Justices abolish death penalty for juveniles

gunssb · 03-01-2005, 05:08 PM

The Associated Press
Updated: 3:42 p.m. ET March 1, 2005

WASHINGTON - 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 72 juvenile murderers and bars states from seeking to execute minors for future crimes.

The ruling had an immediate effect on the nation's most notorious teen killer, sniper Lee Boyd Malvo.

Prosecutors in Virginia's Prince William County had waited for the ruling to decide on bringing Malvo to trial for one of the 10 killings in an October 2002 killing spree by Malvo and accomplice John Allen Muhammad.

Prosecutor Paul Ebert said after the ruling that he won't prosecute Malvo, because Malvo has already been sentenced to life in prison without parole for two of the killings. Ebert said another trial would now be an unnecessary expense since the death penatly was not an option. Malvo was 17 at the time of the killings.
Earlier limits
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.”

Kennedy joins more liberal justices
Justices were called on to draw an age line in death cases after Missouri’s highest court overturned the death sentence given to a 17-year-old Christopher Simmons, who kidnapped a neighbor in Missouri, hog-tied her and threw her off a bridge. Prosecutors say he planned the burglary and killing of Shirley Crook in 1993 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, also agreed with Tuesday’s decision: Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

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

Before Tuesday's ruling, 19 states allowed executions for people under age 18: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Utah, Texas and Virginia.

The federal government already bars the execution of juveniles for federal capital crimes.

Scalia, O'Connor write dissents
In a dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia disputed that there is a trend and chastised his colleagues for taking power from the states.

“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 in a 24-page dissent.

“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. Twenty-two of the people put to death since then were juveniles when they committed their crimes. Texas executed the most, 13, and also has the most on death row now — 29.

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor filed a separate dissent, arguing that a blanket rule against juvenile executions was misguided. Case-by-case determinations of a young offenders’ maturity is the better approach, she wrote.

“The court’s analysis is premised on differences in the aggregate between juveniles and adults, which frequently do not hold true when comparing individuals,” she said. “Chronological age is not an unfailing measure of psychological development, and common experience suggests that many 17-year-olds are more mature than the average young 'adult.”’

Pro, con reaction
Death penalty opponents quickly cheered the ruling as a victory for human rights.

“Today, the court repudiated the misguided idea that the United States can pledge to leave no child behind while simultaneously exiling children to the death chamber,” said William Schulz, executive director of Amnesty International USA.

“Now the U.S. can proudly remove its name from the embarrassing list of human rights violators that includes China, Iran, and Pakistan that still execute juvenile offenders,” he said.

Dianne Clements, president of the Houston-based Justice for All victims’ advocacy group, criticized the decision and said she hopes that when there is a Supreme Court vacancy a strong death penalty supporter is nominated.

“The Supreme Court has opened the door for more innocent people to suffer by 16 and 17 year olds,” she said. “I can’t wait for the Supreme Court to have judges more concerned with American values, American statutes and American law than what the Europeans think.”
© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

gunssb · 03-01-2005, 05:12 PM

I doubt that at 17 you wouldn't know that killing people is wrong - another year and you become magically responsible for your actions

BattleRifleG3 · 03-01-2005, 05:37 PM

They can incarcerate for life if they wish. I'm not asking for ID before shooting a violent criminal to defend my life.

Shaun · 03-01-2005, 06:26 PM

I still think they should drop it to 14 year olds as I have met some in my previous positions that felt if they needed to kill someone they would have a 12 year old do it so they could not be prosecuted.

PAPA G · 03-01-2005, 07:25 PM

what a crock!!! they 're old enough to do the crime, they old enough to hang.

not psychologocally old enough to know right from wrong..more liberal crap.

seems Justice Kennedy is also worried about what the rest of the world thinks of executing youthful killers, is he bucking for a seat on the World Court or something.

excuse my i gotta file a motion with the court of John

gunssb · 03-01-2005, 07:33 PM

this kid went about killing innocents in public places. Imagine what their families must feel.

Oxford · 03-01-2005, 08:02 PM

"...hog tied the girl and threw her in the river."

That's about as premeditated as murder can get. If a person is old enough to do that, he/she deserves to die.

The supreme court's ruling stinks!

