Quantcast

High Court Ends Death Penalty for Youths (Gang Members Rejoice!)

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,003
149
The Cleft of Venus
All the more reason to add some Bush appointees to the Bench this term!


High Court Ends Death Penalty for Youths
Via Yahoo | 1 Mar | HOPE YEN

WASHINGTON - A closely divided Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that it's unconstitutional to execute juvenile killers, ending a practice in 19 states that has been roundly condemned by many of America's closest allies.

The 5-4 decision throws out the death sentences of 72 murderers who were under 18 when they committed their crimes 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 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 (news - web sites) wrote.

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

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

As a result, officials in Prince William County, Va., said Tuesday they will not prosecute a murder case there 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 1992. 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 said another trial would now be an unnecessary expense.

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 (news - web sites) disputed that there is a trend and chastised his colleagues for taking power from the states.

"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.

Death penalty opponents quickly cheered the ruling.

"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.

"Now the U.S. can proudly remove its name from the embarrassing list of human rights violators that includes China, Iran, and Pakistan that still execute juvenile offenders," he said.

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."

The Supreme Court has permitted states to impose capital punishment since 1976. Twenty-two of the people put to death since then were juveniles when they committed their crimes. Texas executed the most, 13, and also has the most on death row now — 29.

More than 3,400 inmates await execution in the 38 states that allow death sentences.

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 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
 

MTB_Rob_NC

What do I have to do to get you in this car TODAY?
Nov 15, 2002
3,428
0
Charlotte, NC
N8 said:
Jezus! Read this----> http://wid.ap.org/documents/scotus/050301roper.pdf


That lil' fawker should FRY!

I am sure the other cases are just as sickening (I did not read that story). However the court and the law are supposed to be that perverbial line in the sand. It has to be drawn some where. There will be cases that fall on either side of the line that make many want a shade of gray.
 

ALEXIS_DH

Tirelessly Awesome
Jan 30, 2003
6,257
881
Lima, Peru, Peru
yo n8, how old do you think you must be deserve the deep frier???

oh, and btw.. DAMN!!, i´ve been around here for like 2 years, and i think your post count has stayed in the 7k since i started... ¿?
 

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,003
149
The Cleft of Venus
Mtb_Rob_FL said:
I am sure the other cases are just as sickening (I did not read that story). However the court and the law are supposed to be that perverbial line in the sand. It has to be drawn some where. There will be cases that fall on either side of the line that make many want a shade of gray.

Let the individual states determine it then.

No need for the Federal Gov to impose its will.
 

MTB_Rob_NC

What do I have to do to get you in this car TODAY?
Nov 15, 2002
3,428
0
Charlotte, NC
N8 said:
What? Cruel and unusual? What's cruel and unusual about the death penality?
I think you are looking into this too deeply. It is the Supreme Court's function to make sure the application of law(s) (sentencing in this case) do(es) not violate the constitution. In this case they have decided the line in the sand as it applies to the 8th Amendment is 18.

They have stated that sentencing someone under the age of 18 is Cruel and Unusual. It is absolutely a judgement call!



THEY ARE the FINAL judgement.


now deal
 

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,003
149
The Cleft of Venus
Mtb_Rob_FL said:
I think you are looking into this too deeply. It is the Supreme Court's function to make sure the application of law(s) (sentencing in this case) do(es) not violate the constitution. In this case they have decided the line in the sand as it applies to the 8th Amendment is 18.

They have stated that sentencing someone under the age of 18 is Cruel and Unusual. It is absolutely a judgement call!



THEY ARE the FINAL judgement.


now deal


Meh... add a conservative Judge and the balance tips the other way... time will tell. The Court often reverses itself.
 

