can live with. Picking the safe option does the victim and defendant no justice.

Ok, there's my view on capital punishment.

So removing the ability to kill rabid youths is just giving those kids a free pass to avoid the consequences of living in a lawful society. A person must know that murder has a consequence of equal standing. If you look to the cases being reversed then you will see startling facts. Juries in Texas never sentence a kid to lethal injection for a rash act. They do, however, execute those guilty of cold blooded murder. Many are multiple killers or participated in well planned executions.


I'm also mad at the court for stepping on state rights. Texans want this right. We know all about the costs and the hassles and still feel it is the right thing for us. We don't tell Massachuchets that they can't marry gay people. We don't tell Nevadians they can't gamble or allow prostitution. We are different from those people. You do your thing and we'll do ours.

And I'm incensed at letting "world opinion" shape our laws. This truly sticks in my craw. Comparing us to other countries with execution laws is laughable. Look at the countries. China, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia. Do these countries install a well informed jury of a defendent's peers in a fair courtroom to decide a person's fate? No. A shadowy judge with little review passes down a sentence that originates from that country's rulers. To compare that method to ours is absurd.


I can only hope that some victim's families become incensed enough to take matters into their own hands when these killer kids walk out of juevi lockup in a few years. Yep, I'm condoning lawless street justice. But a message needs to be sent. You can be sure no Texas jury will ever sentence a person to die for lynching one of these killer kids. And this is Texas. We know how to do a lynching here.

[Brf]

It has nothing to do with responsibility -- it has to do with fairness. How can you pronounce such an extreme sentence on one who is not allowed to vote? That is the line that is drawn.... at 18 you can vote.

[JuntaJoe]

The voting age is considered irrelevant to other issues.

Many states allow marriage at 16.

The military accepts 17 year old.

We allow girls to be mothers at the age of puberty.

We require drinking to wait until 21.

You cannot run for federal office until you are 24.

The age of 18 isn't some magical breakwater. We draw different lines all over the place.


But, I'll allow that's one of the most intelligent rebuttals that I've ever seen to this issue.

I can accept that some people would find that valid enough for their ethics.

It's certainly better than "world opinion".

[JuntaJoe]

As an afterthought on your comment. I'm not advocating different levels of responsibility.

I've been a supporter of letting 16 year old vote since the idea first came up.

I'd let them vote, join the military, marry, and be considered adults in a courtroom at 16.

The age line in my head is fair. It's the legistlators and judges drawing the lines elsewhere.


My only exception would be drinking. I'd push it up to 24.

[Brf]

JuntaJoe wrote: Many states allow marriage at 16..

LOL!

In New Hampshire the legal age for females to wed is 13. What does that have to do with punishment for crimes?

[JuntaJoe]

Isn't marriage and childbirth acts of serious adult responsibility and consequence?

In my "perfect" mental world, we would have 2 coming of age lines.

At 16, a person can marry, vote, serve in battle, get an abortion without guardian permission, drive provisionally, sign a business contract, and face the consequences of their actions in a court of law.

Then I would have at second age barrier at 24. One could drink, run for elected office, drive without conditions, incur debt in their own name (except for education), and formally join/campaign/contribute to a political party.

Note some of the things that currently have no restriction at all. Like debt. People are clueless about debt in America and it's costing all of us and the economy a bundle. And joining a political party formally keeps the pressure off kids to swear allegiance until they have time to digest and learn the political process. And I'd like to see a sensible graduation of driving privileges. Driving is a learned skill. Kids might have better reaction speed, but obsevation, skill, and habit gives drivers a better overall level of competence behind the wheel. That takes years to learn. Places that already have this practice have seen remarkable results.

Note the difference between the two age lines in the liberties. No amount of pre-training makes one ready to handle a marriage, baby, combat, or decide right from wrong. One either gets it or they don't. Sure, some mature slower than others, but then you could say every person must prove themselves competent to handle a 50 year marriage before walking up the isle. Many would never qualify. The second group gives time to learn things. Drinking can be taught legally and safely under their parents supervision. Btw, I would allow kids into bars at 18, but not let them drink. Incuring debt, other than college loans, should be withheld until kids learn to manage finances on a cash-n-carry basis for a few years. Why give them a Visa card when they struggle making the rent payment on a one bedroom apartment?

I am happy that Brf has found the real crux of this issue. At what age(s) do we award freedoms to the youthful? Where are the lines and, more importantly, why? When you award freedoms then you automatically award responsibility. The issue of making teens be tried as an adult falls right into the issue of when does the responsibility start.

[Brf]

So now you are agreeing with me? The freedoms should come with the responsibilities. The execution should not come without the right to vote against it.

[NibbyCat]

In the past couple of weeks I read something about how the brain develops, and the area where our internal censor resides, the part that says, "Wait, this is a stupid idea," doesn't develop until age 25. A neurosurgeon said that of all the agencies that have an age limit, only the car rental people have it right.

