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.
And none of it matters anymore, because five unelected life-tenured liberal justices on the Supreme Court have shut down all further debate at all levels.
In the words of Macbeth further debate by the other 280 million citizens of the United States on this utterly important issue has been reduced to mere sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Those who find themselves in agreement with the Supreme Court on this particular issue would be wise to carefully reexamine their premises. What the Supreme Court has done here, it can do with any issue. Its power is plenary and entire wherever the liberal muse leads it.
Incredible. I am going to read the dissent now.
That's a cop-out. Tell me where my understanding is "flawed."
The Majority opinion did have a point, here:
""A majority of States have rejected the imposition of the
death penalty on juvenile offenders under 18, and we now
hold this is required by the Eighth Amendment.""
It appears that the SC majority believes that it is time to amend the Constitution by determining maximum penalties - or denying certain penalties - in the Nation. So 5 judges made law.
IV Our determination that the death penalty is dispropor- tionate punishment for offenders under 18 finds confirma- tion in the stark reality that the United States is the only country in the world that continues to give official sanc- tion to the juvenile death penalty. This reality does not become controlling, for the task of interpreting the Eighth Amendment remains our responsibility. Yet at least from the time of the Court™s decision in Trop, the Court has referred to the laws of other countries and to international authorities as instructive for its interpretation of the Eighth Amendment™s prohibition of ifcruel and unusual punishments.ln 356 U. S., at 102Œ103 (plurality opinion) (iiThe civilized nations of the world are in virtual unanim- ity that statelessness is not to be imposed as punishment for crimelm); see also Atkins, supra, at 317, n. 21 (recogniz- ing that ihwithin the world community, the imposition of the death penalty for crimes committed by mentally re- tarded offenders is overwhelmingly disapprovedll); Thomp-son, supra, at 830Œ831, and n. 31 (plurality opinion) (not- ing the abolition of the juvenile death penalty ieby other nations that share our Anglo-American heritage, and by the leading members of the Western European commu- nity,la and observing that ih[w]e have previously recognized the relevance of the views of the international community in determining whether a punishment is cruel and un- usuall.); Enmund, supra, at 796Œ797, n. 22 (observing that ihthe doctrine of felony murder has been abolished in Eng- land and India, severely restricted in Canada and a num- ber of other Commonwealth countries, and is unknown in continental Europeln); Coker, supra, at 596, n. 10 (plurality opinion) (iiIt is . . . not irrelevant here that out of 60 major nations in the world surveyed in 1965, only 3 retained the death penalty for rape where death did not ensue).As respondent and a number of amici emphasize, Article 37 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which every country in the world has ratified save for the United States and Somalia, contains an express prohibition on capital punishment for crimes committed by juveniles under 18. United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Art. 37, Nov. 20, 1989, 1577 U. N. T. S. 3, 28 I. L. M. 1448, 1468Œ1470 (entered into force Sept. 2, 1990); Brief for Respondent 48; Brief for European Union et al. as Amici Curiae 12Œ13; Brief for President James Earl Carter, Jr., et al. as Amici Curiae 9; Brief for Former U. S. Diplomats Morton Abramowitz et al. as Amici Curiae 7; Brief for Human Rights Commit- tee of the Bar of England and Wales et al. as Amici Curiae 13Œ14. No ratifying country has entered a reservation to the provision prohibiting the execution of juvenile offend- ers. Parallel prohibitions are contained in other signifi- cant international covenants. See ICCPR, Art. 6(5), 999 U. N. T. S., at 175 (prohibiting capital punishment for anyone under 18 at the time of offense) (signed and rati- fied by the United States subject to a reservation regard- ing Article 6(5), as noted, supra, at 13); American Conven- tion on Human Rights: Pact of San José, Costa Rica, Art. 4(5), Nov. 22, 1969, 1144 U. N. T. S. 146 (entered into force July 19, 1978) (same); African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, Art. 5(3), OAU Doc. CAB/LEG/ 24.9/49 (1990) (entered into force Nov. 29, 1999) (same).
Respondent and his amici have submitted, and peti- tioner does not contest, that only seven countries other than the United States have executed juvenile offenders since 1990: Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and China. Since then each of these countries has either abolished capital pun- ishment for juveniles or made public disavowal of the practice. Brief for Respondent 49Œ50. In sum, it is fair to say that the United States now stands alone in a world that has turned its face against the juvenile death penalty.
Though the international covenants prohibiting the juvenile death penalty are of more recent date, it is in- structive to note that the United Kingdom abolished the juvenile death penalty before these covenants came into being. The United Kingdom™s experience bears particular relevance here in light of the historic ties between our countries and in light of the Eighth Amendment™s own origins. The Amendment was modeled on a parallel provi- sion in the English Declaration of Rights of 1689, which provided: ir[E]xcessive Bail ought not to be required nor excessive Fines imposed; nor cruel and unusuall Punish- ments inflicted.lv 1 W. & M., ch. 2, §10, in 3 Eng. Stat. at Large 441 (1770); see also Trop, supra, at 100 (plurality opinion). As of now, the United Kingdom has abolished the death penalty in its entirety; but, decades before it took this step, it recognized the disproportionate nature of the juvenile death penalty; and it abolished that penalty as a separate matter. In 1930 an official committee rec- ommended that the minimum age for execution be raised to 21. House of Commons Report from the Select Committee on Capital Punishment (1930), 193, p. 44. Parliament then enacted the Children and Young Person™s Act of 1933, 23 Geo. 5, ch. 12, which prevented execution of those aged 18 at the date of the sentence. And in 1948, Parliament enacted the Criminal Justice Act, 11 & 12 Geo. 6, ch. 58, prohibiting the execution of any person under 18 at the time of the offense. In the 56 years that have passed since the United Kingdom abolished the juvenile death penalty, the weight of authority against it there, and in the inter- national community, has become well established.
