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.
And your point is...what? That in a short period of time people will realize that if they commit and are convicted of three felonies that they will suffer consequences? My gosh...the horror of it all. Actions and consequences to actions. Gee, maybe if people were punished for crimes they commit, instead of getting a slap on the hand/PC justice, other people may think twice before committing them.
EXACTLY!
At 17 a Judge can grant you full rights if you have the mental capacity. At 18 you can serve in military but cannot drink alcohol.
Therefore minors who have the mental capacity of an 18 year old should be executed.
We may get to find out about that soon...
H.R.418
REAL ID Act of 2005 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)
That's as it should be.
>>"It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty, resting in large part on the understanding that the instability and emotional imbalance of young people may often be a factor in the crime," he wrote in the 25-page opinion.<<<
son of a....
UNBELIVEABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Another case where the exalted nine see fit to supercede state's rights and issue cultural decisions for us all. Another case of legilslation from the bench, doing away with the decisions of 19 state legislatures duly elected by the voters in said states..
vaudine
3 strikes law is only 25 years to life not life, this poster and many others here are bleeding heart Compassionate Conservatives aka RINOS!
Nothing arbitrary about it. It is simple and straightforward.
A psychologist, a judge,
That is their job. They do it all the time. That is why we have different degrees of murder.
Many don't, **but some do**. Up til now, we let juries decide whether a teen "grasped" the significance of his crime.
Do you really think that a blanket generalization regarding *all* teen criminals is preferable to having each criminal judged on a case by case basis?
More importantly, do you think that *your* preference is Constitutionally required?
Actually an exalted five (majority).
When I re-read my post, I realized I left out a word, but I think you understood anyway.
I don't mind NOT applying the death sentence to teenagers, as long as they are kept in prison until they die.
Are we slippery sloping again SC?
"As Scalia said, the court has set itself up as the final arbiter of what the nation's moral standards must be."
Scalia right.
That is precisely what the Court has set itself up to be.
Effectively too. It now has that power.
If this is a usurpation, the answer would not be to dignify the usurpation by passing a bunch of laws against it (which the Supreme Court would strike down and thereby reassert its authority).
No, the answer would be to IGNORE the order issued without authority.
That is what would be required of any official.
If a military officer issues an illegal order that constitutes a war crime, it is his DUTY to disobey that order and report it. He cannot simply go in and shoot all the kids in the school because he has been ordered to, and then get off by claiming "I was just under orders."
Even for the military in time of war, we recognize that there are orders which American officers don't have the power to give.
Now, likewise if the President orders the Governor of a State to pardon a criminal, the Governor will almost certainly tell the President "You are out of line. You have no authority to issue such an order." And he will very probably directly defy the Presidential order (even if he agrees with the result) in order to clearly and firmly establish that the President of the United States does NOT have the authority to command Governors to undertake executive acts under state law.
Likewise too, when Congress subpoenas Presidential records, the White House frequently asserts "Executive Privilege" and defies Congress, on the grounds that Congress has no power to issue certain orders in the first place, and that the Executive Branch MUST NOT COMPLY with ILLEGAL orders issued without authority, even if Congress means well by it.
All of that goes out the window when it comes to the Federal Judiciary.
What the Supreme Court orders, everyone has obeyed since 1865.
Presidents and Congress and Governors and State Legislatures grouse that the Court has no authority to do thus-and-so, but they always obey. Where they have not obeyed, the other branches of government have closed in and compelled obedience to the Court.
The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of all law and government and power in America.
The Constitution does not say so, but IT says so, and everyone else has acquiesced to that power by 160 years of strict obedience.
The only way to establish that the Court does NOT have that power is for the covalent branches of government to publicly and explicitly defy a Supreme Court order and flatly state that the Court has no AUTHORITY to issue such order.
And that ain't gonna happen.
Because the Court actually DOES have all the authority Scalia says it has.
I agree and concede. But in some instances (regarding voting, military services, etc.) the Feds have set it and they have once again...sorry?
You're exactly right, these little piece of dungs are going to kill people with no fear of being killed for their heinous acts. But the gun industry will take the full impact of these idiot's rulings.
When do you think a minor realizes that DEAD is DEAD and that MURDER means TO KILL and DEAD?
And you prefer to send them to "timeout"? or take away the X-box?
Its no wonder we have a young thug culture in this country.
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.