Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CNN: US SUPREME COURT: ALL DEATH PENALTY CASES WITH JUVENILE KILLERS THROWN OUT!
CNN on TV

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.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: ban; deathpenalty; impeachthem; judicialtyranny; juveniles; levinsexactlyright; meninblack; readmarklevinsbook; ropervsimmons; ruling; scotus; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 581-600601-620621-640 ... 821-826 next last
To: Cold Heat
"I see many of the same people who are viciously arguing to save Terry Shiavo, yet don't bat a eye when it come to executing a criminal that committed a crime as a juvenile."

How many people has Terry Schiavo murdered?

:::::crickets::::::

Obviously, the two situations are not comparable.

"But they found a basis for their decision in the constitution."

What was that basis? Do you know? Just because the SC decides something doesn't mean they actually have a constitutional basis for it. Or have you been keeping your head in the sand the last 35 years or so?

601 posted on 03/01/2005 10:33:18 AM PST by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 544 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

Once again, I don't think it a) COULD happen or b) SHOULD happen.

I'd like to have people up there that know what the hell they are doing. I wouldn't have a non-doctor operate on me on the theory that they can always read a book, and I wouldn't want a non-lawyer Supreme Court justice for the same reason.

But as I mentioned earlier, the Supreme Court has held in the past that a criminal defendant has a right to an appeal before a legally trained judge, so I don't think this would fly, although query who would have standing to challenge this.


602 posted on 03/01/2005 10:35:08 AM PST by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: gopwinsin04

I agree. That case is particularly horrific.


603 posted on 03/01/2005 10:35:51 AM PST by agrace (Is this the line where they're handing out tags?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Ready4Freddy

Great. Guess I spoke too soon. :(


604 posted on 03/01/2005 10:36:30 AM PST by agrace (Is this the line where they're handing out tags?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

I agree, but Scalia still cites to British law when determining constitutional issues.

My point of all this is that citing to foreign law isn't the horror that people make it out to be. Should it be binding? No. Should it be considered? Sure.


605 posted on 03/01/2005 10:36:45 AM PST by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 358 | View Replies]

To: Cold Heat
"My point was consistency of principle."

Consistency of principle (valuing human life) demands that a high price be paid for those who purposefully end a human life without good cause.

606 posted on 03/01/2005 10:37:02 AM PST by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 592 | View Replies]

To: CWW

Let us hope that it will be the Scotus members and their familes who will reap what they have sown.


607 posted on 03/01/2005 10:38:07 AM PST by freeangel ( (free speech is only good until someone else doesn't like what you say))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
She is guilty of nothing

No, but you are.

Guilt has squat to do with this. My point is lost on people with closed minds and agendas. It is much bigger than petty BS.

I'll leave you to rot in the past, and in the ambiguity of social morays.

608 posted on 03/01/2005 10:38:20 AM PST by Cold Heat (FR is still a good place to get the news and slap around an idiot from time to time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 600 | View Replies]

To: Mo1
yup, I'm sure Malvo's victims are not very happy about this decision.

IMPEACH THE 5 RADICALS

609 posted on 03/01/2005 10:39:58 AM PST by MJY1288
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 561 | View Replies]

To: Vicomte13; advance_copy

"Fine. Get the law changed in your legislature. The American people have a right to elective representation on decisions like these."

Unless the Supreme Court says otherwise, of course.

Then amend the Eighth Amendment. If there's such a popular groundswell of support for executing minor criminals, it ought to be easy.

610 posted on 03/01/2005 10:41:49 AM PST by Kretek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 534 | View Replies]

To: Cold Heat
No, but you are.

LOL, and what would that be. I admit to being a sinner but I don't know you from a hole in the wall. So tell me, what did I do now?

Guilt has squat to do with this. My point is lost on people with closed minds and agendas. It is much bigger than petty BS.

Your point failed. Don't whine about it, it's unbecoming.

I'll leave you to rot in the past, and in the ambiguity of social morays.

How did eels get into this?

