High Court Ends Death Penalty for Youths

AP, via Yahoo ^ | 3/1/05 | By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer

[So Cal Rocket]

WASHINGTON - 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.

It was the second major defeat at the high court in three years for supporters of the death penalty. Justices in 2002 banned the execution of the mentally retarded, also citing the Constitution's Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishments.

The court had already outlawed executions for those who were 15 and younger when they committed their crimes.

Tuesday's ruling prevents states from making 16- and 17-year-olds eligible for execution.

Justice Anthony Kennedy (news - web sites), writing for the majority, noted that most states don't allow the execution of juvenile killers and those that do use the penalty infrequently. The trend, he noted, was to abolish the practice.

"Our society views juveniles ... as categorically less culpable than the average criminal," Kennedy wrote.

Juvenile offenders have been put to death in recent years in just a few other countries, including Iran (news - web sites), Pakistan, China and Saudi Arabia. All those countries have gone on record as opposing capital punishment for minors.

The Supreme Court has permitted states to impose capital punishment since 1976 and more than 3,400 inmates await execution in the 38 states that allow death sentences.

Justices were called on to draw an age line in death cases after Missouri's highest court overturned the death sentence given to a 17-year-old Christopher Simmons, who kidnapped a neighbor in Missouri, hog-tied her and threw her off a bridge. Prosecutors say he planned the burglary and killing of Shirley Crook in 1993 and bragged that he could get away with it because of his age.

The four most liberal justices had already gone on record in 2002, calling it "shameful" to execute juvenile killers. Those four, joined by Kennedy, also agreed with Tuesday's decision: Justices John Paul Stevens (news - web sites), David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg (news - web sites) and Stephen Breyer (news - web sites).

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia (news - web sites) and Clarence Thomas (news - web sites), as expected, voted to uphold the executions. They were joined by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (news - web sites).

Currently, 19 states allow executions for people under age 18: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Utah, Texas and Virginia.

In a dissent, Scalia decried the decision, arguing that there has been no clear trend of declining juvenile executions to justify a growing consensus against the practice.

"The court says in so many words that what our people's laws say about the issue does not, in the last analysis, matter: 'In the end our own judgment will be brought to bear on the question of the acceptability of the death penalty,' he wrote in a 24-page dissent.

"The court thus proclaims itself sole arbiter of our nation's moral standards," Scalia wrote.

[Houmatt]

Justices were called on to draw an age line in death cases after Missouri's highest court overturned the death sentence given to a 17-year-old Christopher Simmons, who kidnapped a neighbor in Missouri, hog-tied her and threw her off a bridge. Prosecutors say he planned the burglary and killing of Shirley Crook in 1993 and bragged that he could get away with it because of his age.

And he was proven right.

[technomage]

You're either pro-life or you're not.

Tell that to the families of the victims.

[Labyrinthos]

Scalia for Chief Justice!

He would still only get one vote.

[JimRed]

Do parents have the right to judge their children?

Yes.

At what age should parents impose the death penalty?

They already have the "right" to impose the death penalty, just about up to the time of birth! I referred to INNOCENT life for a reason. Who is more innocent than an unborn child?

They have no right to impose the death penalty on their kids, but they have a responsibility to turn them in if they deserve it!

[massgopguy]

Precisely why gangs use the young ones for hit men. They can only keep them in Juvie in MA until they are 18. Then the record is sealed.

[Texas Federalist]

Well, now we're no longer in the company of Congo, Iran, Nigeria, and Saudi Arabia, the only countries left in the world which still execute minors.

Yes, the European countries that don't are so enlightened.

[Labyrinthos]

You're either pro-life or you're not.

I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one here who has a problem with the intellectual dishonesty among those pro-death penalty advocates who are also anti-abortion, and I wonder how many of those switch sides and favor killing babies when conceived by rape or incest.

What also boggles my mind is the numebr of pro-death penalty advocates who regularly pray to God for everything from the winning lotto numbers, to good weather for their upcoming vacation, high grades on their children's report card, business success, and good health, but don't trust God enough to judge those convicted of murder by us mere humans and administer the ultimate punishment. Like you said, you're either pro-life or you're not, and as far as I'm concerned there is no middle ground.

[blues_guitarist]

"The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the Constitution forbids the execution of killers who were under 18 when they committed their crimes."

BRAVO SIERRA!

[hopespringseternal]

I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one here who has a problem with the intellectual dishonesty among those pro-death penalty advocates who are also anti-abortion,

If you aren't an idiot, the difference is perfectly clear. The death penalty is for the guilty, not the innocent. Only a deeply evil person reverses that equation.

[Mark Hamilton]

I am sure as the details of the opinion are reviewed the logic used by the majority will be (as it always is these days) embarrassing to those who defend our legal institutions as worthy of respect.

The typical American child is inculcated at a very early age to love the President and honor the Supreme Court as the demigods of what is just and good. Although frequently tarnished, at least every once in a while an excellent President comes along that actually shines on the office and keeps that part of the myth alive.

Not so with our Supreme Mullahs. The Supreme Mullahs (also known as the nine Popes) are the only branch to dress in imperial robes with lifetime appointments and pretend they are wiser than that than the sea of supplicants that troop each day to their doors seeking audience, mercy, and favors.

