Posted on 03/01/2005 7:21:16 AM PST by Next_Time_NJ
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.
This report will be updated as details become available.
Are you making the argument that anyone sentenced to life should be executed? You realize, with 3 strikes laws in places like California, that would lead to executions of people convicted of three car-theft felonies, as an example?
Actually, I don't think any state kills anybody who killed when they were 15. I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that under a previous Supreme Court decision, it was already unconstitutional to kill anyone who committed their crime while under the age of 16.
Remember Willy Horton?
There was another infamous child killer from Massachussets a few years back who was released from prison and put on a bus to Montana where he kidnapped and killed several more children.
Capital punishment the first time would have spared several innocent lives later.
You just support them now because you agree with their decision, but this is Judicial Activism.
Hey, kids, no need to spare your victims out of fear of the death penalty. Go ahead and kill 'em. Fewer loose ends and all that.
Ok, no wwait a minute, just cause i said I agreed with their decsions doesn't mean you or anyone need to go and get nasty with me. I happen to believe in the death penalty and support it. I also am a Conervative, but I myself have always had issues with the death penalty for people under 18. Feel free to disagree but as far as the personal attacks, can we leave thos out of this. For goodness sakes, I'm not going to wish bad things on you or anyone else.
BS.
The legislative branch can pass and the executive branch can sign bills that are not subject to judicial review if they want.
Also, the executive branch can exercise an absolute pardon if it disagrees with a conviction.
Anyway people who MURDER should be be executed and not given a chance to kill again.
Of the five votes for, three (Stevens, Souter, Kennedy) were appointed by a Republicans. Hate to say it, but Reagan has just as much culpability as Bush I.
2nd chance 30 years later .. at 47 .. im sure they arent about to rob, rape and murder anytime soon. If i was the same person i was at 17 (15 years ago) i would probably be in a jail now.. people change as they get older... You think that 17 year old is going to be the same person at 47? Hell no.
I just dont think sticking a needle in the arm of a 16/17 year old is punishment.. its the easy way out.. Its vengence for the family.. but thats not part of the law.
Of course they are.
Right now a list should be made up of all those under-18s on death row.
When they are eventually released from custody and kill again we can send Kennedy, Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer are profound thanks.
Not to mention that many of our violent criminals in this country are psychopaths. Meaning, there is no inherent difference between a 15 year old budding serial killer and a 25 year old. The 15 year old will never improve or change.
If wer'e going to have life and not death, then these killers need to be isolated and cut off from the outside world.
Or we could have a judge's family end up dead like in Illinois perhaps at the behest of someone already serving a life sentence for murder(white supremist who already threatened her life.)
Execution is not a method. It is a result of a method.
Huh? I said the same thing in my post.
I've changed my mind so many times regarding the death penalty that I will not condemn either side for its opinions (I'm currently in a pro-death penalty phase, for whatever that's worth.)
What bugs me about this decision, however, is that AGAIN, certain members of SCOTUS have taken it upon themselves to create this "right", supposedly found in the Constitution, when nothing of the sort is mentioned there. It seems that when babies' lives are at stake, this chimerical document finds "rights" of mothers where none exist to kill the innocent unborn, and now, for hardened killers who happen to be under the age of 18, they will not face the ultimate consequences for their acts. It is a sad, sad day for the legal system to have this view prevail.
I need to read the full opinion and dissents, but this looks like a horrible case of judicial activism to me.
I don't really see the big deal with this decision. All of these murderers will stay in prison for the rest of their lives, or very close thereto. It's not like this decision puts them back on the streets.
Actually, I don't think any state kills anybody who killed when they were 15. I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that under a previous Supreme Court decision, it was already unconstitutional to kill anyone who committed their crime while under the age of 16.
Fine. No state kills 16 year old murders. They kill 26 year olds who bacame murders at 16.
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.