Posted on 03/01/2005 7:32:36 AM PST by 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.
I agree 100%, as long as the state satisfies due process and the other protections guaranteed under the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments. Just because I am anti-death penalty doesn't mean that I agree with the SCOTUS decision. The constitutionally proscribed method for changing bad laws that are otherwise constitutional is not judical nullification of the law through twisted reasoning, but rather petitioning the state legislature for change or formally amending the constitution using the method set forth therein.
I realize that. Plus Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg, although "only" in her early 70s, has been having some health problems. But I just don't see much chance of any of the liberal justices leaving the Supreme Court during Bush's term unless they leave it feet first.
There is no question that Rehnquist will step down at the end of this term. O'Connor is also likely to step down during the next 3 years. It will be an uphill fight to replace either of them with conservatives.
Replacing Rehnquist with another conservative will not affect the balance of the Court. Replacing him with a moderate or a liberal obviously would. Replacing O'Connor with a conservative would tilt the balance in a few cases, but O'Connor sides with the conservative block more often than she does with the liberal block.
Souter and Breyer won't leave unless they die (which I don't think anyone wants to happen despite their voting habits) but O'Connor, Stevens and maybe Ginsburg could all be gone at any time. Stevens is almost 85, many think O'Connor will leave at the same time or soon after her good friend, William Rehnquist leaves. Ginsburg is a major ? because of her history of cancer one doesn't know if she could be forced to step down due to poor health.
How is the person going to murder again if he is sentenced to life without parole in solitary confinement in a 4x8 foot cell without windows, eating baloney sandwiches three times a day, while wearing pink panties on his head? I'm not against severe punishment.
As far as logic is concerned, there are three generally accepted goals in the criminal justice system: Deterrence, prevention, and retribution. The death penalty is obviously not a deterrent to others because if it was, then States like Texas, Georgia, Arizona, and Florida would have the lowest murder rates in the Country, rather than some of the highest rates. Prevention of future criminal conduct is certainly a worthy goal and the death penalty definitely works in that respect. But so does life without parole. That leaves retribution. And while I understand the human desire to seek revenge, I don't think we should be stooping to the level of third world, non-Judeao/Christian societies (I think you know who I'm talking about) where revenge killings are part of daily life.
With that said, if you have read my other posts you should have noted that I do not believe the death penalty is unconstitutional under most circumstances if the defendant was capable of forming and, in fact, formed the requisite mens rea to commit the crime. I do think the death penally is barbaric and unnecessary, and should be legislated out of existence on a state by state basis or by amending the constitution itself, but I don't think it is unconstitutional under most circumstances.
Rehnquist will almost certainly step down at the end of this Court term and O'Connor is likely to step down sometime during Bush's term. Replacing them with conservatives won't affect the current balance of the Court. Bush could, however, end up moving the Court to the left if he replaces either Rehnquist or O'Connor with a liberal.
I know he would not do so intentionally, but Stevens, Kennedy and Souter were all Republican nominees (Stevens was appointed by Nixon, Kennedy by Reagan and Souter by Bush Sr.) Why is it that Republican presidents seem to pick liberal Justices half the time but Democrat presidents never pick conservative Justices?
Well, Kennedy wasn't that bad when he was first appointed but he has been moving hard left ever since Bush v. Gore. As for Souter, he was picked basically because he had never ruled or written on anything controversial and Bush 41 was promised that Souter was "conservative" and didn't do much to verify this claim.
It is a very sad thought, but in the end, the Kingdom of Heaven will reward those women infinity times over. I'm glad others see it my way, too, every once and a while. ;)
And where did you get this description of what I am to presume is the sentence of the 17 yr 11 month old I referenced? If you think murderers sentenced to life are not eligible for parole at some point you need to increase your research. There are some who believe your lifetime solitary confinement is cruel and unusual especially for a 17 yr old...The same sympathetic logic that allows a murderer to escape death by one month will clearly be at the parole hearing arguing that the defendant has been a exemplary prisoner and should be set free...
I also find your comment below perplexing....
With that said, if you have read my other posts you should have noted that I do not believe the death penalty is unconstitutional under most circumstances if the defendant was capable of forming and, in fact, formed the requisite mens rea to commit the crime. I do think the death penally is barbaric and unnecessary, and should be legislated out of existence on a state by state basis or by amending the constitution itself, but I don't think it is unconstitutional under most circumstances.
How can it both be barbaric and constitutional under the definition of cruel and unusual punishment? BTW it clearly deters the executed criminal from further transgressions. While we are doing research lets count those who have been murdered by convicted but released murderers and help their families understand that to have executed the killers before they had chance to kill again would have been too cruel..And indeed what if the 17 yr old is "capable of forming and, in fact, formed the requisite mens rea to commit the crime" Why should he escape death because he is 17 (and I speak as a father of a 19 yr old who at 17 was a dingbat teenager but was fully capable of understanding murder and the consequences of same).
We have to agree to disagree.
We execute them for far worse things ...
