In a 5-4 split verdict, they ruled it unconstitutional to execute people for crimes committed before the age of 18.

 

High court: Juvenile death penalty unconstitutional

Tuesday, March 1, 2005 Posted: 1:10 PM EST (1810 GMT)

 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- 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, violate the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

 

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

 

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

 

"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.

 

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.

 

"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.

 

Kennedy noted most states don't allow the execution of juvenile killers and those that do use the penalty infrequently. The trend, he said, is to abolish the practice because "our society views juveniles ... as categorically less culpable than the average criminal."

 

In a dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia disputed that there is a clear trend of declining juvenile executions to justify a growing consensus against the practice.

 

"The court says in so many words that what our people's laws say about the issue does not, in the last analysis, matter: 'In the end our own judgment will be brought to bear on the question of the acceptability of the death penalty,"' he wrote.

 

"The court thus proclaims itself sole arbiter of our nation's moral standards," Scalia wrote.

 

The Supreme Court has permitted states to impose capital punishment since 1976 and more than 3,400 inmates await execution in the 38 states that allow death sentences.

 

Justices were called on to draw an age line in death cases after Missouri's highest court overturned the death sentence given to Christopher Simmons, who was 17 when he kidnapped a neighbor, hog-tied her and threw her off a bridge in 1993. Prosecutors say he planned the burglary and killing of Shirley Crook and bragged that he could get away with it because of his age.

 

The four most liberal justices had already gone on record in 2002, calling it "shameful" to execute juvenile killers. Those four, joined by Kennedy, formed Tuesday's decision: Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

 

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, Justice Clarence Thomas and Scalia, as expected, voted to uphold the executions. They were joined by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

 

The 19 states allow executions for people under age 18 are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Utah, Texas and Virginia.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/01/scotus.d...y.ap/index.html

So at 18 you can killed by the government or drafted, but you can't drink alcohol?

So at 18 you can killed by the government or drafted, but you can't drink alcohol?

699047[/snapback]

 

Its the states who don't let you drink alcohol until you are 21.

So at 18 you can killed by the government or drafted, but you can't drink alcohol?

699047[/snapback]

 

Its the states who don't let you drink alcohol until you are 21.

699076[/snapback]

Being prohibited from posession makes consumption rather difficult.

699149[/snapback]

 

Thank you for stating the obvious. You are on a roll today. SUNY would ever be oh so proud.

 

And like I said those are state laws not a national law.

Im surprised Kennedy went this way.

 

Here is the actual ruling for anyone interested.

 

http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/deathpen/...mns30105opn.pdf

I agree with the ruling. Let them rot in jail for life.

I just finished reading it.

 

The court's legal reasoning is sound and there certainly has been a trend toward not executing those under 18.

 

But I staunchly disagree with the court's reasoning in section B where it sets forth the differences between a person under 18 and a person at 18(admitadly arbitrary but the best we can do). Most 16 and 17 year old people do not develop facilties beyond what they have now and for this they should not be given the benefit of their age when they do just as much thinking and consideration and are just as influenced as people with much higher ages. I think it should be given to a jury on a case by case basis to make the determination if the youth was truely a mitagating factor.

 

What this Simmons kid did was plain and simply horrible. His youth was not the reason for him doing it nor would his maturity to 3 more years have made it any less likely. He told everyone he wanted to kill someone just to do it. He hated the women because she hit his car. He hog tied her and threw her alive into a river. Can we seriously say that because he was lucky enough to be 17 and not 18 when he did it, that he should benefit?

 

Under 16 and mentally retarted make total sense to me. Those are hyperboles compared to the how much different 16 and 17 year olds are in this day and age and how they are much closer in maturity to their older counterparts. The mid teenage years are definately the time in which innocence is lost.

 

Just because we dont entrust them to vote doesnt mean they should benefit. The difference in maturity to vote is so stark sometimes. But the difference in maturity necessary to savagely kill a person?