Dakota_kid · 03-01-2005, 10:34 PM

How STUPID can you get???
I defininatly know that murder is wrong,
as far as I'm concerned, if your old enough to reason out the thought of I want to kill this person, you are old enough to enderstand that there is going to be punishment.
Saying that kids can't understand the reason they are getting punished is just plain dumb. I knew that hitting my sister was wrong when I was 4. Are kids these days getting dumber?

I'm glad I'm homeschooled

gunssb · 03-01-2005, 10:41 PM

they're not dumber, they're learning not to be responsible for their actions. Starts with the parents - blame guns, blame violent drawings & pictures, blame video games, blame rubber bands, rough games, so on...although the environment might play a role, a person turns to wrong not because of things, but because of the way he/she is.

Rave · 03-02-2005, 07:44 AM

S.o.s.!

Big Dog · 03-02-2005, 12:46 PM

I'm a firm believer in the ideal of equal rights. If I can be put to death for committing multiple murder, then so should any other - man, woman, child - no quarter should be given for race, age, religion, mental state or gender. If you kill maliciously, you should pay with your life. Period.

Malvo has earned the dirt nap.

Dakota_kid · 03-03-2005, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gunssb

they're not dumber, they're learning not to be responsible for their actions. Starts with the parents - blame guns, blame violent drawings & pictures, blame video games, blame rubber bands, rough games, so on...although the environment might play a role, a person turns to wrong not because of things, but because of the way he/she is.

you are right,
what I mean is that it is dumb that people(kids) dont automaticallly realize that if I do something its my fault not someone elses. Parents need to teach this.

Oxford · 03-03-2005, 05:06 PM

I agree with the way this discussion is going. :nod: :right:

Troy · 03-03-2005, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oxford

I agree with the way this discussion is going. :nod: :right:

yeah, i'm on board with that too. :nod:

Troy · 03-06-2005, 11:03 AM

now open

03-01-2005, 05:08 PM	#1
gunssb Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: socal Posts: 1,833	Justices abolish death penalty for juveniles The Associated Press Updated: 3:42 p.m. ET March 1, 2005 WASHINGTON - 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 72 juvenile murderers and bars states from seeking to execute minors for future crimes. The ruling had an immediate effect on the nation's most notorious teen killer, sniper Lee Boyd Malvo. Prosecutors in Virginia's Prince William County had waited for the ruling to decide on bringing Malvo to trial for one of the 10 killings in an October 2002 killing spree by Malvo and accomplice John Allen Muhammad. Prosecutor Paul Ebert said after the ruling that he won't prosecute Malvo, because Malvo has already been sentenced to life in prison without parole for two of the killings. Ebert said another trial would now be an unnecessary expense since the death penatly was not an option. Malvo was 17 at the time of the killings. Earlier limits 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.” Kennedy joins more liberal justices Justices were called on to draw an age line in death cases after Missouri’s highest court overturned the death sentence given to a 17-year-old Christopher Simmons, who kidnapped a neighbor in Missouri, hog-tied her and threw her off a bridge. Prosecutors say he planned the burglary and killing of Shirley Crook in 1993 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, also agreed with Tuesday’s decision: Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, as expected, voted to uphold the executions. They were joined by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Before Tuesday's ruling, 19 states allowed executions for people under age 18: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Utah, Texas and Virginia. The federal government already bars the execution of juveniles for federal capital crimes. Scalia, O'Connor write dissents In a dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia disputed that there is a trend and chastised his colleagues for taking power from the states. “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 in a 24-page dissent. “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. Twenty-two of the people put to death since then were juveniles when they committed their crimes. Texas executed the most, 13, and also has the most on death row now — 29. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor filed a separate dissent, arguing that a blanket rule against juvenile executions was misguided. Case-by-case determinations of a young offenders’ maturity is the better approach, she wrote. “The court’s analysis is premised on differences in the aggregate between juveniles and adults, which frequently do not hold true when comparing individuals,” she said. “Chronological age is not an unfailing measure of psychological development, and common experience suggests that many 17-year-olds are more mature than the average young 'adult.”’ Pro, con reaction Death penalty opponents quickly cheered the ruling as a victory for human rights. “Today, the court repudiated the misguided idea that the United States can pledge to leave no child behind while simultaneously exiling children to the death chamber,” said William Schulz, executive director of Amnesty International USA. “Now the U.S. can proudly remove its name from the embarrassing list of human rights violators that includes China, Iran, and Pakistan that still execute juvenile offenders,” he said. Dianne Clements, president of the Houston-based Justice for All victims’ advocacy group, criticized the decision and said she hopes that when there is a Supreme Court vacancy a strong death penalty supporter is nominated. “The Supreme Court has opened the door for more innocent people to suffer by 16 and 17 year olds,” she said. “I can’t wait for the Supreme Court to have judges more concerned with American values, American statutes and American law than what the Europeans think.” © 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

