TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- High Court Ends Death Penalty for Youths

High Court Ends Death Penalty for Youths

quote:

High Court Ends Death Penalty for Youths 35 minutes ago By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - A closely divided Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that it's unconstitutional to execute juvenile killers, ending a practice in 19 states that has been roundly condemned by many of America's closest allies. The 5-4 decision throws out the death sentences of 72 murderers who were under 18 when they committed their crimes 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 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 (news - web sites) wrote. The ruling continues the court's practice of narrowing the scope of the death penalty, which justices reinstated in 1976. Executions for those 15 and younger when they committed their crimes were outlawed in 1988. Three years ago justices banned death sentences for the mentally retarded. Tuesday's ruling prevents states from making 16- and 17-year-olds eligible for execution. As a result, officials in Prince William County, Va., said Tuesday they will not prosecute a murder case there against teen sniper Lee Boyd Malvo, who is already serving life in prison in two of the 10 sniper killings that terrorized the Washington area in 2002. Prince William County Commonwealth's Attorney Paul Ebert had hoped to get the death penalty for Malvo, who was 17 at the time of the killings, but said another trial would now be an unnecessary expense. Juvenile offenders have been put to death in recent years in only a few other countries, including Iran (news - web sites), Pakistan, China and Saudi Arabia. Kennedy cited international opposition to the practice. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto...nalty&printer=1

this is total bull


the whole reason the teen did this crime was because his friends "Assured" him that he couldnt be punished for it because he was a minor


next we know anybody under 18 will never be guilty of anything because there to young to know what theyre doing

quote:

Originally posted by electronicmaji2 this is total bull the whole reason the teen did this crime was because his friends "Assured" him that he couldnt be punished for it because he was a minor next we know anybody under 18 will never be guilty of anything because there to young to know what theyre doing

All they said is you can't kill a kid, Lee Malvo, for example, will still never spend a day of his life outside of prison, which is not exactly getting away unpunished. Not to mention that the death penalty is so arbitrarily used and heavily biased toward minorities, along with the high number of people in my state who were found to be innocent while on death row. On top of that, no correlation has been shown between the death penalty and reduction in violent crime.

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine16 On top of that, no correlation has been shown between the death penalty and reduction in violent crime.

There are other reasons for administering punishment to people being found guilty of a crime, in particular the feelings of the victims, and the assurance that justice is being served to the populace at large. Further, by containing or killing dangerous people, you keep them off the streets.

bill clinton pushed for the same law in my state and got it instated in 2 years

there were several incidents including 2 teen boys ages 16 & 17 who raped a 14 year old boy to death


they didnt get more than 15 years in jail

Because of clintons law

such laws make prosecution of monster minors uncapable and pretty soon a kid like lee malvo wont see more then 6 years in jail

TRUST ME IVE SEEN IT

these kids let out after 6 years will grow to becomes serial killers

they are arleady dead to society hey are monsters lee malvo and his friends are not sorry nor have they ever apologised they dont even care they are qaul to those in the shootings of columbine detatched from reality

he does not deserve to receive the benefits of society or jail it would be cheaper to kill him now then to have him live for life in jail...that ultimetly is his FATE anyways...

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic There are other reasons for administering punishment to people being found guilty of a crime, in particular the feelings of the victims, and the assurance that justice is being served to the populace at large. Further, by containing or killing dangerous people, you keep them off the streets.

I certainly advocate life in prison without parole for violent crimes, which keeps these people off the streets. I recognize that families of victims certainly experience great pain, but the Constitution is not based on the concept of "eye for an eye." The arbitrary implementation of the death penalty also means that 2 people committing the exact same crime would get different versions of justice.

quote:

Originally posted by electronicmaji2 bill clinton pushed for the same law in my state and got it instated in 2 years there were several incidents including 2 teen boys ages 16 & 17 who raped a 14 year old boy to death they didnt get more than 15 years in jail Because of clintons law such laws make prosecution of monster minors uncapable and pretty soon a kid like lee malvo wont see more then 6 years in jail TRUST ME IVE SEEN IT these kids let out after 6 years will grow to becomes serial killers they are arleady dead to society hey are monsters lee malvo and his friends are not sorry nor have they ever apologised they dont even care they are qaul to those in the shootings of columbine detatched from reality he does not deserve to receive the benefits of society or jail it would be cheaper to kill him now then to have him live for life in jail...that ultimetly is his FATE anyways...

Are you from Arkansas? Bill Clinton pushed for what law? One allowing the death penalty in the case of minors?

I highly doubt that because we do not have laws allowing the death penalty for minors someone like Malvo will ever get out in 6 years. I also don't see where there is a maximum penalty that is 15 years or death. If a 16 or 17 year old and it is determined that they knowingly committed an especially brutal crime, they still can be
charged as an adult for that crime, with greater penalties, they now just cannot be put to death. We were recently amongst a small minority in the world, with countries like Iran, who executed minors and people with mental disabilities. As for the costs of keeping people in prison for life really is not that great when you look at what the legal costs to the state or federal government are in terms of prosecuting a death penalty case. The process of appeal is more frequent and much longer, as courts provide greater opportunity for appeal when someone's life is at risk. I would hope the people who believe the death penalty should be used are at least in favor of radical reforms to the process, as it is so infrequently imposed and I believe there is still not one case where someone who is white has gotten the death penalty for killing someone who is black, while so many have gotten it in the reverse situation.

im in arkansas

bill clinton pushed for a bill to not allow death setence in case of minors...

