Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

US Supreme Court Screws Up.

page: 1
1

log in

join

posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Convicted murderer of a woman for 6 dollars, got death sentence , but supreme court says , murder by a child 15-18 is not applicable to the suspension of partial rights for extenuating circumstances.........yet the court doesnt realize that a 10 year old can kill you as well as an 18 year old and higher , not only did the supreme court revoke the death penalty , but they ban the use of death penalties to those under 18 all together despite state laws,,,,,,so much for slowing down our court rooms every murderer in the dimographic will now be clammering to get into court to get their sentences reviewed because they where under 18 when convicted and sentenced but now are over 18. I think a murdered is a murdered as soon as the murderer takes alife so shall be given his or her life in return when convicted, unless in the case of undue circumstances that while not immediately self defence , are committed with the intent to stop further harm to themselves in the furture. Like in the case of the two teen girls a couple of years back that killed their father out of the blue because he was molesting them for years. These girls however where not at risk death or rape when they killed the father in fact i think the father was asleep in the livingroom drunk, but they knew from years that child services couldnt convict the father on the case because of their failures in investigations , and the girls ran away and where dumped right back in dads arms , the girls knew they wouldnt be safe without help and chose to kill the father now that , while murder is wrong is at least a non death penalty situation dont you think , I would be glad to given a commution to life for people who suffered like this. But this is not the case in the 6 dollar bandit that one should fry and his accomplice girlfriend also.






[edit on 2-3-2005 by John bull 1]




posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 04:15 PM
link   
New point just broadcast there where 19 states in the US using the death penalty in cases of those under 18 yoa , and now by the supreme court ruling all 19 states man not use the death penalty in under 18 yoa people.....welp I guess that 16 year old highway sniper just got a break for terrorising a community for months and killing people in cold blood ,,,,,,,,,that just sucks.



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Do you really think we should put 10 year olds to death????