So at 18 you can killed by the government or drafted, but you can't drink alcohol?

699047[/snapback]

 

Its the states who don't let you drink alcohol until you are 21.

699076[/snapback]

Being prohibited from posession makes consumption rather difficult.

699149[/snapback]

 

Thank you for stating the obvious. You are on a roll today. SUNY would ever be oh so proud.

 

And like I said those are state laws not a national law.

699156[/snapback]

What national law prompted those state laws into existence?

699233[/snapback]

 

Its besides the point. They are state laws. Thats why they differ a bit state to state, but still have a basic uniform of no drinking before the age of 21.

How do you give the people in Washington power over the states? Money.

So is it wrong of them to play their chips if they can?

 

I like that you speak for me and tell me how I feel about issues. Just because I bring up a topic and discuss it without bashing it doesn't mean I am for it. I can understand how that can be a hard concept for you to grasp being such an angry and tormented soul, but I'll let it slide.

 

I also like how you use me as the face of moonbat liberalism. I would love to take a political quiz for you sometime and give you a face like this :blink: when you see I am pretty right from center, I just have a few moral issues that I can not agree with the right at all on.

 

So state rights were raped in 1984, guess what they are again in 2005. Drivers liscences are going to need to meet a national standard, not to mention a national education plan. But lets not get too far from the original statement at hand.

 

The government doesn't force the states to have the laws, the states choose to take the money and that is their prerogative.

Will the two of you please take your petty squabble elsewhere. You two are becoming the two MOST ANNOYING members on the board. You two sound like bitter old men, just STFU already.

Will the two of you please take your petty squabble elsewhere. You two are becoming the two MOST ANNOYING members on the board. You two sound like bitter old men, just STFU already.

699367[/snapback]

 

Heeeey I resent that.

 

I am in my prime and I taste like strawberries and those aren't bitter.

Back on topic...

 

I disagree with this, I mean, you look at John Malvo, involved in the Beltway snipings, and he isn't going to die for his involvement? Maybe I wouldn't have a problem if 12 or 14 was the cut off age, but I think 16 and 17 year olds aren't "just children," they have a rational enough thought process to know what they're doing.

Who fired first?

Who escalated this OUTSIDE these forums? (you really don't think I'm so stupid as to have not found out do you?)

699382[/snapback]

 

I really don't know what you are talking about. Not that matters, you most likely already have my entire psyche of whatever situation you have painted up set and sculpted and everything.

I really don't know what you are talking about.

 

Right. :plain

699389[/snapback]

 

I really don't. Seriously.

Who fired first??

Who escalated this OUTSIDE these forums? (you really don't think I'm so stupid as to have not found out do you?)

699382[/snapback]

 

I really don't know what you are talking about. Not that matters, you most likely already have my entire psyche of whatever situation you have painted up set and sculpted and everything.

699387[/snapback]

Notice one person is a constant in every discussion that gets out of hand? *rubs chin*

I just finished reading it.

 

The court's legal reasoning is sound and there certainly has been a trend toward not executing those under 18.

 

But I staunchly disagree with the court's reasoning in section B where it sets forth the differences between a person under 18 and a person at 18(admitadly arbitrary but the best we can do). Most 16 and 17 year old people do not develop facilties beyond what they have now and for this they should not be given the benefit of their age when they do just as much thinking and consideration and are just as influenced as people with much higher ages. I think it should be given to a jury on a case by case basis to make the determination if the youth was truely a mitagating factor.

 

What this Simmons kid did was plain and simply horrible. His youth was not the reason for him doing it nor would his maturity to 3 more years have made it any less likely. He told everyone he wanted to kill someone just to do it. He hated the women because she hit his car. He hog tied her and threw her alive into a river. Can we seriously say that because he was lucky enough to be 17 and not 18 when he did it, that he should benefit?

 

Under 16 and mentally retarted make total sense to me. Those are hyperboles compared to the how much different 16 and 17 year olds are in this day and age and how they are much closer in maturity to their older counterparts. The mid teenage years are definately the time in which innocence is lost.

