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.
I just gave you an opportunity to put your money where your mouth is.
That is not a personal attack but a logical continuation of what you said. Don't blame me if you don't like the result.
And we all said Amen!
If it isn't justice how is it all of our states at the time of the Constitution had the death penalty? It wasn't until very recently that such a punishment was stricken from the books.
That's your sensibility but it's not part of our tradition or culture.
LOL. You should try keeping up with current events sometime.
If they are alive and kicking, eventually a liberal judge will get around to setting them free. It has happened before, it will happen again.
And your logic is wrong since the average amount of prison served for juvenile killers is jut 6 YEARS!
Yet again a debatable interpretation of the Constitution becomes law ... and the plainly-worded 2nd Amendment continues to be ignored. Clarity is in the goals of the beholder.
If a 16 year old can be treated as an adult and get the ultimate penality any court can lay upon a man, the i think a 16 year old should be able to drink, join the army, get married in any state, drive in any state and buy firearms.
You cant have it both ways.. Why is a 16/17 year old only an adult when they do something bad?
Right, based on your own morality. Why argue an obvious truth?
Incorrect. The SCOTUS has the legitimate power to determine when a punishment is cruel and unusual.
Your opinion. TO me it is obviously the wrong opinion but you're entitled to it.
Some things they legislate concern morality, other things do not. In any case, they don't define morality, they make laws.
All things they legislate have a moral component. That is simply truth. Laws define the morality of the body making them. This again is simple truth.
Incorrect. But I will admit they make lots of immoral laws.
Not incorrect. All laws have a moral component. If not, it should be quite simple for you to name a few that don't. I wouldn't rack my brain though because my staement is correct. That doesn't mean that every law is perfect or moral, just that the body making them bases their decisions on their own morality. Again, simple truth.
Which of course has nothing whatsoever to do with deciding what is moral.
You're not offering an argument, you are simply making claims that are not true.
If you like the idea that politicians define morality, you will love it when Hillary is back in charge.
Blah, blah, blah.
Hitler was elected, he didn't get to define morality.
More blah.
Okay you draw the line....Where is it? 14 years old and 364 days or 16 year old...Go ahead draw a line.
Evidence, please.
Well then they need to change the law to manditory time.
You don't know that. There are plenty of cases where new murders have been carried out by men (and youth) who have already served time for murder.
The point is, the issue should be left to the states to decide, not to five life-tenured liberals on the Supreme Court citing dubious international law texts and unsigned treaties authored by other liberals.
less danger? No, that is not what I think. I think they are a child under 18 and should never see the light of day again. But to put them to death I just don't feel comfortable with. I don't make the law though, and apparently the supreme court just decided, whether anyone agrees or disagrees.
And I'm not blaming you for any results, I'm asking you to back off of me, I just gave my opinion and you got snotty with me for no reason. Grow up!
You can still put him in a small box and leave him there.
Wow
So now you are going to lock up everybody under 18? < /sarc>
I know what you mean. But you equate the just execution of someone who committed a heinous crime with that of a murder of a innocent. You make NO distention between the guilty and the innocent.
OK, I found it in the Constitution. It says "17 years and 364 days old, ye cannot execute a Person. However, add a day and that that makes it not so cruel and unusual."
In terms of a national constitution, we have done exactly as you put it. However, common law is still part of our lower-level legal systems.
You are so WRONG.
And it is not just NY.
Average prison time served for juvenile killers and a matter of fact adult killers is just 6 YEARS!
Right. The Supreme Court does NOT get to decide whether executing people who committed crimes before they turned 18 is "a good idea" or not.
They get to decide whether or not it's constitutional or not.
Even those who agree that such persons should not be executed should be disturbed that the Court took it upon themselves to make this decision.
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.