Death Penalty for Minors Ruled Unconstitutional

[blike]

I guess the states that were victims of the sniper attacks can no longer seek the death penalty for Malvo.

[Nevermore]

Personally, I don't see how executing a minor is any different then executing an adult. The invisible barrier of age 18 is an artificcial construct.

[syntax252]

I guess the states that were victims of the sniper attacks can no longer seek the death penalty for Malvo.

 

The thing about the decision that lost me was that they reportedly ruled it "cruel" punishment when applied to someone under 18.

 

If it is cruel for someone under 18 who has committed a murder, how can it not be cruel for someone who is 18 and up?

 

Do people under 18 suffer more by losing their lives that someone over 18? Are we now going to quantify the seriousness of murder based on the age of the murderer? Why not say that if one murders an old person, that it is not as serious a crime as it would be if the victim were young?

[Pangloss]

Well I think the death penalty is wrong, so I see this as a step in the right direction.

[Coral Rhedd]

Do people under 18 suffer more by losing their lives that someone over 18?

 

One might answer that yes. They lose more years. The suffering from thinking of losing all those years may be more acute. Rather difficult to quantify, wouldn't you say?

[syntax252]

One might answer that yes. They lose more years. The suffering from thinking of losing all those years may be more acute. Rather difficult to quantify, wouldn't you say?

 

Well then I take it that your answer to my question about murdering an old person versus a young person is yes also?

[syntax252]

Well I think the death penalty is wrong, so I see this as a step in the right direction.

 

Whether it is right or wrong is not the point.

 

The point is that the Constitution is supposed to apply to all citizens equally, so if it is "cruel" to apply the DP to someone under 18, is it not also cruel to apply it to someone who is over 18?

 

This is not a case of voting rights, or some other clause that can logically be applied on an age basis, this is whether or not a penality is "cruel or unusual."

[Pangloss]

There are many exceptions to constitutional protections for minors. The answer to your question is the same as the answer to those questions -- are these individuals mature enough to understand the consequences of their actions, and therefore be responsible for them? If not, then the penalty is cruel and unusual.

 

Does it really make sense for a 17 year old to be eligible for the death penalty and the draft, but not drinking alcohol or smoking cigarettes, or more to the point, voting?

[syntax252]

There are many exceptions to constitutional protections for minors. The answer to your question is the same as the answer to those questions -- are these individuals mature enough to understand the consequences of their actions' date=' and therefore be responsible for them? If not, then the penalty is cruel and unusual.

 

Does it really make sense for a 17 year old to be eligible for the death penalty and the draft, but not drinking alcohol or smoking cigarettes, or more to the point, [i']voting[/i]?

 

I disagree.

 

It is not a question about whether or not one understands the magnitude of his crime, that was not what the decision addressed. What the decision addressed was the "cruel or unusual" clause in the Constitution. The one which says that "no cruel or unusual punishment" shall be imposed.

 

If the Death penality is "cruel" then it is cruel for all people, not just youngsters, and is therefore unconstitutional for all people.

 

The SCOTUS is trying to say that it is cruel for people under 18, but not cruel for people over 18.

 

Certainly they will prevail, as the Constitution gives them this right, but is if outside the realm of logic.

 

In my opinion.

[Coral Rhedd]

Well then I take it that your answer to my question about murdering an old person versus a young person is yes also?

 

Where did I indicate my personal opinion? I did not.

 

However, judging from you photo, your concerns are valid. If we as a culture decide that the years (few ahead) of older people are less worthy than those of younger people we could be in for some trouble. For instance, when resources become scarce we may decide they are more properly allotted to the the young. I found this following NYT article of interest -- although admittedly off topic:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/27/business/yourmoney/27view.html?

 

I will be reading about the Court's decision since I have not yet. Maybe I will offer an opinion when I am more informed.

[Tetrahedrite]

Death Penalty for Minors Ruled Unconstitutional

Things are starting to look up for the country that holds itself as a "beacon" for human rights!

[Coral Rhedd]

 

The SCOTUS is trying to say that it is cruel for people under 18' date=' but [b']not[/b] cruel for people over 18.

 

That is not all they are saying. You are simplifying a bit, aren't you?

