Posted on 03/02/2005 2:31:18 AM PST by JohnHuang2
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
The Supreme Court yesterday declared by a 5-4 margin that it is unconstitutional to impose the death penalty on convicts who were younger than 18 when they committed their crimes. Ruling that capital punishment for minors violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment, the court reversed its 1980 decision that allowed executions of convicts who were 16 or 17 at the time of their crimes. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy delivered the majority decision and was joined by Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David H. Souter and John Paul Stevens. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Good. No matter how evil they are, people under the age of 18 (in my view 25 but what do I really know)don't weigh consequences all that well. Life sentences for 16 and 17 year-old killers makes more sense to me.
If Kennedy is using that pathetic reasoning to prevent states from executing juveniles, how long will it be before the same Supreme Court prevents states from prosecuting juveniles as adults? How long will it be before the Supreme Court prevents states from locking up juveniles at all for their crimes?
Society uses the age of 18 for many purposes to distinguish between children and adults, but it's crazy to compare murder to something like the right to vote. The judgment necessary to vote is nothing like the judgment that killers use when they decide to murder.
Has it ever dawned on Kennedy and the other Supreme Court libs that America might be the best country on the planet and, thus, checking what other countries do is stupid when deciding U.S. cases?
This is one of the worst, thoughtless, baseless decisions I've seen from the Supreme Court in a long, long time. It's yet another setback for states' rights. We might as well just merge all 50 states into one right now because they're all beginning to look the same anyway.
Well, hell, I know plenty of 40-year-olds and 50-year-olds who don't "weigh consequences all that well." Should we exempt them from the death penalty, too? Should the Supreme Court step in and protect all those poor immature middle-aged murderers from those blood-thirsty state courts?
Is it really such a tough call when a 16-year-old sits down and decides whether he's going to spend the afternoon playing video games with friends or butchering an innocent human being? Weighing consequences shouldn't even come into play. It's about deciding what's right and what's wrong, and every 16-year-old I ever knew was quite aware how wrong it was to murder. They weren't "weighing consequences" of such an act because they all knew it was wrong. DUH!
There are many senior citizens who become senile and clueless at a certain age. Should the Supreme Court mandate that states not execute anybody over a certain age?
More importantly, shouldn't jurors be the ones to decide such matters on a case-by-case basis? Shouldn't elected state legislators be able to decide this issue on a state-by-state basis?
The Supreme Court has just gone out of its way to give special rights to young murderers while taking away the rights of innocent citizens and the states in which they live. I'm ashamed of Kennedy and the other four usual suspects. America deserves better than to have a bunch of wimpy Supreme Court libs who look to other countries to make sure the United States is doing the right thing.
Far too often sentences are executed so distant from the commission of the crime, there is no association of one with the other.
What about gang members who do drive by shootings? You think they know what they are doing?
How about the "Cruel and unusual" penalties these vermin inflicted on their victims?
This Supreme court is on another planet somewhere.
FACTS
¶2.Sixteen-year old Stephen Virgil McGilberry was charged with the deaths of 44-year-old Patricia Purifoy, his mother; 44-year-old Kenneth Purifoy, his step-father; 24-year-old Kimberly Self, his half-sister, and 3-year-old Kristopher Self, his nephew and Kimberly's son.Police were called to Kenneth and Patricia's home on October 23, 1994, where they found the four bludgeoned bodies.An investigation revealed that McGilberry and 14- year-old Chris Johnson had taken Kimberly's car and driven to a friend's house in another town.The next morning, their friend's mother, Brenda Smith Saucier, drove the pair back to the Purifoy home, where police were waiting.
¶3.After McGilberry was read his Miranda rights, he signed a waiver.He then confessed to the killings and told authorities that he and Johnson had committed the murders with baseball bats.McGilberry indicated that he was disgruntled because his driving privileges had been taken away and that he had bludgeoned Kenneth and Kimberly while John had hit Patricia and Kristopher.McGilberry also admitted striking his mother with the baseball bat because he felt that she was suffering.McGilberry told police that he had taken cash and credit cards from his mother and then driven away in Kimberly's car.Blood stains on McGilberry's clothing matched the blood types of the victims.
¶8.At trial, the State was granted a jury instruction which required the jury to consider whether the crimes were especially heinous, atrocious or cruel.McGilberry argues that the murders were not heinous, atrocious or cruel because the victims were either rendered unconscious by the blows or were killed nearly instantly.McGilberry claims that defense counsel should have objected at trial and should have raised the matter on direct appeal.
I think gang members and the rest of these sub-human garbage should do very long stretches, like 150 years or so but I think one has to err on the side of restraint in a civilized society and not put people who are minors to death. The British empire once hanged a 7 year-old for theft. I don't think that reflects well on the society. I agree that gang members who do drive-by's are probably not redeemable but executing a 16 year-old makes me pause.
Why stop at 150 years. Why not make it 1,000 years. That is so rediculous. Do you know of any criminal that has actually served 100 years much less 150 years?
How do you know in the future that the SC won't determine that extremely long stretches are cruel and inhumane and let people out after 20 or so?
As it is there is n consistencey and some get out in 6 years after murdering innocent people. The whole point behind the death penalty is to remove these dangerous people from society so that the rest of us can live civilized lives.
It is cruel and inhumane to expect loved ones to have to support, feed and clothe those that have murdered their loved ones for the rest of the criminals life.
Not to mention that it is not right to expect society to care for them. The funds could be better used to help the victim's families. God instituted the death penalty.
A death sentence for a minor is simply wrong. A true life sentence is not. That's just the way I think it is. If a life sentence really means "life" then society is protected.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.