If not, why cite them?
Definitely not. I hate the U.N.
If not, why cite them?
The question on the table is what constitutes "cruel and unusal punishment". That would be now, not in the late 18th century.
In that way, you have to make reference to what is going on in general. I also think you have to make reference to what the residents of the various states think is appropriate. And the juries on the individual cases.
I don't think Kennedy was off-base to make reference to the outside. Where I do think he was off-base was not to take into account what the states themselves want to do. To me, that comes first.
I'm sure (pretty sure) that even you agree that there is some age under which even the worst perpetrators should not be executed. Maybe not, but most of us would think so.
I'm around 15 on that number. You could talk me into 16, but you couldn't talk me into Malvo.
In Virginia, we don't mess around. People who get sentenced to death do get executed. It may take five years, but they are toast.
I do not like the Supreme Court (or Congress) taking on what I believe are rights which appropriately belong to the states.
Nonetheless, the Court was trying to decide what is "cruel and unusual punishment". I do not think it was wrong for them to look around in determining that.
S***. We invaded Iraq because we didn't like what was going on there, and most of us FReepers support that. If that was defensible, it was defensible for the Court to look around at what other countries are doing with respect to capital punishment of people under age 18.
Again, that said, I would still like to see Malvo get a little Huusainian justice.