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."
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."
You got it right. I imagine that the dissent points out that while most or all agree that it is cruel to execute someone who committed a crime when "too young", the exact line drawing of age thresholds is arbitrary, approximate, and a matter for state representatives to decide.
Moreover, the 18 threshold is selected to ensure that the benefits and responsibilities of adulthood are earned. We may know that most 17 year-olds are able to know what they are doing when entring into contracts, marriage, or the miltary, but we hold off until 18 to let the less mature group mature (giving up on those who will never mature at this stage). This is a conservative approach.
However, (say) half of 15-year-olds may be fully aware of the consequences of their actions, whether in signing up for the Army, or pulling a trigger. It is not cruel to execute one who is indeed aware of the wrongfulness of his actions, while it may be an open question requiring evidence at a sentencing hearing.
"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.""
Would you please post where in the Constitution this if found?