Posted on 03/01/2005 7:21:16 AM PST by Next_Time_NJ
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.
This report will be updated as details become available.
True pro-lifers believe god is the ultimate judge and man has no right to take the life of another human (this includes the moment of conception) reguardless of what they have done. Yes this means Saddam should not be killed. THis is why i dont call my self a TRUE pro-lifer because i wanna see him fry. Looking at it now.. i am not pro-life.. i am just against abortion. I think we all confuse the two issues.
It is irrefutable that the perpetrator is permanently deterred from repeating his act.
Not a bad thing.
Thus we believe you're capable of (perhaps) deciding to have sex, to kill your unborn child (no matter how young you are), but if you murder one or fifteen people SCOTUS believes you're not eligible for the death penalty.
SCOTUS got it wrong. They allowed their Leftist sensibilities to, once again, author decisions out of whole cloth.
Nothing irrational, that is a completely parallel example. No one is talking about situations where there is doubt of guilt, nice red herring.
Bottom line:
1) Did the murderer know and understood that murder is wrong, and understand the basic differences between right or wrong. If they aren't severely mentally ill, they know that at an early age.
2) Was it a crime of passion, or premeditated cold-blooded murder.
If the murderer is sane and the act was premeditated, put him/her/it to death. They knew it was wrong, one of the most horrid acts a person can commit, yet choose to murder. Morality also means consistency, common sense, and justice for the victims.
Yes. It's a shame.
Do you think all of them should get the death penalty?
First degree? You bet ya.
Why do you suppose that hasn't happened?
Because people are abdicating their social responsibilities. They don't want to feel bad. So they put other people in danger because of their weakness.
Boy, that Supreme Court of ours is just so gosh-darn conservative (eyeballs rolling way up to the ceiling).
If the death penalty didn't exist, you'd be out killing people?
The court has said, No, you can't make laws, we shall tell you what they should be. And they have said, we will use philosophy and not our Constitution that we are sworn to uphold, to invent systems of laws for you, the citizens.
The legislative power, forbidden to the Court, has been usurped in violation of the oath of office. The mercy in the power to pardon and commute has been stolen from the executive offices as well, all for making Judges look lofty. It is an ego trip and a power grab.
I can't speak to laws subordinate to the constitution, but the constitution itself does not have that requirement.
The Death penality in most cases - as it stands now - means nothing.. 80% of the time they are not killed and they clog the court system with appeals. If the death penality didnt allow for such a long appeals proccess it might be a deterrent. They know they have atleast 10-15 years to live after that sentence is handed down.
If it was death at high noon the next day? Then im sure it would be a deterrent.
Very sad.
Hard to see where this is in the Constitution.
Liberals continue to be soft-on-crime, and the community that overwhelmingly suffers is the community of victims of crime. The social pathology of murder -- it's sorrow and its consequences -- hits particularly hard in the black community. Of course, white liberals don't even grasp that blacks are very concerned about adequate police enforcement and the safety of this community.
God works in mysterious ways. Maybe this ruling will persuade more African-Americans that it's the Republican party that has their best interests at heart.
I hope he doesn't visit New England or the upper Midwest any time soon or else we'd all be in big trouble.
Consider all the murders who were released after they served their sentences and MURDERED again.
Not to mention how do you punish people already in prison. What is to stop prisoners from having another Attica?
And as for Life in Prison it isnt so.
Many states do to costs nearly always release this monsters later on.
I wonder what would happen if the Governors in all the states, that have young killers on death row, were to grant pardons to all of them and issue them a directory of the Supreme Court Justices who wrote this new law, including their home addresses and phone numbers?
Oh no, there is nothing foolish about this decision.
The Supreme Court is the senior branch of government, the one with the FINAL, unappealable authority on all issues, limited only by its own discretion and the need for 5 justices to agree.
That was not the way the Constitution was WRITTEN, perhaps, but since the Civil War, all other branches of government, federal and state, have acquiesced to the supreme, final and uncontestable authority of the Federal Judiciary and the Supreme Court in particular.
And since one of the issues is the Constitution itself, we need only look to the previous sentence. What does the Constitution mean? Could be many things. But the Supreme Authority in America is the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court has said that the Constitution says that the Judiciary is the final authority in government. Every other branch of government has submitted to the authority of the court. None dares challenge the authority of the Court by defying it.
And therefore, as a matter of actual law and practice, the Constitution says that Supreme Court has the authority to issue opinions like today's under the Constitution. Why? Well, because the Supreme Court says so, and everyone else OBEYS them.
The only way to establish that the Constitution does NOT mean that, and that the Supreme Court does NOT have Supreme Authority, would be for the other branches of government to DEFY the Court. For example: by continuing the executions.
But they WON'T DO IT.
Why?
Because, in fact, the other branches of government are inferior in power to the Judiciary, and everyone tacitly acknowledges this by OBEYING the Judiciary 100% of the time.
If someone says he's your boss, and you do everything he says for 160 years, no matter how much you complain, and never, ever defy him to his face, he is your boss no matter what some old piece of paper says.
The only way to establish he is NOT your boss is to directly defy his order to his face and tell him to shut up.
The President and Congress and States won't do that the Supreme Court, because the truth is that the Supreme Court is the Supreme Authority in America.
That is reality, and there is no indication that it is going to change.
Nobody DARES challenge the authority of the Court, because the People, and the other branches of government, will PROSECUTE them if they do it.
Which merely proves, once again, that the Supreme Court is in fact the final Commander-in-Chief of America.
Its the way its always been, from the start. The supreme court has the final say.. period..
I can kill somebody and not be held accountable for my actions.
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.