NEWS: US Supreme Court Ends Execution of Juvenile Murderers

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decided that the US may not execute convicted murderers who were under the age of 18 when they commited their crime. The decsision was close, 5-4. Justice Kennedy wrote the majority decision. O'connor, Rehnquist, Thomas and Scalia all were in the minority.



I wasn't even aware that such a case was before them. Some would say that this brings the US more in line with civilized international standards. I do have to question as to exactly why a fully competent
should not be executed for murder. I suppose that this decision is stating that people under the age of 18 are infact incompetent.

Related News Links:
Supreme Court of the United States
supct.law.cornell.edu

[edit on 1-3-2005 by Nygdan]

Time to throw out the liberal bums on the US supreme court. I call on GW to reduce the number of "justices" to 3.............

The court does not have this power anyway. They have been ruleing unlawfully since 1803.

This liberal insanity just opened the door for underage gangs to murder at will............

They can still be arrested and imprisoned you heathens. They just cant be murdered by the state.

Under-age gangs are already murdering at will. As noted this ruling only affects some 70 inmates anyway. Obviously the threat of execution has no effect on criminal youths.

And of course Bush cannot reduce the number of supreme court justices, and indeed this decision is perfectly within the power of the court. The Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, without stating what that means. This leaves the definition of the term up to other entities, such as the Court and more importantly the General Public.

The "average" age of the 'khmer rouge" that murdered 2 million in cambodia was 14 years old. Explain that.........

Originally posted by DrHoracid
The "average" age of the 'khmer rouge" that murdered 2 million in cambodia was 14 years old. Explain that.........

Cambodia had the death penalty during that time and yet it did not act as a deterent to prevent the murders. Explain that.
What's the use of having the death penalty if it doesn't deter crime?

Originally posted by AceOfBase

Originally posted by DrHoracid
The "average" age of the 'khmer rouge" that murdered 2 million in cambodia was 14 years old. Explain that.........

Cambodia had the death penalty during that time and yet it did not act as a deterent to prevent the murders. Explain that.
What's the use of having the death penalty if it doesn't deter crime?

Because 17-25 years on death row due to moronic liberal lawyers does nothing. Death penalty is punishment not deterence. Noting is a deterence to a crimminal, hence, the term crimminal!

Laws are useless without punishment.

I really don't think that there will be an increase in the number of maurauding gangs of teenagers murdering people in the streets because of this ruling.

This is the right decision. If a child commits a crime, something has gone very wrong with his or her upbringing or there is a mental issue--and either case reduces the childs personal culpability, even if it is a heinous murder.

Also, there are many changes that a child goes through during adolescence that effect emotions, hormones, judgement, identity--and there is strong evidence that suggests that the brain doesn't mature until somewhere in our 20's. To sentence a child to death does not account for this immaturity--especially as it is impossible to assess the child's development, hormone levels, and brain chemistry at the time of the crime. New findings on brain chemistry and development are just coming to light and it is not appropriate to leave the death penalty on the table, even on a case-by-case basis.

In a country where O.J. Simpson is declared innocent, it is safe to say that our legal system is sufficiently broken to the point where we can't allow for the potential for children to be killed by the state in error.

www.law.duke.edu...
www.abanet.org...

Gangs will always murder, people will always kill. Its kinda inevitable, unless we want to pull a Clockwork Orange and force people to be good. I am for the death penalty for only people who kill one person, exectuing people who kill multiple persons is idiotic. They get off too easily, sometimes death is too easy on certain people. Work camps would be more suitable for many mass killers.

This won't stop or promote any more crime, all it means is that children cannot be executed.

The death penalty is for decadent cultures such as Rome. That culture at least provided capital punishment criminals a 50-50 chance at a given time as Gladiators. This social structure just straps people down on a stretcher and administers bad phamaceuticals to them. Therefore our de facto slaves can find themselves helpless, and project that scene through such psyops nationally and worldwide.

Now we resume at least one aspect of non-terrorist nations, removing ourselves from such national groupings as Lybia, Iran, Syria, and other countries. It is too obvious and self evident, as well as long overdue. I am sorry that our dumbed down educational system is largely unforgivingly socialist in its focus. It subsequently appears to have a delayed reaction process removing any residual conscience from people at an older age. So they become unforgiving conservatives who barely care about themselves much less anyone else.

Now they throw us a bone, a temporary reprieve, yet can you be certain their nightmare of total tyranny will continue unabated. With chips on everyone, they can tax, survey, and kill anyone at will when the "proper tyrant," occupies the throne. In a world where freedoms are at issue, and become even "controversial," there is no "left verses right," there is for the time being simply freedom verses tyranny.