611 posted on 03/01/2005 10:42:18 AM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 608 | View Replies]

To: TeleStraightShooter

"I thought moral issues were supposed to be decided by elected reps."

You thought wrong.


612 posted on 03/01/2005 10:44:10 AM PST by Vicomte13 (Tibikak Ishkwata!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 557 | View Replies]

To: bvw
I never said anything different than what you said. Scalia quotes foreign law--British law--and at the time of the founding, America threw off the yoke of British "oppression" and along with it, evidently, the law associated with it.

If it wasn't clear before, it's been VERY clear, at least since the the English Civil War and then January 30, 1649, that Britain has parliamentary supremacy. Such a concept was never fathomed in the United States in any way, shape, or form. Britain doesn't have a written constitution like ours. It's different.

For instance, Britain's common law forbids ex post facto laws--but no one doubts the ability of Parliament to override the common law, and Britain has, on several occasions, (not the least of which in the past five years or so) has passed ex post facto laws. But our constitution explicitly forbids ex post facto laws.

Our constitution didn't say that we adopt the British common law. In fact, it pretty much rejected that notion, at least as far as the constitution was concerned. If you want to say that looking at foreign sources is bas when interpreting the constitution (something I don't agree with), then the argument should apply with equal force to British law as any other law.
613 posted on 03/01/2005 10:44:11 AM PST by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 587 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Frank fan; Everybody

See the majority opinion - they did indeed mention the weight of international opinion against executing juveniles (who are often the most dangerous and completely immoral killers of all.) As I posted on another thread, term limits and re-election requirements are the only real solution to this frightening problem. Those who live in states with Republican Senators (I live in California. . .) need to REALLY put the heat on. With all the revolutionary stuff going on, now's the time!!


614 posted on 03/01/2005 10:45:00 AM PST by nimbysrule
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Publius Valerius; Pyro7480
I agree, but Scalia still cites to British law when determining constitutional issues.

Not quite true. Scalia only cites to English common law when the phrasing in the Constitution derives from same, ie: due process.

Big difference.

He does like Blackstone though, I'll give you that. But he doesn't consider the mores of other nations whne interpreting the Constitution. That is the crux of the matter.

615 posted on 03/01/2005 10:45:15 AM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 605 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
How did eels get into this?

Five of them voted for this piece of junk ;)

616 posted on 03/01/2005 10:46:14 AM PST by general_re ("Frantic orthodoxy is never rooted in faith, but in doubt." - Reinhold Niebuhr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 611 | View Replies]

To: general_re
This decision is an outage, but the people will not get mad, instead they will be pacified by reality TV and fast food.
The people will forget and move on.

So sad.
617 posted on 03/01/2005 10:49:30 AM PST by snarkytart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 616 | View Replies]

To: Vicomte13

Yeah, Andrew Jackson: "Justice (Taney?) has ruled, now let him enforce." Pretty cool.


618 posted on 03/01/2005 10:50:42 AM PST by nimbysrule
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Vicomte13
"I thought moral issues were supposed to be decided by elected reps." You thought wrong.

According to Justice Kennedy such issues are to be decided by elitist liberal European legal scholars whose views are to be forced on the several United States and their 280 million people without any debate or input by those states and citizens, through the expedient of five unelected life-tenured liberal Supreme Court Justices.

We are being made part of the EU on the whim of five Supreme Court Justices.

619 posted on 03/01/2005 10:50:59 AM PST by JCEccles (If Jimmy Carter were a country, he'd be Canada.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 612 | View Replies]

To: HostileTerritory
How about if an 11 year old killed someone--would you say the same thing?

If he killed brutally and premeditatedly, he should be killed. Then his parents should be either killed or imprisoned as accesories to the murder. They failed in their duty to raise a child and not an animal.

No, because he's just a kid, he can't think like an adult and understand what he did. No one wants to execute 11 year olds.

I've met plenty of 11 year olds who were adult enough in their thinking to do evil. They are no longer 'just a kid'

620 posted on 03/01/2005 10:51:47 AM PST by John O (God Save America (Please))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 581-600601-620621-640 ... 821-826 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson