quote:

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

how is it unconstitutional?

___________________

It has to start somewhere,
It has to start sometime,
What better place then here?
What better time than now?
--Rage Against the Machine

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!

___________________
UnauthorizedTranceAddict Youtube Channel where I post older mixes from the TA DJ Promotion Forum

My mixes:

Still up:1:2

Down:3:4:5

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...

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

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)

___________________
UnauthorizedTranceAddict Youtube Channel where I post older mixes from the TA DJ Promotion Forum

My mixes:

Still up:1:2

Down:3:4:5