03-01-2005, 05:37 PM	#3
BattleRifleG3 Super Moderator Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Western PA Posts: 11,401 Images: 13	They can incarcerate for life if they wish. I'm not asking for ID before shooting a violent criminal to defend my life. __________________ Trust is earned, not... GIVEN away. - Worf

03-01-2005, 06:26 PM	#4
Shaun Super Moderator Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Nashville, TN Posts: 8,592 Images: 1	I still think they should drop it to 14 year olds as I have met some in my previous positions that felt if they needed to kill someone they would have a 12 year old do it so they could not be prosecuted. __________________ "Homeland Security is the responsibility of an armed citizen" ME http://webpages.charter.net/s.s.v/

03-01-2005, 08:02 PM	#7
Oxford Super Moderator Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Gladstone, Missouri Posts: 13,022 Blog Entries: 4	"...hog tied the girl and threw her in the river." That's about as premeditated as murder can get. If a person is old enough to do that, he/she deserves to die. The supreme court's ruling stinks! __________________ "If it's worth doing, it's worth doing right".

03-01-2005, 10:34 PM	#8
Dakota_kid Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: South Dakota Posts: 63	How STUPID can you get??? I defininatly know that murder is wrong, as far as I'm concerned, if your old enough to reason out the thought of I want to kill this person, you are old enough to enderstand that there is going to be punishment. Saying that kids can't understand the reason they are getting punished is just plain dumb. I knew that hitting my sister was wrong when I was 4. Are kids these days getting dumber? I'm glad I'm homeschooled __________________ http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/6757/dakotakid.jpg The Second Amendment The Defender of the rest Guns dont kill peolpe, People kill people. "Sweat dries, blood clots, bones heal. Suck it up. Be a Marine."

03-01-2005, 05:12 PM	#2
gunssb Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: socal Posts: 1,833	I doubt that at 17 you wouldn't know that killing people is wrong - another year and you become magically responsible for your actions

03-01-2005, 07:25 PM	#5
PAPA G Guest Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: somerset, kentucky Posts: 12	what a crock!!! they 're old enough to do the crime, they old enough to hang. not psychologocally old enough to know right from wrong..more liberal crap. seems Justice Kennedy is also worried about what the rest of the world thinks of executing youthful killers, is he bucking for a seat on the World Court or something. excuse my i gotta file a motion with the court of John

03-01-2005, 07:33 PM	#6
gunssb Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: socal Posts: 1,833	this kid went about killing innocents in public places. Imagine what their families must feel.

03-01-2005, 10:41 PM	#9
gunssb Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: socal Posts: 1,833	they're not dumber, they're learning not to be responsible for their actions. Starts with the parents - blame guns, blame violent drawings & pictures, blame video games, blame rubber bands, rough games, so on...although the environment might play a role, a person turns to wrong not because of things, but because of the way he/she is.

03-02-2005, 07:44 AM	#10
Rave Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Tampa Posts: 6,859	S.o.s.! __________________ USAF '62-'66 .

03-02-2005, 12:46 PM	#11
Big Dog Moderator Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Tallahassee, Florida Posts: 10,205	I'm a firm believer in the ideal of equal rights. If I can be put to death for committing multiple murder, then so should any other - man, woman, child - no quarter should be given for race, age, religion, mental state or gender. If you kill maliciously, you should pay with your life. Period. Malvo has earned the dirt nap. __________________ Moderator of: AR15/M16, M14/M1A, New/Beginning Shooters and Militaria/Collectables.

03-03-2005, 05:06 PM	#13
Oxford Super Moderator Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Gladstone, Missouri Posts: 13,022 Blog Entries: 4	I agree with the way this discussion is going. :nod: :right: __________________ "If it's worth doing, it's worth doing right".

03-06-2005, 11:03 AM	#15
Troy Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Manitoba Canada Posts: 2,501 Images: 3	now open