 

Just because we dont entrust them to vote doesnt mean they should benefit. The difference in maturity to vote is so stark sometimes. But the difference in maturity necessary to savagely kill a person?

699326[/snapback]

 

I totally agree with this perspective. Is a 17 year old murderer less guilty than an 18 year old. Sounds like the 17 yo got lucky for killing someone justa few months before his 18th birthday

I totally agree with this perspective. Is a 17 year old murderer less guilty than an 18 year old. Sounds like the 17 yo got lucky for killing someone justa few months before his 18th birthday

699886[/snapback]

 

I think the proper question is if the 17 or 18 year old (or any person for that matter) fully understood the effects of his/her actions. If there is any doubt about the motivation or the understanding of the consequences, I don't believe they should be sentenced to death. Now, someone like Timothy McVeigh who understood his actions, understood the consequences, and had no regrets should get the chair.

The problem is if you want to say those under 18 can decide and understand what they are doing when it comes to murder and other such things, then by default aren't you saying they know what is best for themselves and those around them? As in, living with their parents, going to school, who to be able to vote for, etc.

 

If we say those under 18 y/os fully understand their actions and their place in life, then don't we have to treat them like we would treat someone over the age of 18? If you want to punish them like someone who is suppose to fully understand their actions and place in life, shouldn't they be treated like that outside of punishment?

 

I am not sure how I feel about this case, I forget most of the particulars of the case and never refreshed myself, reffering to the Malvo case.

 

However, I don't think it would be right to only consider minors adults only when we want to punish them. If you want to always be able to punish minors as adults then I think they should always be treated as adults. And obviously I don't want to be treating minors as adults, and I am sure many people agree with that, so I don't think we should be able to punish minors as adults.

disagree

 

certain actions take certain levels of adulthood

 

I wouldn't expect a 16 year old to understand the nuances of entering into a contract, paying a mortgage, vote responsibly, make a decision about military service and some other more complex decisions

 

however, I don't think the decision of murdering someone takes that much thought

 

you kill someone you remove them from the world, you remove the contribution that they make to society and their family and to be death penalty elligible you usually did it in a way that was so grotesque that it goes beyond normal murder

 

I don't think you have to fully understand everything in life to realize that murder is wrong, irreversible and a very serious offense

So we agree minors might have a hard time understanding the nuances of life.

 

Well do you expect minors then to understand how to deal with their emotions, their anger, sadness, etc.? Those are more of the most complex things in life. In fact there are a lot of adults who don't understand how to deal with these feelings, nor how to express them.

 

Which do you think are more complex? Mortgages, making a decision about military service, how to vote, etc. or how to express emotions in a healthy way? Like I said, many adults struggle with the later and perhaps not so much with the former.

 

And how can you be so sure minors really understand what they are doing? They've never had a family of their own. They've been part of a family, but never had a family. Do they really understand if they kill a man that a son and daughter are at home and no longer have a dad now? Do they realize it? Do they really have such a global look at the world? Do they have the experience to have such a look at the world?

 

Are kids ever taught in school about the consequences of murder?

 

And if you think minors have such the ability to have such a global thought of the world and see how the world will be completely different with one person, I don't see why you couldn't believe they can care for themselves then.

actually I think the more adult things in life are more complicated ... there are more stages involved w/operating a bank account than the consequences of murder

 

I think at a certain point you understand that what you are doing is wrong

 

although they may not have the ability to express emotion in the most adult of ways, I definitely expect that someone of 16 has the ability to realize that killing someone isn't necessarily the best way to go

 

most states do give 16 year olds some adult resonsibilities, such as driving and the right to work and earn an income

 

by a twist of logic one could say that since they are incapable of making a decision on the importance of human life, then they couldn't be capable of serving a consumer, understanding driving law, etc

 

since they are uncapable of such deep thought they are uncapable of determining if it is wise to drink and drive and if they kill someone from that then they are uncapable of owning up to responsibility like an adult, therefore they shouldn't drive until 18

 

make a prank phone call, throw a brick through a window, yell & swear, but grotesque premedated murder ..... i think they should be punished as such (be this the death penalty or other adult standard)

finally, a good frank discussion on an issue.

