Justices Abolish Death Penalty For Juveniles.

[Gem]

Perhaps people choose to view or not view the death penalty as a means of disuading other would-be criminals from acting on their homicidal urges...however, whether it works or doesn't work, it is a side note to the fact that the death penalty is not supposed to be primarily a deterrent...

It is supposed to be the ultimate punishment for heinous crimes.

I agree with everyone who says that the death penalty does not stop anyone who wants to murder or who murders in the heat of the moment. I am willing to hypothesize that it might be more effective as a deterrent if it was enacted across the board for all murders that were not accidental or in self-defence...or if criminals were executed more swiftly...however that is not the case, and more likely than not wil never be the case...so we must work with what we have at hand...

The death penalty as it stands today does not act as a deterrent...but guess what...neither does our prison system. In fact, our attempts at rehabilitation in the prison system have been a dismal vailure overall. The statistics of criminals who commit crimes and are re-arrested is ridiculous...we are failing in our efforts to take criminals and make them non-criminals...so if we are talking about getting rid of the death penalty because it doesn't stop crime...we may as well talk about getting rid of the present prison system because it is just as ineffective for crime prevention...

(Talking about reforming the prison system is a matter for another thread altogether...my point is simply that the "the death penalty doesn't stop crime" argument is, in my opinion, ineffective in this discussion.)

What we have to decide instead, is: Are we a society that punishes heinous crimes by killing the murderer? And if so, where do we as a society draw the line in the age of the person we consider executing?

We are one of the only remaining nations of our size, development, wealth, etc. who was executing minors...while we do not have to follow the rest of the world, we should most certainly be examining what other nations have chosen not to execute 16 and 17 year old murderers.

 

[ReillyT]

I, for the most part, agree with your reply. Unfortunately, I am too drunk to elaborate further on the essential question that I think is implicit in your message (what is, and should be, the goal of the current system of incarceration in the United States). Therefore, I will only say "fine post." It was both humble in its attributions and inciteful in its grasp of the real issue. Well done and good night.

 

[Adam's Apple]

On Death Penalty, Scalia's Consistency Shines
By Thomas Oliphant, Columnist for the Boston Globe
March 3, 2005

For full article, click on URL below.

WASHINGTON --FEELING FRISKY, I found myself this week respecting Antonin Scalia's dissenting position on whether the government should kill people for what they did as kids. And I found myself scratching my head over the tiny, five-justice majority's view on why that's now wrong.

Scalia has consistency and clarity on his side. The majority failed on both counts, unable to deal with the basic question of whether the death penalty itself or its application to the acts of adolescents is inherently cruel. Instead, it used to a great extent the other leg in the Eighth Amendment's standard, that this kind of killing is unusual. It was the flip side of a famously poor argument: Everybody does it. The best the majority could muster was the observation that virtually nobody does it anymore.

Scalia is not in favor of killing adolescent killers — or if he is that has nothing to do with his views as a Supreme Court justice about the issue the court decided this week. Scalia is conservative, as in very, very conservative. His dissent cogently attacks the majority's reliance on its own notions of what is cruel or unusual as well as its reliance on the evolving trend in the rest of the world.

As a conservative, Scalia believes it is more important to uphold the tradition that remains in most states in this country, what he calls ''the centuries-old American practice — a practice still engaged in by a large majority of the relevant states — of letting a jury of 12 citizens decide whether in the particular case youth should be the basis for withholding the death penalty.''

He might have added that behind that tradition are the decisions of elected state legislatures on whether to have whatever kind of death penalty they choose, including none, subject to federal constitutional standards.

© Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial opinion/oped/articles/2005/03/03/on death p...3/3/05

 

[Deornwulf]

I do not believe in the death penalty as a punishment but not for some sappy liberal emotional reason. I think it's letting the bastards off too easy. My ideal punishment for murder is similar to Supermax. The cells would have two walls made of clear acrylics with a space in between. The outer wall would be sound proof, the inner one would have holes to allow sound. On the inside of the outer wall, facing in, would be pictures of the murder victim or victims. There would be a television set that would come on for a hour a day showing videos of the victim or victims' life. The sentence would be for life.

The whole international argument is bullshit. Muslim law is far less forgiving yet I don't see liberals jumping all over Iran or Libya for executing children? And they seem to be willing to forgive Saddam Hussein for his governments mass executions of children. (Maybe it would be ok in the United States to execute teenage killers if we give them a teddy bear to hold).