the decision

At age 17, respondent Simmons planned and committed a capital murder. After he had turned 18, he was sentenced to death. His direct appeal and subsequent petitions for state and federal postconviction relief were rejected. This Court then held, in Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U. S. 304, that the Eighth Amendment, applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits the execution of a mentally retarded person. Simmons filed a new petition for state postconviction relief, arguing that Atkins’ reasoning established that the Constitution prohibits the execution of a juvenile who was under 18 when he committed his crime. The Missouri Supreme Court agreed and set aside Simmons’ death sentence in favor of life imprisonment without eligibility for release. It held that, although Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U. S. 361, rejected the proposition that the Constitution bars capital punishment for juvenile offenders younger than 18, a national consensus has developed against the execution of those offenders since Stanford.
Held: The Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments forbid imposition of the death penalty on offenders who were under the age of 18 when their crimes were committed. Pp. 6–25.
(a) The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishments” must be interpreted according to its text, by considering history, tradition, and precedent, and with due regard for its purpose and function in the constitutional design. To implement this framework this Court has established the propriety and affirmed the necessity of referring to “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society” to determine which punishments are so disproportionate as to be “cruel and unusual.” Trop v. Dulles, 356 U. S. 86, 100–101. In 1988, in Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U. S. 815, 818–838, a plurality determined that national standards of decency did not permit the execution of any offender under age 16 at the time of the crime. The next year, in Stanford, a 5-to-4 Court referred to contemporary standards of decency, but concluded the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments did not proscribe the execution of offenders over 15 but under 18 because 22 of 37 death penalty States permitted that penalty for 16-year-old offenders, and 25 permitted it for 17-year-olds, thereby indicating there was no national consensus. 492 U. S., at 370–371. A plurality also “emphatically reject[ed]” the suggestion that the Court should bring its own judgment to bear on the acceptability of the juvenile death penalty. Id., at 377– 378. That same day the Court held, in Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U. S. 302, 334, that the Eighth Amendment did not mandate a categorical exemption from the death penalty for mentally retarded persons because only two States had enacted laws banning such executions. Three Terms ago in Atkins, however, the Court held that standards of decency had evolved since Penry and now demonstrated that the execution of the mentally retarded is cruel and unusual punishment. The Atkins Court noted that objective indicia of society’s standards, as expressed in pertinent legislative enactments and state practice, demonstrated that such executions had become so truly unusual that it was fair to say that a national consensus has developed against them. 536 U. S., at 314–315. The Court also returned to the rule, established in decisions predating Stanford, that the Constitution contemplates that the Court’s own judgment be brought to bear on the question of the acceptability of the death penalty. Id., at 312. After observing that mental retardation diminishes personal culpability even if the offender can distinguish right from wrong, id., at 318, and that mentally retarded offenders’ impairments make it less defensible to impose the death penalty as retribution for past crimes or as a real deterrent to future crimes, id., at 319–320, the Court ruled that the death penalty constitutes an excessive sanction for the entire category of mentally retarded offenders, and that the Eighth Amendment places a substantive restriction on the State’s power to take such an offender’s life, id., at 321. Just as the Atkins Court reconsidered the issue decided in Penry, the Court now reconsiders the issue decided in Stanford. Pp. 6–10.
(b) Both objective indicia of consensus, as expressed in particular by the enactments of legislatures that have addressed the question, and the Court’s own determination in the exercise of its independent judgment, demonstrate that the death penalty is a disproportionate punishment for juveniles. Pp. 10–21.
(1) As in Atkins, the objective indicia of national consensus here—the rejection of the juvenile death penalty in the majority of States; the infrequency of its use even where it remains on the books; and the consistency in the trend toward abolition of the practice— provide sufficient evidence that today society views juveniles, in the words Atkins used respecting the mentally retarded, as “categorically less culpable than the average criminal,” 536 U. S., at 316. The evidence of such consensus is similar, and in some respects parallel, to the evidence in Atkins: 30 States prohibit the juvenile death penalty, including 12 that have rejected it altogether and 18 that maintain it but, by express provision or judicial interpretation, exclude juveniles from its reach. Moreover, even in the 20 States without a formal prohibition, the execution of juveniles is infrequent. Although, by contrast to Atkins, the rate of change in reducing the incidence of the juvenile death penalty, or in taking specific steps to abolish it, has been less dramatic, the difference between this case and Atkins in that respect is counterbalanced by the consistent direction of the change toward abolition. Indeed, the slower pace here may be explained by the simple fact that the impropriety of executing juveniles between 16 and 18 years old gained wide recognition earlier than the impropriety of executing the mentally retarded. Pp. 10–13.
(2) Rejection of the imposition of the death penalty on juvenile offenders under 18 is required by the Eighth Amendment. Capital punishment must be limited to those offenders who commit “a narrow category of the most serious crimes” and whose extreme culpability makes them “the most deserving of execution.” Atkins, 536 U. S. at 319. Three general differences between juveniles under 18 and adults demonstrate that juvenile offenders cannot with reliability be classified among the worst offenders. Juveniles’ susceptibility to immature and irresponsible behavior means “their irresponsible conduct is not as morally reprehensible as that of an adult.” Thompson
v. Oklahoma, 487 U. S. 815, 835. Their own vulnerability and comparative lack of control over their immediate surroundings mean juveniles have a greater claim than adults to be forgiven for failing to escape negative influences in their whole environment. See Stanford, supra, at 395. The reality that juveniles still struggle to define their identity means it is less supportable to conclude that even a heinous crime committed by a juvenile is evidence of irretrievably depraved character. The Thompson plurality recognized the import of these characteristics with respect to juveniles under 16. 487 U. S., at 833– 838. The same reasoning applies to all juvenile offenders under 18. Once juveniles’ diminished culpability is recognized, it is evident that neither of the two penological justifications for the death penalty— retribution and deterrence of capital crimes by prospective offenders, e.g., Atkins, 536 U. S., at 319—provides adequate justification for imposing that penalty on juveniles. Although the Court cannot deny or overlook the brutal crimes too many juvenile offenders have committed, it disagrees with petitioner’s contention that, given the Court’s own insistence on individualized consideration in capital sentencing, it is arbitrary and unnecessary to adopt a categorical rule barring imposition of the death penalty on an offender under 18. An unacceptable likelihood exists that the brutality or cold-blooded nature of any particular crime would overpower mitigating arguments based on youth as a matter of course, even where the juvenile offender’s objective immaturity, vulnerability, and lack of true depravity should require a sentence less severe than death. When a juvenile commits a heinous crime, the State can exact forfeiture of some of the most basic liberties, but the State cannot extinguish his life and his potential to attain a mature understanding of his own humanity. While drawing the line at 18 is subject to the objections always raised against categorical rules, that is the point where society draws the line for many purposes between childhood and adulthood and the age at which the line for death eligibility ought to rest. Stanford should be deemed no longer controlling on this issue. Pp. 14–21.
(c) The overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty is not controlling here, but provides respected and significant confirmation for the Court’s determination that the penalty is disproportionate punishment for offenders under 18. See, e.g., Thompson, supra, at 830–831, and n. 31. The United States is the only country in the world that continues to give official sanction to the juvenile penalty. It does not lessen fidelity to the Constitution or pride in its origins to acknowledge that the express affirmation of certain fundamental rights by other nations and peoples underscores the centrality of those same rights within our own heritage of freedom. Pp. 21–25.
112 S. W. 3d 397, affirmed.



there is about 80 more pages.



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by mystikblue
Convicted murderer of a woman for 6 dollars, got death sentence , but supreme court says , murder by a child 15-18 is not applicable to the suspension of partial rights for extenuating circumstances.........yet the court doesnt realize that a 10 year old can kill you as well as an 18 year old and higher , not only did the supreme court revoke the death penalty , but they ban the use of death penalties to those under 18 all together despite state laws,,,,,,so much for slowing down our court rooms every murderer in the dimographic will now be clammering to get into court to get their sentences reviewed because they where under 18 when convicted and sentenced but now are over 18. I think a murdered is a murdered as soon as the murderer takes alife so shall be given his or her life in return when convicted, unless in the case of undue circumstances that while not immediately self defence , are committed with the intent to stop further harm to themselves in the furture. Like in the case of the two teen girls a couple of years back that killed their father out of the blue because he was molesting them for years. These girls however where not at risk death or rape when they killed the father in fact i think the father was asleep in the livingroom drunk, but they knew from years that child services couldnt convict the father on the case because of their failures in investigations , and the girls ran away and where dumped right back in dads arms , the girls knew they wouldnt be safe without help and chose to kill the father now that , while murder is wrong is at least a non death penalty situation dont you think , I would be glad to given a commution to life for people who suffered like this. But this is not the case in the 6 dollar bandit that one should fry and his accomplice girlfriend also.


Mystikblue, here's something you should be very, very concerned about - the majority opinion Kennedy wrote:

"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 said.

Kennedy is using opinions from OTHER COUNTRIES in his thought process for his decision. The man should be using our CONSTITUTION. It is not their role to base decisions on what happened in OTHER countries. Someone needs to remind him of this.

Kennedy noted, "the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, which prohibits the juvenile death penalty, has been ratified by every country except Somalia and the United States."

He is not to ADD TO or TAKE AWAY any part of our Constitution. He is not to make up a law that supercedes a State law. Which he apparently did. When the Supreme Court starts ruling over State laws we are in BIG, BIG trouble and Kennedy should STEP DOWN or be IMPEACHED. All the more reasons for term limites for this criminal court of clowns.

One other thing while I'm on judges - any judge that meddles in the affairs of our armed forces should be tarred and feathered and shamed from office.

