Juvenile death penalty unconstitutional
 

High court: Juvenile death penalty unconstitutional

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, were unconstitutionally cruel.

It was the second major defeat at the high court in three years for supporters of the death penalty. Justices in 2002 banned the execution of the mentally retarded, also citing the Constitution's Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishments.

The court had already outlawed executions for those who were 15 and younger when they committed their crimes.

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

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, cited the fact that most states don't allow the execution of juvenile killers and those that do use the penalty infrequently. The trend, he noted, was to abolish the practice.

"Our society views juveniles ... as categorically less culpable than the average criminal," Kennedy wrote.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/01/sc....ap/index.html

no surprise it was 5-4 :rolleyes:

I read that this morning. It's about time. :nod:

Ooh. Let me guess who the five were: Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter, Breyer and O'Connor.

I think the arguments on both sides are interesting. However, the studies, I think, show the DP is not a deterrent or at least not so significant a deterrent that it warrants the validation of executing an innocent person.

Again, I mostly am against the DP and at times am totally against it. Then, I think about people like Timothy McV. and OBL and I change my mind. I am only human - so sue me :cool:

No kidding. :nod:

I am trying to find the decision.

Oh my gah, Kennedy voted in favor? :shocked:

March 1, 2005
Supreme Court Bars Death Penalty for Juvenile Killers
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

ASHINGTON -- 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, were unconstitutionally cruel.

It was the second major defeat at the high court in three years for supporters of the death penalty. Justices in 2002 banned the execution of the mentally retarded, also citing the Constitution's Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishments.

The court had already outlawed executions for those who were 15 and younger when they committed their crimes.

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

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, noted that most states don't allow the execution of juvenile killers and those that do use the penalty infrequently. The trend, he noted, was to abolish the practice.

"Our society views juveniles ... as categorically less culpable than the average criminal," Kennedy wrote.

Juvenile offenders have been put to death in recent years in just a few other countries, including Iran, Pakistan, China and Saudi Arabia. All those countries have gone on record as opposing capital punishment for minors.

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 a 17-year-old Christopher Simmons, who kidnapped a neighbor in Missouri, hog-tied her and threw her off a bridge. Prosecutors say he planned the burglary and killing of Shirley Crook in 1993 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, also agreed with Tuesday's decision: Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

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

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

In a dissent, Scalia decried the decision, arguing that there has been no 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 in a 24-page dissent.

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

from www.nytimes.com

A woman? Jesus H. Christ. Bet she's pro-life. :rolleyes:

Supreme Court Rules Death Penalty for Youths Unconstitutional

Tuesday, March 01, 2005



NEW YORK — The U.S. Supreme Court (search) ruled on Tuesday that the death penalty for 16- and 17-year-old offenders is unconstitutional.

The 5-4 decision in Roper v. Simmons (search) affects 19 states that still subject youths to capital punishment, along with 72 death-row inmates who committed their crimes as teenagers.

In a somewhat surprising development, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, previously seen as the "swing" voter in the case, joined Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas in a dissent.

Rather, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who in 1989 voted in favor of upholding the death penalty for 16- and 17-year-olds, wrote the majority opinion.

"When a juvenile offender commits a heinous crime, the state can exact forfeiture of some of the most basic liberties, but the state cannot extinguish his life and his potential to attain a mature understanding of his own humanity," Kennedy quoted from the majority ruling.

Justices David H. Souter, John Paul Stevens, Stephen G. Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg also voted with the majority.

The offender in question in the case, Christopher Simmons, robbed and killed a 46-year-old Missouri woman in 1993, when he was 17. While a 1998 high court decision prevented his 15-year-old accomplice from being tried for capital murder, Simmons was convicted and sent to death row.

The five affirming justices based their opinion on the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments — specifically, on the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

The court's decision marks the third biggest restriction on the death penalty in 17 years, and may be seen by advocates as moving the United States closer to a full abolition of capital punishment.

FOX News' Anna Persky contributed to this report.

http://www.ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/ne...ote=1&p=272474

BTW, this is the most liberal decision to come down the pike in a while. It makes me a little bit hopeful that we haven't gone completely off on the right wing rail.

She is the most powerful member of the Court. She is the swing vote and thus the most sought after. She is pro-choice to a certain degree.

I still don't get it. :shrug:

Here is her history on the DP

http://www.issues2000.org/Court/Sand...nnor_Crime.htm

Here is the decision

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...pdf/03-633.pdf

:laugh: You assume too much on that one ;)

Well, the facts of this case made the defendant easy to hate and made the "I am just a minor who did not know what he was doing" defense a little hard to swallow. This guy planned to execute his neighbor, with whom he had a previous altercation, by convincing two of his friends to break into her house, kidnap her, duct tape her, rough her up, and then put her in a bad and throw her over a bridge - all out of petty spite. Then, he bragged the next day about what he had done. It is hard to feel sorry for anyone who would do that :shrug: Does that mean they should be put to death - well there is the rub.

Personally, I think this strengthens the DP from now on because it will apply only to adults, where most, right or wrong, are comfortable with it.

I don't think it's sad she was met with oppostion. What's wrong with killing two 16 year olds who did a school shooting.

...
I just think the death penalty is disgusting. Period. Especially when it comes to juveniles.

you people act like this is a bunch of little children being executed or something. Think columbine kids if they hadn't already executed themselves :laugh:

...yes, a real laughing matter....

My thoughts exactly. How is that funny? :shrug: It's just tragic.