 

This is the case that was the chief precedent for today's decision:

 

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=00-8452

 

It dealt with the ability of mentally retarded people to make judgments. There is a reason that 18 is the age of consent in most instances. That reason is that teenagers are less able to use good judgment. The court seems to be saying that even in heinous crimes the ability of defendants to judge what actions they should take or refrain from taking is more important than the type of crime committed.

 

This does not seem unreasonable to me. Nor do I think it makes it more immediately likely that the death penalty will be considered cruel and unusual for adult murderers. It is a step in the right direction, but I suspect we will have the dealth penalty for quite some time to come.

[syntax252]

Where did I indicate my personal opinion? I did not.

 

However' date=' judging from you photo, your concerns are valid. If we as a culture decide that the years (few ahead) of older people are less worthy than those of younger people we could be in for some trouble. For instance, when resources become scarce we may decide they are more properly allotted to the the young. I found this following NYT article of interest -- although admittedly off topic:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/27/business/yourmoney/27view.html?

 

I will be reading about the Court's decision since I have not yet. Maybe I will offer an opinion when I am more informed.[/quote']

 

I will overlook your snide remarks about my personal appearence because it is not to the point.

 

Since you seem to agree that one's years left are irrelevant to the value of one's life, then your original point about it being more cruel to execute a young person for murder than an older person is undermined somewhat, doncha think?

 

I mean, that is what you meant when you posted this?

One might answer that yes. They lose more years. The suffering from thinking of losing all those years may be more acute. Rather difficult to quantify, wouldn't you say?

[Pangloss]

If the Death penality is "cruel" then it is cruel for all people, not just youngsters, and is therefore unconstitutional for all people.

 

I agree with you there. But I disagree with this:

 

The SCOTUS is trying to say that it is cruel for people under 18, but not cruel for people over 18.

 

They haven't said that specifically -- that's your interpretation. They would say that that issue was not before the court. This sort of hair-splitting is not unusual for them, especially in recent years.

 

 

It is not a question about whether or not one understands the magnitude of his crime, that was not what the decision addressed. What the decision addressed was the "cruel or unusual" clause in the Constitution. The one which says that "no cruel or unusual punishment" shall be imposed.

 

Whether you agree with it or not, it was clearly on their minds. Just three years ago this same court banned the execution of the mentally impaired. And in 2002 four of today's five majority-ruling justices spoke out about the issue, calling the execution of minors "shameful". So clearly the issue of whether the criminal "understanding the magnitude of his crime" was very much on their minds in this ruling.

 

Justice Kennedy, in issuing the majority opinion today, pointed out that juveniles may lack the maturity or intellectual development to understand the ramification of their actions. Four justices dissented, but their dissent was based primarily on whether the Supreme Court should be addressing this issue at all. Scalia wrote that it was a state issue. O'Conner wrote that it was a case-by-case issue (an excellent point, IMO, but it raises many, many other questions).

 

Apparently every other nation in the world recognizes this, except for Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and China. I'll gladly leave that company, thank you very much. In fact only three states (Oklahoma, Texas and Virginia) were even executing minors anymore.

 

Reference:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20050301-1459-scotus-deathpenalty.html

[syntax252]

That is not all they are saying. You are simplifying a bit' date=' aren't you?

 

This is the case that was the chief precedent for today's decision:

 

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=00-8452

 

It dealt with the ability of mentally retarded people to make judgments. There is a reason that 18 is the age of consent in most instances. That reason is that teenagers are less able to use good judgment. The court seems to be saying that even in heinous crimes the ability of defendants to judge what actions they should take or refrain from taking is more important than the type of crime committed.

 

This does not seem unreasonable to me. Nor do I think it makes it more immediately likely that the death penalty will be considered cruel and unusual for adult murderers. It is a step in the right direction, but I suspect we will have the dealth penalty for quite some time to come.[/quote']

 

 

The case that you provided a link to is not the case ruled on today.

 

In today's case the rationale was that it is cruel punishment to subject a person under 18 to the death penalty, but the death penalty for people over 18 was let stand.

 

The Constitution disallows "cruel or unusual" punishment for crimes. If the SCOTUS rules the DP cruel under that prohibition, then it is cruel for any person, not just young people.

