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.
Me neither....must be close to that part about abortion.
Doubt it, since I'm pretty sure you can get the death penalty for hiring people to kill, and is actually an aggravating circumstance in most states.
No state kills 15 year old murders. They kill 25 year olds, who murdered when they were 15.
Not that I really like the idea of executing kid killers, but ...
BINGO!
What page of the Constitution is that on???? I cannot seem to find it. Maybe my copy of the original has something missing.
5 to 4 decision. Dissenting: Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist and O'Connor.
Kennedy wrote the majority opinion.
What difference does their age make? They still committed a murder and should be subject to the same penalty that would befall any one else who commits the same crime.
I guess that the time to bump somebody off is while you are still eighteen. How stupid is this.
I agree also with the sentiment of the decision. But whether or not I agree, the question is whether the justices really have the authority to define "cruel" this way, usurping state prerogatives. I don't think they do.
Doubt it.. im sure the death penality stopped kids from killing one another. If they are going to kill someone at that age.. nothing from a spanking to the death penality is going to stop them.. never did, never has.. They are so young they dont grasp what death really is. The majority of kids in jail never understood until they pulled the trigger. Death or Jail hasnt stopped them, and never will.
"Cruel and unusual punishment," the courts say.
This will remove a few from death row in Texas. http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/offendersondrow.htm
The best argument yet for going straight to the so-called "nuclear option" in the Senate, re: the replacement of Supreme Court justices between now and the end of '08.
=====
Agreed. The SC has gone highly liberal, running on politics, and if EVER TERM LIMITS SHOULD BE APPLIED, the SC members should clealy be replaced periodically. I will say the SC is out of control now. THEY ARE MAKING TOO MANY POLITICALLY-DRIVEN DECISIONS when they should be ONLY interpeting THE LAW.
bars states from seeking to execute minors for future crimes
henceforth bars states from seeking to execute minors for capital crimes...
bars states from executing minors in the future
:>)
How best to say it?
Because the problem is that the Constitution doesn't prohibit it.
Even worse, it's likely that the majority opinion of the Court has staked their claim on foreign law and jurisprudence.
Time will tell. Let's revisit this in, say, a decade?
What age is too young then? 8, 9 years old? Little Timmy hits his little sister with a bat out of anger and kills her.. Does the court system kill him too?
What age is too young? Out of diapers?
How old is Kennedy? Real old, I hope?
How about an 17 year old gang-banger who taunts the victim with "I can do anything I want to you and they can't kill me" as they perform a torture-murder on one of your family members?
Okay, where did the morons find this in the Constitution.
Or did they base on the laws of other nations?
Somebody get a rope!
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.