Now, I feel better

Chief - a retired Navy Chief - Vietnam vet and a few other things not worthy of printing!



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 05:02 PM
link   


welp I guess that 16 year old highway sniper just got a break for terrorising a community for months and killing people in cold blood



Ummm, he got life in prison as a sentence anyway, so no break for him.



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by mystikblue
yet the court doesnt realize that a 10 year old can kill you as well as an 18 year old and higher


It's disinegenuous to say that the court doesn't realize this. Of course the SCOTUS realizes that "a 10 year old can kill you as well as an 18 year old and higher." What they also realize is that a 10 year old doesn't have the same understanding as an 18 year old when it comes to consequences, and a 10 year old doesn't have the same restraint and self-control as an 18 year old when it comes to impulsive behavior. This is not something grounded in "bad parenting," but in the physical makeup of their brains. They are physically incapable of reacting to situations in the same way a mature adult would, which is why we don't hold them to the same standards of behavior, nor do we allow them the full rights of an adult.


, not only did the supreme court revoke the death penalty


They have done no such thing. It is still permissible for a state to execute a convicted adult found guilty of a capital crime, you just can't kill kids anymore.


so much for slowing down our court rooms every murderer in the dimographic will now be clammering to get into court to get their sentences reviewed because they where under 18 when convicted and sentenced but now are over 18.


Most of them are already doing this. The case decided today was simply the first to reach the SCOTUS.


I think a murdered is a murdered as soon as the murderer takes alife so shall be given his or her life in return when convicted, unless in the case of undue circumstances that while not immediately self defence , are committed with the intent to stop further harm to themselves in the furture.


What of a less clear-cut case? Say a 6-year old playing around in his parents' car puts the car in neutral, and it then rolls down a hill and kills someone. Should we put the child on trail for manslaughter? What if a 4 year old gets angry at his baby sister for "hogging all the attention" and shoves her down the stairs, killing her. Should we put him on trial for 1st or 2nd degree murder? Why do you expect children to act like adults?

Look, I'm not saying that Christopher Simmons deserves to get off scott-free. I'll agree that he probably did know that killing was wrong. The problem is that our legal system has a precise cutoff date between "juvenile" and "adult", with all adult rights and responsibilities being given when an individual turns the magical age of 18. If you want to start holding younger people accountable to adult standards, then you must also allow them to assume the rights and responsibilities of adulthood. If a 12-year old can be tried for crimes as an adult, why can they not vote? If a 14-year old has a sophisticated enough understanding of consequences, why can they not drive?

Until we have some sort of reliable test to determine someone's level of "adultness", until we can institute a gradiated scale for the rights and responsibilities of adulthood based on that test, we'll always have some form of cutoff between "juvenile" and "adult" and there will always be people saying that the cutoff should be lowered.

Look, I'm not saying that we need to absolve juvenile offenders of punishment for their actions, I'm just saying that it's better for our society to err on the side of caution when it comes to metting out punitive action.



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Indeed the court screwed up. 10 year olds don't deserve to be put to death maybe, but when you're talking 16,17 (and even a few years younger) come on! You're considered old enough to drive a 3,000 pound weapon around responsibly when you turn 16 but don't know that killing is not only wrong, but illegal? A few states even allow you to engage in sexual relations when you hit 16... so you are old enough to legally have and raise a kid but not old enough to know killling is wrong? Ridiculous.



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 05:53 PM
link   
This is great news!! now you need to ban the death penalty for ALL people!!!


[edit on 1-3-2005 by drfunk]



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 05:58 PM
link   
I knew it was wrong to kill when I was 6, 10, 14, 16, 18, & so on. Why not lower the death penalty age for cases involving cold blooded killing but keep it in place for acts of manslaughter. Its a no brainer in my opinion.



