Posted on 03/01/2005 7:21:16 AM PST by Next_Time_NJ
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.
You are correct. This will be the direct result of this decision. All gang murders will now be done by those under 18, with the most they can be punished is a few years in jail.
I don't like the ruling either, but let's start impeachment with Ginsburg, or at least Souter, before Kennedy.
OK, I found it in the Constitution. It says "17 years and 364 days old, ye cannot execute a Person. However, add a day and that that makes it not so cruel and unusual."
Did you really say this?
They already do.
So your ends justify the court's means?
OMG, what TOTAL BS.
We aren't talking about 10-year olds, but rather 16 and 17 year old teens.
And the slow, slow slippage of Original Intent is again undermined.
Yes, the Supreme Court only okays the death sentence on children under 9 months old. What despicable people we have inhabiting our Supreme Court! Don't tell me...let me guess,
Sanda Day O'Connor voted for the criminals.
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.