Supreme court only closed the small gap of 16-17 year olds. It was hotly debated and a close call, but seems to me they could have comprised and left in the 17 year olds as bargain basement. Truthfully, I see no difference in a 17 year compared to an 18 year old committing capital murder nor the difference between a 15 and 16 year old. Thank god we still have the death penalty for anyone in this country. Makes me wonder sometimes when the liberal justices try to fix something that's not broke to begin with.


[[[smoke]]]

the issue i have with it is why 18? that's such an arbitrary number. Why is 18 the line for adulthood?
a jewish kid has a bar-mitza at age 13 to enter adulthood
US "kids" at age 16 get drivers liscence because they are considered adult enough
you get drafted at 18
can only drink alcohol at age of 21
we all know people mature at various paces.

i think each trail should be done case by case regardless of the age as opposed to some random age limit.

NOw you understand the crux of the matter. Why were the Justices f*cking with rules written a hundred years ago to begin with. Age is abritrary... too late now, they ruled and f*cked things up for the next 100 years.


[[[smoke]]]

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy the issue i have with it is why 18? that's such an arbitrary number. Why is 18 the line for adulthood? a jewish kid has a bar-mitza at age 13 to enter adulthood US "kids" at age 16 get drivers liscence because they are considered adult enough you get drafted at 18 can only drink alcohol at age of 21 we all know people mature at various paces. i think each trail should be done case by case regardless of the age as opposed to some random age limit.

i agree, agelimits are stupid. that said i dont think there are any 17 year olds that should be sent to death.

Yup.

Dumb dumb. These matters should be kept to the States to decide. If the State wants to be able to execute Juviniles, let that people of the state decide it. I do not understand why execute somebody who is 17 years and 360 days old is cruel and unusual, but executing someone who is 18 years and a day old is prefectly ethical and usual(in the eyes of the Supreme law of the land so interperted by the justices today anyhoo)


Let the people decide.
I believe people in todays society are quiet capable in trying their peers on a death peanilty if needed. If the youngster deserves to die the jury will decided, if he doesn't the jury will spare him.



I just hate this decission really because of the power it is taking away from the states, its simply a stupid unconstitutional decision IMO. I think the new congressional amendment proposed whereby a 75% majority of Congress can overturn a Supreme Court decision might be needed in the day and age we've come to.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus its simply a stupid unconstitutional decision IMO.

how is it unconstitutional?

it seems that the lust for bloody vengeance finally has one less channel to run its course. hurray!

look, everyone reaches maturity (however defined) at different ages, much like a babies' ability to speak and walk. this bright line rule is set in many respects for judicial efficiency. some people will undoubtedly will still be immature at 18 and others will have reached maturity earlier than 18. the courts won't have to conduct a case by case assesment of each individual alleged criminal to determine if they are sufficiently mature to understand consequences of their acts. its ultilitarian principles at work here.

personally, i think that the age of maturity should be a little higher but its good start. recall that the age of maturity is an evolving concept that we gain greater understanding of constantly. there used to be a time that children were thought of as little adults. let's not commit the same folly again.

end capital punishment and raise the age of maturity to 20 or 21!

quote:

Originally posted by DR86 how is it unconstitutional?

Obviously if the Supreme Court decides its consitutional - its constitutional. They are by definition the final say in the matter.

However I still don't agree with their intepertation and believe that their decission ultimately runs counter to the spirit of the constitution.

Here's why: the Supreme Court hasn't decided that the death penalty is cruel or unusual, i.e. unconstitutional. It has decided that the death penalty is arbitrarly cruel and unusual punishment only if applied to certain category of the population.

Therefore it is up to the States and people to decide (As dictated by the consitution) on what penalty to apply to a crime and who to apply it to.

What the Supreme Court has decided is at what federal age this becomes cruel and unusual, and although I agree there is a minimum bar at which the death penalty is cruel and unusual (No one could agree to executing infants for example... but then again nobody is executing infants.. well unless you want to get into the abortionist argument I guess ), I believe they set the bar much higher then the minimum.

The Supreme court has taken away the states right to deem when their children mature and equally how they define juviniles in this sense.

It would be akin the the Supreme Court mandating that it is cruel and unusual to kill women, or somebody over the age of 65 (as old people are like kids --- i.e. they don't always fully comprehend the world around them).

The problem with the decission is not that the Suprem Court said the death penalty is cruel and unusual or that executing somebody a certain way is cruel and unusual --- which would have been fine constitutionally. No instead they have discriminately chose to do a half-ass job and deprive the People and the states some of their most fundamental rights in the process - how they wish to define maturity.

Its a dumb decission that shouldn't have been made, if 16-18 is a grey area, let each state come up with their own interpertation and belief on how to address the problem. I just find this akin to the Supreme court meddling in intra-State (not interstate!) trade.

The problem really comes down to the fact that this decission has no logical backing, the only reason they chose 18 is for emotional reasons. When the highest court of the land decides based on feelings instead of law I think we should be worried...


Personally, I could give the least of a damn whether people are executed or not. WTF do I care, I'm not going to kill somebody anyway...

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus WTF do I care, I'm not going to kill somebody anyway...

uh...since when is actually committing a capital crime a prequisite to being convicted of committing a capital crime? you can be convicted of capital crime without actually committing it, as some persons have already. it may be improbable, but it may nevertheless happen. that's precisely one problem of the DP.

if one is imprisoned for life, at least one may have an opportunity to revisit the case, should it be possible or necessary. (its an old argument i know)

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.