I think I realized at about 4 years old the consequences of murder. For some to think that 16 and 17 year olds -- who are smart enough to skate by on the wrong side of the law, plan their crimes and carry them out-- do not, is fatuous.
The American people should decide what we want and not go by what other countries do.
Let those other countries go to hell if they want to keep killers alive.
Why? Are their victims any less dead?
Talk about cruel punishment:
Here's a case where a couple of wee poor babes didn't know what they were doing. /sarcasm
FACTS¶2.Sixteen-year old Stephen Virgil McGilberry was charged with the deaths of 44-year-old Patricia Purifoy, his mother; 44-year-old Kenneth Purifoy, his step-father; 24-year-old Kimberly Self, his half-sister, and 3-year-old Kristopher Self, his nephew and Kimberly's son.Police were called to Kenneth and Patricia's home on October 23, 1994, where they found the four bludgeoned bodies.An investigation revealed that McGilberry and 14- year-old Chris Johnson had taken Kimberly's car and driven to a friend's house in another town.The next morning, their friend's mother, Brenda Smith Saucier, drove the pair back to the Purifoy home, where police were waiting.
¶3.After McGilberry was read his Miranda rights, he signed a waiver.He then confessed to the killings and told authorities that he and Johnson had committed the murders with baseball bats.McGilberry indicated that he was disgruntled because his driving privileges had been taken away and that he had bludgeoned Kenneth and Kimberly while John had hit Patricia and Kristopher.McGilberry also admitted striking his mother with the baseball bat because he felt that she was suffering.McGilberry told police that he had taken cash and credit cards from his mother and then driven away in Kimberly's car.Blood stains on McGilberry's clothing matched the blood types of the victims.
¶8.At trial, the State was granted a jury instruction which required the jury to consider whether the crimes were especially heinous, atrocious or cruel.McGilberry argues that the murders were not heinous, atrocious or cruel because the victims were either rendered unconscious by the blows or were killed nearly instantly.McGilberry claims that defense counsel should have objected at trial and should have raised the matter on direct appeal.
Did more digging. This 16 year old knew exactly what he was doing.
¶2. McGilberry, who was 16 years of age at the time, lived at 7101 Dewberry Street in the St. Martin community in Jackson County, Mississippi, in the home of his stepfather and mother, Kenneth and Patricia Purifoy. McGilberry's half-sister, Kimberly Self, and her son, Kristopher Self, also lived in the Purifoy home.¶3. McGilberry and Meyer Shawn Ashley ("Ashley") initially planned only to steal his half sister's green GEO Storm and sell it for cash or drugs in New Orleans. One week prior to the murders, McGilberry approached Ashley about killing his family. Ashley withdrew from the plot the Friday night before the murders when "things didn't sound right." On Saturday, McGilberry then discussed the murders with Chris Johnson ("Johnson"), who was 14 years of age. That Saturday night, McGilberry had a dream in which he visualized killing his parents. It was after this dream that he went down the street to Johnson's house where the plan to murder his family evolved.
¶4. McGilberry and Johnson returned to McGilberry's residence sometime around 10:30 a.m. on Sunday morning, October 23, 1994. They originally considered slitting his parents' throats with a utility knife which police later found under a box in the attic of the Purifoy's home. This changed when they realized that it would be impossible to cut their throats because of the way Kenneth was sleeping. McGilberry and Johnson were in the garage smoking cigarettes when Johnson picked up a baseball bat and suggested that they knock their victims unconscious. They decided to hit the victims in the head with the baseball bat, drag them into the garage, weight the bodies and dump them off the pier. Due to the fact that McGilberry's mother was awake, the two were unable to execute their plan immediately. They placed the bats outside McGilberry's bedroom window and went back inside the house.
http://www.mslawyer.com/mssc/cases/990603/9700213.html
I am well aware of sentencing guideline under both Federal Law and the laws of my state, and I recognize that parole is often granted to convcted killers. A state legislature that is willing to enact a death penalty, however, ought to be able to enact a law requiring life without parole.
I also find your comment below perplexing....
The death penalty is barbaric from a moral standpoint, not a legal or constitutional standpoint. I also think that the 8th Amendment was originally intended to focus upon the means, not the ends. provided the ends is not disproportionate to the crime. In other words, the ends or ultimate penalty for a particular crime is a state legislative issue that doesn't implicate 8th Amendment concerns provided the means for implementing the penalty is neither cruel or unusual.
I am well aware of sentencing guideline under both Federal Law and the laws of my state, and I recognize that parole is often granted to convcted killers. A state legislature that is willing to enact a death penalty, however, ought to be able to enact a law requiring life without parole.
I also find your comment below perplexing....
The death penalty is barbaric from a moral standpoint, not a legal or constitutional standpoint. I also think that the 8th Amendment was originally intended to focus upon the means, not the ends. provided the ends is not disproportionate to the crime. In other words, the ends or ultimate penalty for a particular crime is a state legislative issue that doesn't implicate 8th Amendment concerns provided the means for implementing the penalty is neither cruel or unusual.
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.