It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty, resting in large part on the understanding that the instability and emotional imbalance of young people may often be a factor in the crime. See Brief for Human Rights Committee of the Bar of England and Wales et al. as Amici Curiae 10Œ11. The opinion of the world community, while not controlling our outcome, does pro- vide respected and significant confirmation for our own conclusions.
Over time, from one generation to the next, the Consti- tution has come to earn the high respect and even, as Madison dared to hope, the veneration of the American people. See The Federalist No. 49, p. 314 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961). The document sets forth, and rests upon, innova- tive principles original to the American experience, such as federalism; a proven balance in political mechanisms through separation of powers; specific guarantees for the accused in criminal cases; and broad provisions to secure individual freedom and preserve human dignity. These doctrines and guarantees are central to the American experience and remain essential to our present-day self- definition and national identity. Not the least of the reasons we honor the Constitution, then, is because we know it to be our own. It does not lessen our fidelity to the Constitution or our pride in its origins to acknowledge that the express affirmation of certain fundamental rights by other nations and peoples simply underscores the centrality of those same rights within our own heritage of freedom.
* * * The Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments forbid imposi- tion of the death penalty on offenders who were under the age of 18 when their crimes were committed. The judg- ment of the Missouri Supreme Court setting aside the sentence of death imposed upon Christopher Simmons is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Uh-0h, that is gonna get Scalia on double secret probation by the dems in the Judiciary Committee---tying a juvenile murder's complicity to a poor pitiful liberal girl getting an abortion is just plain disgraceful---
I can just see Daschle pounding the dais and sighing about how "wrong, wrong, wrong" this is and how everything SHOULD NOT be brought back to the abortion issue--
Which of course is ridciulous since that is the ONLY critirea that dems use in voting for a judicial nominee!!!
I'm flabbergasted.
I think it's cruel and unusual way to die, but it's a stretch to say that she had been "sentenced' to it for a crime.
So, in your view it is not a violation of the Constituion to starve and dehydrate an innocent woman to death but it is cruel and unusual to sentence a murderer to death? Not all murderers mind you, each case should be decided on it's own merits. I simply don't understand that logic.
Word games like that don't interest me BTW.
It's not a word game, it's an argument that the SCOTUS is not an objective body. One need only look at Terry Schiavo, abortion and this holding to know that. The APA says that girls under the age of consent can make decisions regarding the taking of human life without parental advice or consent and in the same breath they contend that girls and boys under the age of 18 can not know the impact of killing another human being.
And SCOTUS agrees with them in both cases!
It is hypocrisy on it's face.
If Scalia quotes a newer foreign source, it would be referenced back through a line of legal or philosophical reasoning at the time of founding -- that is it would be a strongly derivative commentary upon the very sources the Founder's used. IMO.
Did Terri murder someone that she should be executed? I wasn't aware that she had, please inform us.
She is not in a coma and she is not a vegetable, so why do find it odd to support her life considering that she did NOT leave a living will stating that she would rather die and her families wishes to care for her, eve nthough her adultering husband keeps trying to have her legally murdered.
You seem to miss the point about the taking of an innocent life vs. taking the life of a guilty murderer.
And none of it matters anymore, because five unelected life-tenured liberal justices on the Supreme Court have shut down all further debate at all levels.
I don't, I would prefer them to be on the moon.
My point was consistency of principle.
Something you don't see, since emotions rule your world, or perhaps religious dogma.
Whatever it is, it is inconsistent.
What would your reaction be if the 'final result' was not to your liking?
Some "possiblys" are in practical terms impossible.
And in any event the greater threat to republican government is the well-demonstrated willingness of five liberal life-tenured Supreme Court Justices to destroy participatory democracy and citizen debate piecemeal whenever and wherever the elitist liberal muse leads them to do it. This decision is one small piece of a greater evil.
It is common knowledge that the founders used foreign sources, English common law, the Mosaic law, Hammurabi, et al to contruct the document known as the US Constitution.
That has nothing to do with interpreting the document as is unless a phrase in the document derives directly from one of the same. Judges must interpret the Constitution as written with an eye toward the intent when written.
What the Europeans at large do or don't do is inapposite to the interpretation of our Constitution.
Have you heard about the Texas Connally prison incident about five years ago, which resulted in the murder of policemen by the fugitives? How will you ensure that these men do not kill again, except by removing them by the death penalty?
The penalty for murder, as all killing, should not be "punishment." It should be a protection for the rest of us from a threat by a killer. I'm more than willing to impose lesser penalties where the public is not at risk. But, what to do about proven killers who are not bound by any prohibition to kill?
The boy in question bragged that he killed the woman (by covering her eyes and then her entire face with tape and then throwing her in water so that she drowned) because she saw his face when he broke in to rob her and then kidnapped her.
He killed in order to escape what would have been a lesser penalty. How will you protect society from this person?
That is treasonous.
I like the idea of hard labor gangs on the moon!
Do something useful with humanities trash, rather than warehouse them.
But these things are only done in certain states.
Just had my street cleaned last week, BTW.
Your point was fallacious regarding TS. She is guilty of nothing.
You're point is right on if applied to SCOTUS, they are hypocrites writ large.
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.