Yeah, this is big, but honestly I think I have to agree with their decision.
OK. While I understand your sympathy for the little vermin, where in the Constitution is a 17yo murder precluded from being put to death by a State?
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.
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.
Dylan Klebold was 17. Now, defend your position.
When the constitution was written, a 17 year old was a man.
There is no magical divide between 18 and 17 in terms of maturity.
I also agree.
That's nice. We will send the little demons in human form to live in your house ok?
Well, Robert Heinlein,
classic libertarian,
thought society
for self protection
could put people to death, but
had no right at all
to treat human beings
like animals and lock them
in cages for life.
I have mixed feelings about this. My compassionate side says it is the right decision....
My other, louder side says their victims are as dead as they would be if the murderer was 21. There are way too many streetsmart minors out their who know exactly what they are doing.
I guess the next best thing to frying is to send a 15 or 16 year old cold blooded killer child to prison knowing he will never, ever see the outside. But that will be next on the lib agenda.
And when more and more murders are committed by juveniles, then what?
What stops people from hiring juveniles to murder others?
After all, if someone is killed by a person under the age of 18, he isn't quite as dead as if he were killed by an adult.
Makes sense to me. (/sarc.)
This is the teenage contract killers employment act of 2005. It is already common place for teens to be recruited to perform contract killings because of their immunity to the death penalty. The goofs in black have ensured and endorsed the practice.
Really.
Given the current national high school dropout rate (30%), and the relationship between drugs, organized crime, and youth gangs, you don't believe that there is any meaningful deterrent value to having the death statute applied to 12 year olds?
Oh, and I forgot to mention a new revenue stream for gangs - infiltrating terrorists. Given all of this, you think we ought to take the needle away from juvenile murder sentencing?
I think the Supremes continue to go around the bend. I'm not sure where everyone fell at 5-4, but I can guess that Scalia, Thomas, Renquest, and somebody else dissented.
Then you aren't aware of the horror that these killers/rapists/torturers subject their victims to. Cruel and unusual punishment? Yes, on their INNOCENT VICTIMS.
I disagree. I think the jury, judge and numerous avenues for appeal plus the pardon power of the governor and president of US, ensures all but the most aggravated, and heinous teen murderers get the death penalty.
I put my trust in the these people to make the right call.