This is why we have teenagers and folks in their early 20's doing idiot things like jumping from one parking garage to another.

[JuntaJoe]

Brf wrote: So now you are agreeing with me? The freedoms should come with the responsibilities. The execution should not come without the right to vote against it.

In a sense. I'm not willing to accept the moving of the age limit up to 18 as I know the realities of teenage crime all to well in my urban home. But I'm more than willing to lower the voting age down to that threshhold.

I'm willing to give them the right to vote against it at age 16.



Nibby, I agree that youthful people do stupid things. But I also remember being 16 and having the overall sense of right from wrong along with the concept of responsibility. I was working full time and attending high school to assist my poverty stricken family. Sure, I got drunk or high illegally on Saturday night. But I had also put in a solid day's work just before partying and had delivered a large portion of my paycheck to the family the Friday night before. Then I struggled through my hangover on Sunday and finished my weekend school homework. I wasn't a particularly wise 16 year old, but I grasped some basic limits.

I'm guessing that age 25 concept of yours is more about the fear. I stumbled across the concepts of fear and mortality at about that age. I learned to be scared at the repercussions of my actions. While that certainly help me make better choices, I still knew right from wrong before that. I just chose to ignore it sometimes. But ignoring the possible repercussions didn't make me immune from their effects. I took my lumps like everyone else did.

[Brf]

I am not against punishing the kids.... but it my opinion "Capital Punishment" is not punishment at all. The idea of punishment is that the conditions are harsh enough that the perp will not do the crime again... In that sense, Capital Punishment is self-defeating in that the perp can not do it again. Therefore Capital Punishment is not a punishment at all, but rather a deterrent.

[JuntaJoe]

I'd go so far as to say that capital punishment is really ritual killing on the order of the ancient blood rites of primitive civilizations.

It's really about affirming the state has the right to kill.

With that power, the government declares it can match blood for blood.

It's a community survival trait. How far will America go to defend its ideals? All the way to the end.


As for the punishment itself, I am willing to allow cons the right of one more appeal to use modern forensic science to clear their name. I'm not big on the endless appeal process, but it seems only fair to show scientific proof of their innocence. I'm always disturbed when I hear about a refusal to hear an appeal that has DNA evidence attached. We shouldn't be so arbitrary in our laws as to possibly kill an innocent person.

[DrJoshuaFalken]

If I ran society, anyone convicted of murder with overwhelming evidence goes up against another murderer in gladiatoral combat.

The winner goes to Iraq for a tour of duty ending only when the war is done or when they die.

Rapists get skinned alive, dumped in salt and bleed to death once convicted with overwhelming evidence.

[Georgie]

I'd vote for raising the driving and marriage age to 18 . I'd also be in favor with raising the voting age to 21 as it used to be.

Well, I'm new here. This seems to be a pretty nice forum. Do call me Georgie (even though...).

[JuntaJoe]

Welcome, Georgie. Newbies are always welcome. This debate board will knock that newbie shine off you fast too. Enjoy and don't forget to scan the rules at the top of the board. No, you didn't run afoul of them. It's just a standard warning.

[Waray]

I think it's ridiculous.

I'm personally against the death penalty alltoghether except for cases of extremes (serial killers, child rapers, etc.).

Adult, voting, marriage at 16? I'm betting there are people at 24 marrying that still don't know the responsibilities. Those things create unstable family situations which raises the next generations of murderes & other mentally ill people.

If there's a 15-16 year old boy or girl that runs amok, that means their family, school & environment failed. So if you allow the death penalty for youths it will only be fair to kill everyone neglecting those kids as accomplishers.

/started drinking legally at 16 btw.
________
Toyota corolla specifications

[JuntaJoe]

Let's tackle you objections piecemeal, ok?


Marriage at 16. First off, it is legal almost all over the globe and was the common marriage age for millenia.

Voting at 16. It is my assertion that 18 to 30 year olds avoid voting because they feel their vote is valueless and society doesn't care. I feel that this comes from getting politically astute while still in school and are not allowed to vote. They have no voice when they really wish to express it. We have some teen members here and I hope they give their opinion on that assertion. But if we allow them to vote at 16 then they might feel they are part of the process instead of being lectured to.

As my earlier post stated, the things I recommend at 16 are not the sort of things that you can "train" for. You can be 50 and your first kid will be a unmitigated nightmare. I'm saying that age will not make anyone any better at these things because there really is no instruction book or training that really works.

I fully agree that a kid who kills probably had a bad youth. But there is also personal responsibility involved. The 16 year old fully knew that killing was wrong. We don't execute anyone here who kills in a moment of passion. The capital crime comes from an aggravating circumstance like premeditation, or combined with another felony like robbery or rape. The person knew they were going to commit something wrong before they went out the door to do it. This isn't about wanting to execute a kid who gets mad at school when he's picked on and grabs a rock to brain his harrasser. It's about killing the youthful thug who tails a couple young girls home after school and drags them into an alley for rape and then murders them to hide their testimony. It's about killing the kid so lazy that he shoves a gun into the corner grocer's chest for the $50 in the register and again kills to avoid their testimony in court.

