High Court Ends Death Penalty for Youths

unclehobart

New Member
By HOPE YEN

WASHINGTON (AP) - A closely divided Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that it's unconstitutional to execute juvenile killers, ending a practice in 19 states that has been roundly condemned by many of America's closest allies.

The 5-4 decision throws out the death sentences of 72 murderers who were under 18 when they committed their crimes and bars states from seeking to execute minors for future crimes.

The executions, the court said, violate the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

"The age of 18 is the point where society draws the line for many purposes between childhood and adulthood. It is, we conclude, the age at which the line for death eligibility ought to rest," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote.

The ruling continues the court's practice of narrowing the scope of the death penalty, which justices reinstated in 1976. Executions for those 15 and younger when they committed their crimes were outlawed in 1988. Three years ago justices banned death sentences for the mentally retarded.

Tuesday's ruling prevents states from making 16- and 17-year-olds eligible for execution.

As a result, officials in Prince William County, Va., said Tuesday they will not prosecute a murder case there against teen sniper Lee Boyd Malvo, who is already serving life in prison in two of the 10 sniper killings that terrorized the Washington area in 1992. Prince William County Commonwealth's Attorney Paul Ebert had hoped to get the death penalty for Malvo, who was 17 at the time of the killings, but said another trial would now be an unnecessary expense.

Juvenile offenders have been put to death in recent years in only a few other countries, including Iran, Pakistan, China and Saudi Arabia. Kennedy cited international opposition to the practice.... (more)

http://apnews.myway.com//article/20050301/D88IBA1G2.html


Well boo on that. Got to get your killing in while youre young and not responsible. I see a rash of child killers for hire. $1 million per kill and I'll do the time till I'm 21.
 
Tuesday's ruling prevents states from making 16- and 17-year-olds eligible for execution.

Fortunately, they didn't include Life Without Parole in that ruling.
 
It seems I got lambasted for mocking our Jurists using outside sources for their rulings. Where, now it shows up in a case with less emotional appeal than homosexual roommates

Juvenile offenders have been put to death in recent years in only a few other countries, including Iran, Pakistan, China and Saudi Arabia. Kennedy cited international opposition to the practice.... (more)

"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.

I'm curious...most of the world makes spontaneous, electable abortion illegal. When will he study those rulings?
 
I also had/have a problem with international anything determining legal domestic policy. Finance?... sure ... thats they way it works... but not what we do to our own within our legal system.
 
Gonz said:
Fortunately, they didn't include Life Without Parole in that ruling.



I would agree but doesnt it cost more to keep the criminal alive than kill them off? I too am for the death penalty. MD wont give a death sentence to under 18. Kind of sucks when there are some crimes I feel should warrant the death penalty
 
unclehobart said:
Well boo on that. Got to get your killing in while youre young and not responsible. I see a rash of child killers for hire. $1 million per kill and I'll do the time till I'm 21.

Ok.... cause I'm sure that the death penalty is first and foremost in the mind of your average 15 year old psychopath who decides to take out his classmates, and that removing it as an option will now remove such a huge deterrent to that rational and well-thought out act of homicide by a child...

And I'll just keep my eye out for those newspaper adds: "Child killer for hire! No-Risk money back guarantee."

*toddles off to her international conspiracy theorists meeting*

:D
 
Follows that up with, Is the Death Penalty, or prison in general, a deterrent to crime or a punishment for a crime?
 
Camelyn said:
Ok.... cause I'm sure that the death penalty is first and foremost in the mind of your average 15 year old psychopath who decides to take out his classmates, and that removing it as an option will now remove such a huge deterrent to that rational and well-thought out act of homicide by a child...

And I'll just keep my eye out for those newspaper adds: "Child killer for hire! No-Risk money back guarantee."

*toddles off to her international conspiracy theorists meeting*

:D
I know... I know... :D I'm just being cheeky. Its just that the way our court systems work out, they seem to discharge youthful felons at 21 95% of the time. You have to be a real sunofabitch or sonofapoor to stay in lockdown.
 
Gonz said:
Follows that up with, Is the Death Penalty, or prison in general, a deterrent to crime or a punishment for a crime?

Neither. It's just where we store the criminals to keep them from being all criminal against us. :)

I had to edit this to add that I got this picture in my head as I typed that... Kind of seeing a stacked system of cells, like a morgue...Just keep um in numered boxes, maybe cryostasis...

Better that pretending that prison is any kind of rehabilitation. Just stack um and store um.

Man, I'm a bad lady and I'm going to hell :D
 
Gonz said:
Follows that up with, Is the Death Penalty, or prison in general, a deterrent to crime or a punishment for a crime?


It is a form of a deterrent in being a specific deterrent. It is also for a general deterrent though not as strong(for obvious reasons). and it is a punishment as well
 
They should be released so they can commit more violent crimes.

No wait that's what is already happening.

Never mind...
 
On top of the Court using outside sources to find legal reasoning that fits the agenda of the winning side of this 5-4 ruling, the case itself should be sufficient to maintain the former Supreme Court position. Here are a number of relevent parts of the Missouri Supreme Court testimony that paints a rather gruesome image.

"In early September 1993, Christopher Simmons, then age 17, discussed with his friends, Charlie Benjamin (age 15) and John Tessmer (age 16), the possibility of committing a burglary and murdering someone. On several occasions, Simmons described the manner in which he planned
to commit the crime: he would find someone to burglarize, tie the victim up and ultimately push the victim off a bridge. Simmons assured his friends that their status as juveniles would allow them to 'get away with it.'"

The transcript is relatively lengthy & the rest is on notepad.
 
Back
Top