So...a 5 year old recently killed his 3 year old sister here. Are you going to strap a crying 5 year old to the gurny and push the meds that will kill him? I for one have a major, major problem with that.
So...a 5 year old recently killed his 3 year old sister here. Are you going to strap a crying 5 year old to the gurny and push the meds that will kill him? I for one have a major, major problem with that.
314 posted on 03/02/2005 11:17:16 PM EST by Melas
And your problem is?
So...a 5 year old recently killed his 3 year old sister here. Are you going to strap a crying 5 year old to the gurny and push the meds that will kill him? I for one have a major, major problem with that.Wow. I'm not sure I've heard about that case. (By the way, Texas law currently cuts it off at age 16 I believe, and I can live with that. It is our law. I can't see a 5 year old being sent to the death chamber).
Did you see Scalia's written dissent? Rehnquist and Thomas signed onto it. The 5-4 decision throwing out the juvenile death penalty went AGAINST the Supreme Court's own decision 15 years ago apparently. AND Scalia also noted that he was AGAINST the trend of SCOTUS to look to FOREIGN laws and influence to come to their decisions. That he wrote that in the dissent is very revealing and I totally agree with him. I have NO tolerance for these idiots ignoring U.S. law and rulings and looking to Germany, France, etc. for guidance for U.S. lawmaking decisions. That is pure BS!!
Age has little to do with it and your example may illustrate that. I submit that a 5 year old is most likely not able to act with full understanding of the consequences, likewise a 17 yr 11 month and 29 day old may not as well but most probably would. That is precisely why these issues should be decided by juries informed by the specific circumstances and guided by STATE laws appropriate to the jurisdiction where the murder was committed. BTW when was the last time you heard of the death penalty being applied to a 5 year old...Choose a realistic example to make your point or the point is lost.
Of course few would condone capital punishment on a 5-year-old.
How about a 17-year-old who announces murderous intent, breaks into a house, ties up the occupant, takes her to a bridge, and throws her off? This is exactly the case SCOTUS was asked to rule on - not a kindergardener.
The problem is the need for a line in capital cases - and the problem that the line as currently drawn, and upheld by SCOTUS under the premise of vague international opinion, is past an age where the "child" can vote, drive, and certainly knows the consequences of murderous behavior.
Ummm...speaking of the SCOTUS, anyone under 16 cannot get the death penalty due to a 1988 ruling on a 15 y/o...
JUSTICE STEVENS, joined by JUSTICE BRENNAN, JUSTICE MARSHALL, and JUSTICE BLACKMUN, concluded that the "cruel and unusual punishment" prohibition of the Eighth Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits the execution of a person who was under 16 years of age at the time of his or her offense.And I sincerely doubt that this particular ruling will ever change, mainly due to the "national consensus" argument. The "kids" we are talking about are 16 or over who are certified to be tried as adults on a case by case basis, based on the severity of the crime committed. IOW, chill out, we aren't advocating executing 5 year olds : )