 

[musicman]

As happens so often, Adam's Apple has gone straight to the heart of the matter - not that there haven't been some interesting arguments advanced. Bonnie's graph is pretty damned straightforward evidence if you ask me: More executions, fewer murders. ReillyT responds with a tortured study of variables which confirms my belief that anyone with money and a vested interest in reaching a predetermined conclusion can do so by loading a study. Gem blasts that nonsense out of the water by pointing out that the death penalty is not solely about "deterrence" anyway. This is great fun!

But, Adam's Applle has hit upon the central issue: According to the U.S. Constitution, whose call is this, anyway? I think the answer is pretty clear; moreover, I think it should be painfully obvious theat our judiciary is dangerously out of whack with the intent of our founding fathers. This is a matter for the people.

 

[Bonnie]

According to the U.S. Constitution, whose call is this, anyway? I think the answer is pretty clear; moreover, I think it should be painfully obvious theat our judiciary is dangerously out of whack with the intent of our founding fathers. This is a matter for the people.

Especially MM when our justices are making law based on on a European model

JUSTICE SCALIA ON OUR NEW EURO-COURT: We now have five justices on the Supreme Court who are perfectly content to rely on foreign law, and public opinion in foreign countries, when ruling on the constitutionality of state laws they don't like. Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion in Roper v. Simmons, where the Court struck down the laws of 18 states that allow for the execution of minors who have murdered in cold blood, is an absolute travesty. Overruling its 1989 decision that found no 8th amendment prohibition to a state's applying capital punishment to minors, Kennedy et al. now find a new "national consensus" against applying the death penalty to anyone under the age of 18 is "cruel and unusual punishment." (Move over Gallup!) The justices cite foreign opinion and practices to confirm their conclusion, which effectively usurps the will of the people. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the dissent wonders why the Court cites foreign law only in cases where foreign law agrees with a desired outcome. Why not for abortion? Why not for Establishment Clause cases? Scalia's dissent is must-reading for for all Americans. Click here.
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/...roper simmons&url=/supct/html/03-633.ZD1.html

 

[musicman]

Especially MM when our justices are making law based on on a European model

JUSTICE SCALIA ON OUR NEW EURO-COURT: We now have five justices on the Supreme Court who are perfectly content to rely on foreign law, and public opinion in foreign countries, when ruling on the constitutionality of state laws they don't like. Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion in Roper v. Simmons, where the Court struck down the laws of 18 states that allow for the execution of minors who have murdered in cold blood, is an absolute travesty. Overruling its 1989 decision that found no 8th amendment prohibition to a state's applying capital punishment to minors, Kennedy et al. now find a new "national consensus" against applying the death penalty to anyone under the age of 18 is "cruel and unusual punishment." (Move over Gallup!) The justices cite foreign opinion and practices to confirm their conclusion, which effectively usurps the will of the people. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the dissent wonders why the Court cites foreign law only in cases where foreign law agrees with a desired outcome. Why not for abortion? Why not for Establishment Clause cases? Scalia's dissent is must-reading for for all Americans. Click here.
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/...roper simmons&url=/supct/html/03-633.ZD1.html

Ironic, isn't it - that the words "global test" effectively sunk John Kerry, yet they seem to be the Credo of the U.S. Supreme Court? What differentiates these two facts? What exists in the one that is missing from the other? Why, it's...it's.... THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE!

The agenda of the left is tyranny plain and simple, and its principal weapon is the courts. Do we deserve this wonderful country? Are we willing to exercise due diligence, and do whatever is necessary to protect this experiment in human freedom?

Remains to be seen, I guess....

 

[SmarterThanYou]

looking forward to whoever is nominated for the next USSC seat.

 

[Gem]

I think that subjects like this, along with so many others that some in this nation keep forcing into the national spotlight should be dealt with in the manner in which the founding fathers TRULY MEANT for them to be handled: each individual state should determine what works best for the state.

If California wants to give every juvenille murderer an IEP and a big hug and send them back into society after they sit through a mandatory building self-esteem and appreciating diversity class....bully for them. If Texas decides that if you're old enough to kill you're old enough to die for it...huzzah for them.

 

[Adam's Apple]

Good article from George Will, whose opinion is that this Court decision is WRONG ON ALL COUNTS!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8745-2005Mar4.html