The problem is if you want to say those under 18 can decide and understand what they are doing when it comes to murder and other such things, then by default aren't you saying they know what is best for themselves and those around them? As in, living with their parents, going to school, who to be able to vote for, etc.

 

If we say those under 18 y/os fully understand their actions and their place in life, then don't we have to treat them like we would treat someone over the age of 18? If you want to punish them like someone who is suppose to fully understand their actions and place in life, shouldn't they be treated like that outside of punishment?

 

I am not sure how I feel about this case, I forget most of the particulars of the case and never refreshed myself, reffering to the Malvo case.

 

However, I don't think it would be right to only consider minors adults only when we want to punish them. If you want to always be able to punish minors as adults then I think they should always be treated as adults. And obviously I don't want to be treating minors as adults, and I am sure many people agree with that, so I don't think we should be able to punish minors as adults.

700313[/snapback]

 

 

Nowadays minors do many 'adult' things such as drinking, smoking, having children, and murdering people. Being 16 or 17 doesnt cut it. in many states the age of consent for sex is 16. how can comeone who is mature enough to have sex and children not be mature enough to kill someone?

finally, a good frank discussion on an issue.

700359[/snapback]

 

A rare occurence of late

The problem is if you want to say those under 18 can decide and understand what they are doing when it comes to murder and other such things, then by default aren't you saying they know what is best for themselves and those around them? As in, living with their parents, going to school, who to be able to vote for, etc.

 

If we say those under 18 y/os fully understand their actions and their place in life, then don't we have to treat them like we would treat someone over the age of 18? If you want to punish them like someone who is suppose to fully understand their actions and place in life, shouldn't they be treated like that outside of punishment?

 

I am not sure how I feel about this case, I forget most of the particulars of the case and never refreshed myself, reffering to the Malvo case.

 

However, I don't think it would be right to only consider minors adults only when we want to punish them. If you want to always be able to punish minors as adults then I think they should always be treated as adults. And obviously I don't want to be treating minors as adults, and I am sure many people agree with that, so I don't think we should be able to punish minors as adults.

700313[/snapback]

 

 

Nowadays minors do many 'adult' things such as drinking, smoking, having children, and murdering people. Being 16 or 17 doesnt cut it. in many states the age of consent for sex is 16. how can comeone who is mature enough to have sex and children not be mature enough to kill someone?

700441[/snapback]

 

So doing illegal things based upon you age group makes you an adult? Or makes it an "adult" thing? So if a pack of smokes found its way into a 11 y/os hands and he smoked them would that mean he is doing an adult thing, or just something stupid? Would you want to consider him an adult then?

 

If an 11 y/o murdered his parents, walked in with a gun and shot them both in the back of the head, would you be okay if the kid was sentenced to death? How about a 14 or 15 year old?

 

You guys make it seem 16 is the magical age in which you know what it all clicks in, you have morals, you make sense of the world and that is it. From here on out you are your own person, just not legally. Well then, why not make 16 the new 18? Would you be okay with giving 16 year olds the right to vote? To go to war? I mean you say they are mature enough to have sex, and they already drink and smoke and have families, well then why are we repressing them and keeping them down in your opinion?

 

Like I said, minors should not be able to have a greater understanding of their place in the world, not be able to have a global look of the world. If you think 16 year olds can do this, then why not make 16 the age between minor-hood and adult-hood? 18 is just an arbitrary number anyway.

 

Like I said, I don't think it is fair to judge minors as adults if they are given rights as minors. Its a double standard to treat a group of people one way but then when it comes to punishment treat them like another group.