Hearing likely in SC 1944 teen execution.

MANNING — A one-of-a-kind hearing for a new trial likely will be held next month in Manning during which evidence will be aired in a 69-year-old double murder that ended in the execution of 14-year-old George Stinney, the youngest person put to death in the United States in modern times.

“My office is trying to get the court to give us a date when the motion for a new trial can be heard,” 3rd Circuit Solicitor Ernest “Chip” Finney III said Tuesday.

Earlier this year, Stinney’s family — two surviving Stinney sisters and the surviving brother — retained lawyer Steven McKenzie of Manning to file a 64-page motion for a new trial.

I disagree. There are plenty of truly savage 14 year olds out there.

http://nation.time.com/2013/11/21/14-year-old-indicted-for-rape-and-murder-of-high-school-teacher/

The bottom line is that each and every criminal case is unique. Many 14 year olds are indeed immature. But in recent years, most states have recognized that other factors apply, which is why prosecutors may decide to try *some* juveniles “as adults”, based on particular evidence.

And if a jury agrees in that rationale, that their murderous acts were so heinous and vicious, that “aggravating” circumstances apply that warrant the death penalty, numeric age, within reason, does not matter. At least the cut off age should be lower, to the point where almost no juvenile offender *could* merit it.

Does this mean that 10 year olds and younger should not be executed? Perhaps, but only based on the statistics. How many truly savage 10 year olds are out there?

There are common sense reforms that can be done so that a delay of decades to execute someone can be mitigated, and at no loss to fairness or justice.

Probably the biggest problem is that federal judges who are personally opposed to any death penalty, try to force a “death by ducks” strategy, of nit-picking tiny details of the means of execution. For example, if three drugs are used, then the judge rejects it on the grounds that different drugs are “better”, even if unavailable, or that a different combination of drugs are “better”, or that only very perishable drugs can be used, so have to be procured, if available, just before the execution, etc., ad nauseum.

This could be alleviated by the US senate and house judiciary committees deciding that states are “competent authorities” to decide *how* to execute, so that the means they choose, of previously used legal means of execution, are not a federal issue.

Second, is that all death penalty appeals should automatically move to the head of the federal docket. Some federal judges purposefully accept such appeals, but put them at the end of the list, which means years of delay even before an appellate hearing. In addition, the committees could decide to limit the amount of time that can be used for delays during the appeal, say one month each for the defense, the prosecution, and one month at the judge’s discretion.

Third, the committees should agree that for the most part, federal judges cannot overturn death penalties, or return them to lower courts with instructions to overturn or not to allow a death sentence. Unless an appeal exonerates a conviction. This means if the judge throws out the death penalty, the convict goes free. No half measures. Few federal judges opposed to the death penalty would dare release a murderous criminal if that was the only option other than the death penalty.

In any event, while giving a death penalty to a savage juvenile should not be as easy as giving one to an adult, and certainly it should merit more scrutiny at the state and federal level, just refusing it entirely on the grounds of numerical age should not be done.

Right now, trying particularly heinous juveniles as adults is generally seen as reasonable, and prosecutorial discretion is generally good in deciding this, so the same consideration should be used in determining the death penalty.

As one example, here is the story of a vicious, Mexican cartel assassin, at the age of 11. Who is soon to be released in the United States, at the age of 17 or 18. Free to roam our streets, because he is a “juvenile”.

N.B.: The cartels are specially recruiting young juveniles to commit heinous acts, precisely because they will not risk the same punishment as adults.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/nov/26/world/la-fg-mexico-killer-kid-20131127

So what is the objection to pulling the cork on them?

A life spent in prison is little more than the public having to shell out about $1m a decade to keep them fed, housed, with medical care, where they will likely be brutalized. It is more “cruel and unusual” than just killing them, on the off chance that some judge may eventually say that they’ve been in long enough, so just turn them loose. To do what?

Lots of killers, adults and juveniles, were turned off in “the good old days”. Importantly, the overwhelming majority of ‘juveniles’ were 17 years old at the time they committed their crime, so this is not typically “robbing the cradle”. The vast majority were repeat offenders, having committed other violent crimes for years before committing murder. Again, typically multiple murders to warrant the death penalty.

And in murder trials, lots of slack is already given to juveniles that is not given to adults, so a juvenile offender needs to be “special” to reach the bar where a jury decides they should be executed.

It is narrowed in the other direction as well, since if the crime is horrifically heinous, it is likely they will be judged insane, so are not subject to the death penalty.

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.