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.
"the Constitution forbids the execution of killers who were under 18 when they committed their crimes"
Must be that darn Penumbra again.
Qwinn
I really don't have a problem applying the death penalty to teenagers...as long as they are kept in prison until they die.
Yeah, this is big, but honestly I think I have to agree with their decision.
I hope one of the Carr brothers in Wichita were not juveniles.
What a load.
Are you sure it wasn't a Penumbric EmanationTM?
So, now all the gang bangers will use teenagers to commit the murders. Okay Supreme Court -- you will reap what you sow.
Funny, I don't remember that part.
Not that I really like the idea of executing kid killers, but isn't that what state legislatures are for?
This just in...
The Killers victims are still DEAD!
Effing outrageous.
bttt
Bingo...........too bad there's no "Republican Leadership" in the Senate.
5-4 decision
OK. While I understand your sympathy for the little vermin, where in the Constitution is a 17yo murder precluded from being put to death by a State?
The emanated in the penumbra....again.
We were visiting the Supreme Court the day this case was heard - just went in for a couple minutes - sadly, I think that will be the last time Rehnquist is on the bench. It is time to replace some of the 5 Justices voting capital punishment un-Constitutional (the same who vote capital punishment for UNBORN children is enshrined in the Constitution). I bet one of them cited FOREIGN law in support of their vote : (
I agree with them. Killing a 15 year old child is not my idea of just punishment reguardless of what they have done. I have no problem with them sitting in jail for a long time though. I am infavor of the death penality but not for young children.
Me neither....must be close to that part about abortion.
Doubt it, since I'm pretty sure you can get the death penalty for hiring people to kill, and is actually an aggravating circumstance in most states.
No state kills 15 year old murders. They kill 25 year olds, who murdered when they were 15.
Not that I really like the idea of executing kid killers, but ...
BINGO!
What page of the Constitution is that on???? I cannot seem to find it. Maybe my copy of the original has something missing.
5 to 4 decision. Dissenting: Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist and O'Connor.
Kennedy wrote the majority opinion.
What difference does their age make? They still committed a murder and should be subject to the same penalty that would befall any one else who commits the same crime.
I guess that the time to bump somebody off is while you are still eighteen. How stupid is this.
I agree also with the sentiment of the decision. But whether or not I agree, the question is whether the justices really have the authority to define "cruel" this way, usurping state prerogatives. I don't think they do.
Doubt it.. im sure the death penality stopped kids from killing one another. If they are going to kill someone at that age.. nothing from a spanking to the death penality is going to stop them.. never did, never has.. They are so young they dont grasp what death really is. The majority of kids in jail never understood until they pulled the trigger. Death or Jail hasnt stopped them, and never will.
"Cruel and unusual punishment," the courts say.
This will remove a few from death row in Texas. http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/offendersondrow.htm
The best argument yet for going straight to the so-called "nuclear option" in the Senate, re: the replacement of Supreme Court justices between now and the end of '08.
=====
Agreed. The SC has gone highly liberal, running on politics, and if EVER TERM LIMITS SHOULD BE APPLIED, the SC members should clealy be replaced periodically. I will say the SC is out of control now. THEY ARE MAKING TOO MANY POLITICALLY-DRIVEN DECISIONS when they should be ONLY interpeting THE LAW.
bars states from seeking to execute minors for future crimes
henceforth bars states from seeking to execute minors for capital crimes...
bars states from executing minors in the future
:>)
How best to say it?
Because the problem is that the Constitution doesn't prohibit it.
Even worse, it's likely that the majority opinion of the Court has staked their claim on foreign law and jurisprudence.
Time will tell. Let's revisit this in, say, a decade?
What age is too young then? 8, 9 years old? Little Timmy hits his little sister with a bat out of anger and kills her.. Does the court system kill him too?
What age is too young? Out of diapers?
How old is Kennedy? Real old, I hope?
How about an 17 year old gang-banger who taunts the victim with "I can do anything I want to you and they can't kill me" as they perform a torture-murder on one of your family members?
Okay, where did the morons find this in the Constitution.
Or did they base on the laws of other nations?
Somebody get a rope!
Just before the right to privacy.
I like the final result, no matter how wildly subjective or constitutionally unfounded it might be.
No, they were 20 & 22 (chapter 4 of the story) - http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/classics/carr_brothers/index.html
We need to impeach Kennedy, now.
How about if an 11 year old killed someone--would you say the same thing?
No, because he's just a kid, he can't think like an adult and understand what he did. No one wants to execute 11 year olds.
So, where do we draw the line? It seems like people want to draw the line below 18. Maybe 14? Well, tough. 18 as an age of consent is enshrined in our laws. If a 15 year old girl has sex with her 30 year old gym teacher, she's a child victim and the man is headed for jail, but if she commits a crime, she's an adult, equivalent to the 30 year old. It seems like there's a disparity here and we need to err on the side of caution before the age of consent is lowered to 14.
And let's not get started on what "14 year olds are really adults and should pay the price for their crimes" would mean to parental notification laws for killing babies.
While I agree with the policy of not killing teens who commit murders, why does the Supreme Court not allow the legislatures in the states decide what is the right policy? Once again, the Supreme Court is legislating from the bench. This is the type of issue that the people of the states should agonize over, debate and come to a consensus. There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents applying corporal punishment to a teenager.
Along with the striking down of the death penalty for the 'retarded', its clear the Supreme Court is steadily headed towards reducing the field of play when it comes to the death penalty. If Bush fails to get a couple of justices on the court, and a Dem wins the next election, there is a chance of the court abolishing the death penalty completely.
I still think 23 hours a day in lockdown while being being "Bubba's new girlfriend" is a lot more or a punishment then a quick needle and death and such a young age.
There is no such thing as "to young" regarding the equal application of justice. One crime should equate to one punishment. The only just punishment for murder is the death of the actor.
He's below the age of consent and can not be legally judged to be of the same sound mind as an adult committing the same crime. Put him in jail for as long as we need to, but he's not an adult any more than a 17 year old girl seeking to abort her baby is an adult.
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.