Posted on 03/01/2005 7:21:16 AM PST by Next_Time_NJ
Sadly, that was Sandra Day O'Connor, Reagan appointee and one of the four who dissented in today's decision.
Funny you should say that. Last night I read the debate between Scalia and Breyer on just that issue. Breyer stated he would continue to read and cite such cases.
NO...I see as an act of revenge.
And I am comfortable with that.
It's never been done, but there's no Constitutional mandate that any judge be a member of the bar.
That's the way the law works, yes. It's because they have to apply to 300 million people with 300 million sets of life experiences, so they find an arbitrary line and stick to it on principle. What's the alternative, having judges decide when someone is old enough to vote as an individual?
"Parents cannot control everything that their children do no matter how much they might try.
"
Unfortunately, parents do not try. The vast majority of these violent crimes occur at night when the child should be at home.
This decision doesn't just apply to teens on death row. It applied to people on death row who are now over 18 but who committed their crimes when they were 16-17.
........hmmmmm and yet to pull the plug and MURDER Terri Shiavo, is humane!!! We are a messed up society!!!
I agree with you there.. Pro-Life is Pro-life.. this means ALL life.. I think people just say they are against abortion rather then say pro-life if they are for the death penality. I cant even say im truely pro life becuase there are plenty of cases where i think the person should have been put to death.
I don't agree with the decision, in that I don't believe that executing people who murdered at age 16 or 17 is cruel and unusual punishment. However, it don't feel like there are any umbras or penumbras in the decision, either.
I simply disagree with the application of the term, "Cruel and unusual."
There's no need to invoke foreign law. There's plenty of precedent in the US Supreme Court history for setting the bar of "cruel and unusual".
I had the same thought. If a 17 year old isn't allowed the same priviliges as an 18 year old, then why should he be given the same punishment? It's contradictory to say that he is too immature to drink, smoke and vote, and then say that he should be held to the same level of responsibility as an adult if he commits a murder.
Actually, I know that a criminal defendant has a right to have his appeal heard by a lawyer-judge; it's part of due process. I think there would be the same constitutional infirmities to appointing a non-lawyer to the Supreme Court.
We do it all the time. A sixteen year old may have a drive but may not vote and eighteen year old may vote but may not drink.
Well, then, I guess we'd better pass a law against people under 18 killing anybody.
< /blistering sarcasm >
Dan
My other, louder side says their victims are as dead as they would be if the murderer was 21.
Actually, BOTH of those come from your compassionate side.
There is a difference. British common law has been incorporated into the American legal system, since we started as British colonies.
Kennedy will be 69 in July.
"but aren't we trying to run a moral country here?"
It doesn't seem like it. It seems like some conservatives have just as an emotional reaction to crime as liberals do for environmental issues.
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.