When some 16 year old kid pulls out a gun, a knife, a coathanger and pliars, and your wife, daughter or mom are involved, you'll get religion on this subject.
Gee THAT is what I was TRYING to say. YOu said it in a sentence or two! Good going!
Parody: A mocking imitation of the style of a literary work or works which ridicules the stylistic habits of an author or school of writers by exaggerated mimicry.
The whole point is, this should be a state issue. The USSC should not be using international "standards" to legislate morality.
Not all under 18 are tried in an Adult court
That is decided on a case by case bases and the type of crime committed and not all states have the death penalty
The Supreme Court today just took that right of the States away
Parody? How's that again? Perhaps you meant "parity." Sorry, grammar and spelling police again!
"That "almost every State prohibits those under 18 years of age from voting, serving on juries, or marrying without parental consent," ante, at 15, is patently irrelevant--and is yet another resurrection of an argument that this Court gave a decent burial in Stanford. (What kind of Equal Justice under Law is it that--without so much as a "Sorry about that"--gives as the basis for sparing one person from execution arguments explicitly rejected in refusing to spare another?)
As we explained in Stanford, 492 U. S., at 374, it is "absurd to think that one must be mature enough to drive carefully, to drink responsibly, or to vote intelligently, in order to be mature enough to understand that murdering another human being is profoundly wrong, and to conform one's conduct to that most minimal of all civilized standards." Serving on a jury or entering into marriage also involve decisions far more sophisticated than the simple decision not to take another's life.
"till there is some sort of parody..." believe me, there is parody. It can be seen in the acts of this sublimely arrogant SC and their mincing affectation of European elites, whose supposedly greater appreciation of cultural matters they supplant our Constitution with. It is a parody of justice and a parody of our Constitution. In fact, they are a farcical act and a parody of US Supreme Court Justices.
If you mean parity in the case of youthful offenders, as I believe you do, please leave something to the state legislatures, duly elected by the people. There are sixteen year olds and sixteen year olds with a difference. Let the people decide, not 5---FIVE--self aggrandizing SCs who think they are Royals.
The fact they were mostly appointed by Republicans just shows how the party is infected by RINOS.
Does anyone know the other dissenter---Scalia, Thomas, Renquist, and.....?
vaudine
Not executing a 16-year-old murderer is okay, though I think it is probably better to execute them. But the Supreme Court decision today was OUTRAGEOUS. Everything conservatives have said about judicial activism for 30-40 years was on display today. Read Scalia's dissent.
I know you meant "parity", but there is a parody of law today -- it's called the Supreme Court.
The word is parity not parody. Also, each individual should be treated on a case by case basis and that includes teens. The insurance, credit card companies, and military do. Let the judges, juries, governors, appellate judges and POTUS decide each case including teens on a case by case basis. Only alcohol is forbidden to teens.
But those other differences are mostly differences determined by state legislatures, and reflect differing judgments at different times and in different places. Regardless of how one feels about the imposition of the death penalty for <18 year olds, the matter is one for state legislatures, or the people of the several states through various extra legislative methods, to determine. It's not something for a bare majority of old geezers in black robes to decide for everyone.
Notice that even Justice O'Connor in her dissent says that the Constitution can be changed by methods other than the amendment process. She just doesn't think that that a "consensus" has formed over this issue. A very dangerous idea that is, but it is accepted by *at least* six of the nine Justices. If such a nationwide consensus had formed, there would be no problem in getting state laws and/or Constitutions changed to reflect it.