And before each group of supplicants, the nine chant incomprehensible tongues (even to one another)and consult the oracle of subjective knowledge (also known as 'me want this result') and 'poof' an order comes forth for all the people, their congresses, their President, their very society must fall to the ground and obey...if not rabidly praise:

"WE HAVE DIVINED, AND THE CONSITUTION CLEARLY SAYS (5 divinations "clearly" say one thing, 4 of divinations "clearly" say another) that it is cruel and unusual to execute adults for the slaughter of their parents or fellow students when at the tender and confusing age of 17." and then "There is no appeal to the mullahs".

Of course, one wonders what 'unusual' means to the old witchdoctors, according to their decsion anyone who is in the minority is 'unusual' and as a minority of states execute juvenile offenders, it is unusual and must be outlawed. (Hmm one would suppose they also think a court minority of four is 'unusual' and needs outlawed).

Just how could such unbelievably moronic logic be uttered from even one of these yellow eyed witchdoctors. Let's see: we believe in federalism (let the states decide for themselves) except when they do, some are found "unusual" and their federalist rights must be taken away.

And when the Supreme Court says (as it did 20 years ago) that the death penality was too freely applied and needed stricter guidelines for special circumstances, many states outlawed such executions and the others limited it to special cases (the 70 on death row). "AH HA", the Supreme fossils said "now that you've made it humane and limited to special circumstances it is "UNUSUAL" and it must be struck down".

What is so galling is that unlike the other political institutions of our government, the Supreme Mullahs deny they are political and not only make the public eat crow, but demand veneration.

The reality is that our free country is a sham. The nine let the people manage themselves on operations, but not on the issues that set the moral course of the nation ... the mullahs will decide that for us.

It is too much to hope we will ever get a court that stops taking away our freedom, or stays out of democratic concerns. My only hope is that the school system and our peers stop this Supreme Court worshipping and teary eyed ring kissing of these jackasses.

The Constitution is in shreds and before I die, I hope that one day I will have an opportunity to spit on one of these Ayatollahs.

[conserv13]

Thanks.

Children under the age of 18 cannot vote, they cannot drink, they cannot smoke. But they can be executed?

[Les_Miserables]

In a dissent, Scalia decried the decision, arguing that there has been no clear trend of declining juvenile executions to justify a growing consensus against the practice. "The court says in so many words that what our people's laws say about the issue does not, in the last analysis, matter: 'In the end our own judgment will be brought to bear on the question of the acceptability of the death penalty,' he wrote in a 24-page dissent. "The court thus proclaims itself sole arbiter of our nation's moral standards," Scalia wrote.

Scalia is right on most counts but falls short here. It is not "The Court" it is these five judges! Five. The four most liberal justices, Justice, Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer; joined by Justice Kennedy, also a liberal.
I have no more difficulty favoring the death penalty for human animals regardless of age than I do favoring killing the enemy in time of war. To me it is the same thing. The case that sponsored this decision was clearly one where the death penalty should apply. BTW putting a malicious sadistic murderer to death is clearly far removed from the position that an unborn child has a right to explore life. Not even in the same ballpark.

[Labyrinthos]

If you aren't an idiot, the difference is perfectly clear. The death penalty is for the guilty, not the innocent. Only a deeply evil person reverses that equation.

I would rather trust God to administer the ultimate punishment. But what do I know? I'm just a freal'in idiot. BTW, how many people over the last five years or so have been released from prison after DNA testing established that the jury who convicted the person had erred?

[M 91 u2 K]

So you are against killing Jihadies who attack America?

After all we have to allow a natural death to be Pro Life!

[hopespringseternal]

I would rather trust God to administer the ultimate punishment.

God will, and that has nothing to do with the death penalty, stay on subject.

BTW, how many people over the last five years or so have been released from prison after DNA testing established that the jury who convicted the person had erred?

Shocker, the system works!

Produce an innocent that has been executed in the last 50 years and we can talk about changing the system, provided that you can show the system at fault and not one bad actor sabotaging it.

But you still ignore the basic problem with eliminating the death penalty: You automatically place higher value on the life of murderers than their victims. He gets off with a prison sentence from which escape, parole, a liberal judge, are all possibilities for an unfettered life. The victim will always be dead.

You ignore the very real probability that he will kill again, either in prison or after the next liberal judge sets him free.

All this so you can feel self-righteous and superior.

[Les_Miserables]

So let's break it down a bit. Would you agree he deserved death if he (the murderer) was convicted based on hard DNA evidence, admitted guilt and declared he could avoid the death penalty because he was under age?
IMHO, Folks who can't support the death penalty when justified suffer from the same brain warp that drives all liberals.

[DannyTN]

"This is the logic that bothered me... Kennedy based his decision on a trend... not the Constitution."

Trend was cited in the abolishment of sodomy laws too.

[nightdriver]

"Unbelieveable that there were even four justices in support of killing children."

Right!

After all, if someone is murdered by someone under the age of 18, he isn't quite as dead as he would be if he were murdered by an adult.

Sounds reasonable to me. (/sarc.)

[Les_Miserables]

What kind of muddled thinking equates voting, drinking or smoking with premeditated murder? Get a grip.

[conserv13]

Actually the thinking is exactly the same. Children are not responsible enough yet to be held fully accountable for their actions.