You seem to be accepting of killing the worst sorts. So am I. I'm not saying we string up all the kids who kill. Just the ones who make the mental decision to go bad. Momentary lapses of reason don't make a kid rape and kill. There is plenty of time during those acts to "wake up". Or sitting in the car with his buddies planning to hold up the liquor store owner. These are thinking crimes. Just like your serial murderer, they plan their crime and follow through.


I noted your dismissal of my proposed drinking age. America is different from Europe. You rarely can walk to a bar here. We are too spread out. Getting alcohol is usually predicated with driving. Even Euros know that's a bad mix. Most Euro countries have very stiff penalties for that offense. Now imagine our situation where driving is almost mandatory to drink. Drinking can be a learned skill that can be safely monitored. You will note my permission to allow parents to let the kids drink in their presence. I took a page from my youth in Texas and my experiences in Europe where youths learned to lose the stigma desire of drinking by sharing wine or beer at meals with their parents. Like the driving rule I mentioned, I proposed a form of probational period to become accustomed to the experience.

[Waray]

I was just being a bit sarcastic about drinking age, I've been to the US several times and I feel it's better to have a higher drinking age.

Now to get to your points:

First off, it is legal almost all over the globe and was the common marriage age for millenia.

I'm not attacking your statement on what's legal or common around the globe. I'm trying to ask if rationally it's wise to have 16 year olds marry and thus start a family. And certainly you have to agree with me that times change. Unless you'd like to update the divorce rates a bit more.

(I know if I'd stayed with the girl I was with at 16 I'd be bored right now).

Voting at 16

If I had my say, I'd get voting age up to 21 and only for people who can fill out a test in which they prove that they have knowledge of the political situation.
I'm pretty sure you had a different worldview at 16, 18, 21+. And it should be your right to choose whatever you want at that moment. But I bet most people at 16 aren't -that- politically aware.
So only reason would be to allow them to vote after testing their politically awareness.


As for your point on the killing, if you can indeed prove that the kid was fully aware of the action & consequences, but still commits a hideous act fry him.
However, as probably a part of the deathrow inmates in the US can say, it's never easy to fully comprehend a situation and that's why I think it's wise to have a limit on things.[/b]
________
Buy glass bong

[Brf]

Waray wrote: I'm trying to ask if rationally it's wise to have 16 year olds marry and thus start a family.

Well.... I dont think the idea is the marry off 16-year-olds.... The rationale is to avoid throwing sexually mature teenagers in jail simply because they made a mistake and produced a child.

I am not in favor of teenagers getting married, but if they are commited to one another, and the parents agree, I dont see why the government shouldnt agree too.

Here in Illinois, the age for marriage is 18 -- 16 with parental consent.

[JuntaJoe]

Ok, here's a thought. 100 years ago, people regularly got married at 16 all over the Western world. What has changed in kids since? Smarter, stronger, and more educated. Yes, with longer lifetimes and more wisdom, we recommend the kids wait now. But actually they are smarter and stronger than their predecesors. Why shouldn't they be better at marriage today with those basic life bonuses?


You also missed a line in my voting plan. Note the second age barrier. I'd let them vote, but I would keep them away from the political parties. They would be automatic independents. Btw, since they would still be in high school at the time, there could be a non-partisan class on the basics of voting. A nice way to educate a whole generation to avoid "hanging chads" (the nickname now for an improperly marked vote in the US after the 2000 Florida debacle).

You need to know that my interest in getting them to vote is very altruistic and not self motivated. I'm an obvious conservative. Youthful people are more liberal at the outset of their voting years. It is against my political self interest that they vote. Old people vote like I do. I'd be better served if the voting age was pushed to 40.

Now you mentioned testing voters. Oh that would please many people here. But the US fought a "cold war" in the southern US for 70 years after the Civil War trying to keep blacks from voting. The only way to stop it was to stamp out every form of voter testing and tax with a vengence. America simply cannot accept any form of voting barrier except age from here on out.


And back to the death penalty. To get the "capital" charge against someone then two barriers must be passed before indictment is passed down, in addition to the basic evidence. First is the charge must pass the voluntary test for plain first degree murder. Second, it must have an aggravating circumstance: cold premeditation or another major felony was included: arson, robbery, or rape.

If it doesn't pass that barrier then they can only be tried for first degree murder or less with a max sentence of life imprisonment or less. We don't try to execute anyone but the worst sort. But when we face these types, we don't shy from them. We don't listen to their whines about a rough life. We tell them they crossed beyond acceptable society and deserve no mercy.

It's about defining the true value of life.