[edit on 1-3-2005 by SkipShipman]

Originally posted by DrHoracid
Noting is a deterence to a crimminal, hence, the term crimminal
Laws are useless without punishment.

Then how does having a strict and widely applied death penalty result in preventing crimes? Or are you merely interested in punishing criminals, rather than stopping crime?

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by DrHoracid
Noting is a deterence to a crimminal, hence, the term crimminal
Laws are useless without punishment.

Then how does having a strict and widely applied death penalty result in preventing crimes? Or are you merely interested in punishing criminals, rather than stopping crime?

How do you "stop" crime? You can't stop crimminals from acting outside legal boundaries, but you can provide punishment for thier actions.

Originally posted by DrHoracid
How do you "stop" crime?

With the methods that have been shown to be effective, or do you pretend that crime prevention does not work and crime rates only drop when there is a corresponding increase in sentencing? Even tho sentencing can take longer to accomplish than the period in which there is a drop?

You can't stop crimminals from acting outside legal boundaries

Obviously this is not true.

but you can provide punishment for thier actions.

Sure. Why? Outside of removing criminals from society, why be concerned with 'punishment'?

Opponents of capital punishment had argued that world opinion and a national consensus has now formed against the juvenile death penalty and said it should be struck down as unconstitutional, like the Supreme Court did in 2002 in barring executions of mentally retarded criminals.

Public opinion and international opinion should not be considered when deciding a case involving constitutional matters, but the Constitution. Equally absurd are Justices that cite court cases from other countries intheir decisions,

you all dont seem to understand, they werent executing juveniles, they kept them in prison till they are 18 then sentenced them, i dont see how it violates the bill of rights(why dont people call it that, the constitution and bill of rights are two different things).

Originally posted by lmgnyc
I really don't think that there will be an increase in the number of maurauding gangs of teenagers murdering people in the streets because of this ruling.

This is the right decision. If a child commits a crime, something has gone very wrong with his or her upbringing or there is a mental issue--and either case reduces the childs personal culpability, even if it is a heinous murder.

Agreed. Also, holding adolescents acountable as adults implies they should have adult rights too. ...Do we really want American teenagers voting? Just for the right to gas 70 who lost it? Not a trade-off I'd vote for.


.

Is sentencing a 17 year old to life in prison any more humane than sentencing them to death? Either way the only way they are getting out of prison is in a body bag.

Originally posted by XX_SicSemperTyrannis_XX
Public opinion and international opinion should not be considered when deciding a case involving constitutional matters

So cruel and unsual should only be interprated as what the Founders found cruel and unusual? But these were men who whipped slaves in forced labour camps, so how can we look to them on every moral issue?

namehere
the constitution and bill of rights are two different things

The bill of rights are the first 10 ammendments to the constitution, thus they are a part of the constitution, and are not 'different'.

All the Founding Fathers supported this?

In 1774, Benjamin Franklin and Benjamin Rush founded America's first anti-slavery organization. John Jay was the president of such an organization in New York. When William Livingston, who also signed the Constitution, heard of the New York organization, he wrote to the governor of New Jersey:

"I would most ardently wish to become a member of it [the society in New York] and... I can safely promise them that neither my tongue, nor my pen, nor purse shall be wanting to promote the abolition of what to me appears so inconsistent with humanity and Christianity... May the great and the equal Father of the human race, who has expressly declared His abhorrence of oppression, and that He is no respecter of persons, succeed a design so laudably calculated to undo the heavy burdens, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke."

Other Founding Fathers that were members of anti-slavery organizations include: Richard Bassett, James Madison, James Monroe, Bushrod Washington, Charles Carroll, William Few, John Marshall, Richard Stockton, and Zephaniah Swift.

Also, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa abolished slavery in their territories because of a federal act written by Rufus King (who also signed the Constitution), which was signed by George Washington. The ACt prohibited slavery in those territories.

George Washington: "I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it [slavery]."

John Adams: "my opinion against it [slavery] has always been known... never in my life did I own a slave."

Charles Carroll (signed the Declaration of Independence) "why keep alive the question of slavery? It is admitted by all to be a great evil."

John Dickinson (signed the Constitution): "As Congress is now to legislate for our extensive territory lately acquired, I pray to Heaven that they ...curse not the inhabitants of those regions, and of the United States in general, with a permission to introduce bondage [slavery]."

Also, the 3/5's clause in the Constitution was not a pro-slavery. It was a compromise reached. Those Founding Fathers that were against slavery wanted to limit the amount of pro-slavery persons in Congress.

Granted not all the Founding Fathers were against slavery. However, not all of them "were men who whipped slaves in forced labour camps."