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 06:36 PM
link   
I agree with Battle... but to the other guy...
Bah, abolish death penalty?! We need to up the rate! Why should I have to pay more than $54k/year to support a maximum security killer?! I didn't do anything, and a huge many people on the outside that have not done anything wrong either don't even earn $54k/year on the "outside!" Let alone all the homeless people that don't get 3 warm meals a day, and a warm place to sleep!

[edit on 1-3-2005 by AlphaHumana]



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 07:04 PM
link   
The law is way screwed up on a lot of things. There are too many things to consider when convicting killers and even minor law breakers. Things should be made more simple like murder and be murdered regardless of what drugs you were on or what prescriptions you were taking at the time. Being on Rx drugs cannot cloud your judgment at all unless you are on an overdose and then it becomes your fault regardless for taking too much. Our laws suck and they always will.



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 07:05 PM
link   
NO ALL CAPS...

thanks...





posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 07:12 PM
link   
NO ALL CAPS IN TITLES? WTF???

I havent read the rules does it say something about that? I dont read rules.

[edit on 1-3-2005 by CmptrN3rd5]



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 08:46 PM
link   
Yes there are rules....all caps are reserved for the admins and mods for alerts......I don't understand why so many people don't know this!



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 01:17 AM
link   
Like I said, I dont read rules I just play nicely so that I might not break some that exist.



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 07:31 AM
link   
Hmmm.... Waddaya suppose would happen if states began legislating individually, and began to look at SCOTUS as a guideline only?

The states are sovereign entities and should have that right.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 07:45 AM
link   

The evidence of such consensus is similar, and in some respects parallel, to the evidence in Atkins: 30 States prohibit the juvenile death penalty, including 12 that have rejected it altogether and 18 that maintain it but, by express provision or judicial interpretation, exclude juveniles from its reach.

The United States is the only country in the world that continues to give official sanction to the juvenile penalty.

So now the Supreme court makes decisions based on popular opinion?
I guess I had this crazy idea that courts, especially the Supreme Court interpreted existing laws, namely the Constitution. Instead we get this rhetoric that "It's not popular so we won't do it." And how do they arrive at the point of believing that there is a consensus in the US on this matter? According to their own words, only 12 states prohibit it completely. That's a whopping 24% of states. Since when was 24% of a whole equated to a majority? I guess the rules have changed.

Also why are we worried about what other countries are doing? Do Supreme Court members sware to uphold the constitution of France or Germany when they take office?

What I find most amusing is that 13 and 14 year olds are considered mentally mature enough to have an abortion without their parent's consent, yet a 17 year old apparently doesn't understand his choices when he takes a life. How is this possible? You can't have it both ways.

Honestly I'm not that sure that we should execute 17 year olds, but should the Supreme Court make this decision, or is it a Legislative decision. Who else is tired of legislation from the bench?

[edit on 3-3-2005 by dbates]



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 10:22 AM
link   
US Supreme Court justices rule police can take DNA samples from people charged but not convicted of crimes.



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by AlphaHumana
I agree with Battle... but to the other guy...
Bah, abolish death penalty?! We need to up the rate! Why should I have to pay more than $54k/year to support a maximum security killer?! I didn't do anything, and a huge many people on the outside that have not done anything wrong either don't even earn $54k/year on the "outside!" Let alone all the homeless people that don't get 3 warm meals a day, and a warm place to sleep!

[edit on 1-3-2005 by AlphaHumana]


The whole problem is that we do not kill them fast enough. We have the technology to do the whole dna thing very well now so we can give them their appeal and get them into the electric chair in months instead of decades. I have no problem with hiring more judges, lawyers, and investigators to get it done. Not keeping them alive for decades will send a real message to others and save the system lots of money.

We also need to apply the death penalty in this fashion to anyone who commits a felony while in possession of a gun. It is time to go after the gangsters who seem to get a free ride from police, politicians, and judges. Were I a judge, any gangster before me for any felony would get one hundred years with no possibility of parole. Let's face it gangsters are domestic terrorists. That is what they do. Joining a gang is worse than joining Al Queida.





new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join