I do believe that even some minors who have committed murder can not be rehabilitated. The ones that are more sociopathic can get life without parole. For some minors that is not too severe a sentence. I don't see the need for the DP ever.

I said how can you not want the columbine kids executed and then I thought it was funny that they executed themselves first.

I know there tons of other possibly more progressive societies, but in the case of the death penalty I really don't care how much more progressive other countries are.

Well, we never had to face that did we? They did it themselves.

And you obviously don't know the whole story... :distress:

Not to mention they were picked on and harassed constantly by the jocks and the "cool kids" while the principal and administration sat idly by and did nothing. Who was it that was condoning cliques in another thread? If you mercilessly harass and embarass someone who you think is emotionally or physically weaker than you, do not be surprised if they retaliate. Do not be surprised at the level of their retaliation.
Oh and before anyone comes back with a response...my brother worked for Jeffco schools for 25 years and my daughter attended them k-8. I also knew the first two paramedics on the scene and watched friends on the SWAT team march into the school live on television.
Believe me, we discussed it in one way or another later on. It was horrific, all the way around.

Yeah. The mentally ill and depressed are ****ing hilarious.

Then perhaps you could consider moving to say, Saudi Arabia. They fall into line with your beliefs much better.
Of course if you choose to stay here, you'll just have to deal. Because we are progressing.

It's a fact that one of them was completely dosed on Prozac.

Yup. :nod: Anything that involves the neuropathic transmitters in the brain should not be taken lightly. And I know it has helped many people and harmed many others.
One child's toxicology report was completely sealed. The other was on Luvox.

Exactly.

Yes, it's hard for me to understand, too.

Okay, I have something else that's related to this very thing on my mind for the moment. Y'all will have to take it from there because I have to run to class, but it seems that a lot of people on here have zero respect for people who are pro-death penalty. Lux just said that she feels someone doesn't have the right to be disgusted at the initial act of murder if he or she supports the death penalty. Now, my question is, what if Nancy came on here and refuted that, saying that she strongly disagrees and is for the death penalty but against murder, how would y'all react? Would y'all be respectful toward her as y'all always seem to be, or would you be honest and repeat what you've already said? It seems to me that you've condemned her (and others who are for capital punishment) for believing that way. The whole thing seems hypocritcal to me because y'all act like you do respect her and consider her a conservative worth talking to, yet many of you ridicule and denounce conservatives as a whole when you don't have to deal with her in a thread. Maybe it's easy for me to step back from this and look at it because this issue might not be as personal as the gay rights issue for me or very many others. It's very easy for me to say that I don't tolerate people being against me getting married or generally have equality because those people refuse to tolerate me first. If they're not going to put up with me in the least, why should I put up with them? As one of my English teachers once said, turning the other cheek just to get that one slapped as well is never really beneficial. But I'm trying to look at capital punishment and the basic idea of being respectful of other's opinions as long as it's not a matter of them trying to run your own life for you in a philosophical way. And this is not an attack on any of you in the least. I'm just throwing this out and I want to see what y'all have to say whenever I get back to a computer today. It's just something I wanted to discuss.

I <3 you. :xoxo: I'm sorry you and your friends were so close to this. :distress:

The two girls from my class who were most picked on are both dead. One from suicide at 16 because of a love triangle and the other of an accident in her early 20s, she was driving extremely recklessly and hit a boulder. Kids should really be taught not to pick on others. They say kids are mean, but they really learn this behavior from their parents. They're the real meanies.

I was picked on as a kid and I know first hand how damaging it is. In no way does this excuse what these boys did but it adds to just how unfunny the incident was.

I realize the authorities cannot always catch it when it happens,but I think the authorities in the schools somethimes turn the other way when it happens and do not slam the bullies. I base this on personal experience. In fact, I saw some teachers actually validating it or supporting it - not fighting, just general guff, which can hurt more. I am certainly not saying all teachers are like this. I am just basing this on personal experience.

I also think some parents like it when their kid is "cock of the walk." So, they support that "my country beehive hair is bigger than your's" attitude.

You're right, this does happen. The popularity contest does not end in high school. It begins there.

You'll have to forgive me, Hillary, but I find it very difficult to respect the opinion people hold of actually supporting the termination of another human being's life. I, personally, don't think that particular opinion warrants any respect from me and it never will.

Unfortunately, support of the death penalty is, in itself, hypocrisy. What kind of message is being sent to society that it's wrong for someone to take the life of another, yet the government can do it? Gimme a bloody break. It's sickening and only shows how we haven't grown as a society.

I do not think anyone is arguing that people should not zealously support their positions. I think the point is that everyone around here at one time or another and others far more often than others, are just downright rude when someone expresses an opinion. A hypothetical example of what I am talking about is this exchange:

I think the DP is warranted and I support it because if someone killed my kid, I would want them dead. That may be wrong to some, but it is how I feel and the law supports me.

the rude response:

You are a sick freak. Murder is muder and you will never be right no matter what your assinine reasoning is - so shut up and how dare you call yourself a Christian when what you are is a MURDERER :mad:

the polite response:

I see where you are coming from, but I cannot agree because I think it is wrong to take someone else's life no matter how heinous a crime they committed. :)

I think alot of the venom comes from people, myself included, thinking they are going to change someone's mind and then when they do not the polite way, the smugness and the snarkiness comes forward. I know I try to keep it in check, but I fail sometimes. So, I guess all we can do is try to be careful in our posts if we do not want to be rude. I think that is what Hillary is saying.