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
6
might wanna take a look at the amicus brief for the arguments against the ruling (in hindsight, of course).

check out scalia's dissent:
The Court thus proclaims itself sole arbiter of our Nation's moral standards--and in the course of discharging that awesome responsibility purports to take guidance from the views of foreign courts and legislatures. Because I do not believe that the meaning of our Eighth Amendment, any more than the meaning of other provisions of our Constitution, should be determined by the subjective views of five Members of this Court and like-minded foreigners, I dissent.
 

jon cross

Monkey
Jan 27, 2004
159
0
Banner Elk, NC
It is a very tough call for anyone to make- do minors who commit crimes possess the ability to understand what they are doing and the possible consequences? Modern social and psychological researchers are tending to agree that most adolescents lack the biological and psychological maturity to be able to reason or understand that all actions have serious and long term effects. In short, the current belief is that adolescents cannot be prosecuted as adults, since they lack the capacity to think as such.

Having said that, what sense does it make for us to forego the death penalty and resort to a life or near-life sentence? Can someone who spends their formative years and most of their life in a cage with criminals possibly rehabilitate them and make them capable of being productive in society? I think we pursue the death penalty more out of retaliation than justice and are overlooking the fact that, given the arguments for the ruling, a prison sentence of a decade or more is just as unreasonable as an execution. If a 16 year old who kills his parents is too young to have realized what he was doing, why is it OK to sentence him to 40 years instead of death? Again, adhering strictly to the principle that, as undeveloped minds, these people cannot be held accountable for their actions, how is a sentence of any kind justifiable?

I personally believe that the death penalty has its place. I don't think anyone would have shed a tear if Hitler was arrested and hanged in 1940. This ruling, though not without its apparent justification, might have some negative effects on young criminals who probably understand what the electric chair means to them better than a lifetime behind bars.
 

dwaugh

Turbo Monkey
May 23, 2002
1,816
0
Bellingham, Washington ~ U.S.A.
Is there a typo in here?

As a result, officials in Prince William County, Va., said Tuesday they will not prosecute a murder case there 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 1992.
 

DRB

unemployed bum
Oct 24, 2002
15,242
0
Watchin' you. Writing it all down.
$tinkle said:
might wanna take a look at the amicus brief for the arguments against the ruling (in hindsight, of course).

check out scalia's dissent:

The Court thus proclaims itself sole arbiter of our Nation's moral standards--and in the course of discharging that awesome responsibility purports to take guidance from the views of foreign courts and legislatures. Because I do not believe that the meaning of our Eighth Amendment, any more than the meaning of other provisions of our Constitution, should be determined by the subjective views of five Members of this Court and like-minded foreigners, I dissent.
Every single case that is brought before the Supreme Court is decided by the SUBJECTIVE view of a minimum majority of 5 judges.

The opinion and concurrence barely mention the impact foreign decisions made on it. If anything they go out of their way to put the impact in perspective.

The overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty is not controlling here, but provides respected and significant confirmation for the Court’s determination that the penalty is disproportionate punishment for offenders under 18. See, e.g., Thompson, supra, at 830—831, and n. 31. The United States is the only country in the world that continues to give official sanction to the juvenile penalty. It does not lessen fidelity to the Constitution or pride in its origins to acknowledge that the express affirmation of certain fundamental rights by other nations and peoples underscores the centrality of those same rights within our own heritage of freedom.
They spend much more time reviewing what other states' statues are in regards to the death penalty offenders under 18. Additionally the following is mentioned.....

If the meaning of that Amendment had been frozen when it was originally drafted, it would impose no impediment to the execution of 7-year-old children today. The evolving standards of decency that have driven our construction of this critically important part of the Bill of Rights foreclose any such reading of the Amendment. In the best tradition of the common law, the pace of that evolution is a matter for continuing debate; but that our understanding of the Constitution does change from time to time has been settled since John Marshall breathed life into its text.
As for the Gang Members Rejoice.......
The Missouri Supreme Court agreed and set aside Simmons’ death sentence in favor of life imprisonment without eligibility for release.
yeah rejoicing the rest of his life is going to be in jail......