 

The SCOTUS can indeed have it both ways, the Constitution allows them that kind of authority, but to be logical, we cannot.

 

In my opinion.

[syntax252]

They haven't said that specifically -- that's your interpretation. They would say that that issue was not before the court. This sort of hair-splitting is not unusual for them' date=' especially in recent years.

[/quote']

 

The SCOTUS has, in recent years, upheld the DP. If it was cruel or unusual, they had ample opportunity to rule such. They did not.

 

 

Whether you agree with it or not, it was clearly on their minds. Just three years ago this same court banned the execution of the mentally impaired. And in 2002 four of today's five majority-ruling justices spoke out about the issue, calling the execution of minors "shameful". So clearly the issue of whether the criminal "understanding the magnitude of his crime" was very much on their minds in this ruling.

 

Justice Kennedy, in issuing the majority opinion today, pointed out that juveniles may lack the maturity or intellectual development to understand the ramification of their actions. Four justices dissented, but their dissent was based primarily on whether the Supreme Court should be addressing this issue at all. Scalia wrote that it was a state issue. O'Conner wrote that it was a case-by-case issue (an excellent point, IMO, but it raises many, many other questions).

 

Apparently every other nation in the world recognizes this, except for Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and China. I'll gladly leave that company, thank you very much. In fact only three states (Oklahoma, Texas and Virginia) were even executing minors anymore.

 

Reference:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20050301-1459-scotus-deathpenalty.html

 

In the cases you cite, the question of judgement of the murderer was what swung the vote in favor of leniency, not whther or not the punishment violated the "cruel or unusual" clause.

 

If they had used that as an excuse today, I would not argue that they erred, but in today's decision, it was the penality itself that they ruled unconstitutional--but only for young people.

[Macroscopic]

Originally posted by Nevermore

The invisible barrier of age 18 is an artificcial construct.

 

I totally agree with you.

[Macroscopic]

Originally posted by Pangloss

Does it really make sense for a 17 year old to be eligible for the death penalty and the draft, but not drinking alcohol or smoking cigarettes, or more to the point, voting?

Then maybe its the eligibility for drinking, smoking, and voting that needs to be reconsidered.

[syntax252]

From the NY Times, it appears that the Missouri SC ruled it unconstitutional on the cruelity language in the Constitution. The SCOTUS upheld that opinion today.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/01/politics/01cnd-scot.html?hp&ex=1109739600&en=1042460ab48186e2&ei=5094&partner=homepage

 

From the article:

 

In August 2003, the Missouri Supreme Court overturned the death sentence, deciding by 4 to 3 that subjecting a juvenile killer to execution was unconstitutionally "cruel and unusual punishment" and resentencing Christopher Simmons to life in prison without parole.

 

The state of Missouri appealed (Donald P. Roper is the superintendent of the prison where Mr. Simmons is lodged), asserting that the state high court lacked the authority to reject the United States Supreme Court's 1989 finding that capital punishment for 16- and 17-year-olds was constitutional.

 

When the case was heard in October, lawyers for the defendant argued that new medical and psychological understanding of teenagers' immaturity validated the Missouri court's ruling. The United States Supreme Court upheld the state court today in overturning its own 1989 opinion.

[Macroscopic]

Justice Kennedy, in issuing the majority opinion today, pointed out that juveniles may lack the maturity or intellectual development to understand the ramification of their actions.

 

So if an adult is lacking in maturity or intellectual development, would you punish him the same way you would a minor? If the reason is lack of maturity and intellect, then the problem is not minors, but people with a lack of maturity and intellect. Don't categorise minors as not having maturity or intellect. That's like saying all Arabs are terrorists, just because those are the only ones that you here about.

[Pangloss]

The SCOTUS has, in recent years, upheld the DP. If it was cruel or unusual, they had ample opportunity to rule such. They did not.

 

That's exactly right. And they continue to refine that decision through subsequent rulings. The Supreme Court's job is not to decide large, sweeping issues, such as whether or not capital punishment is a good idea. Their job is to decide whether or not laws violate the constitution.

 

I happen to disagree with their hair-splitting, but I can't really say that it was made on an incorrect basis, which seems to be the cause of your frustration in this thread. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your beef with SCOTUS here is that they made a decision on an incorrect basis, right? To quote your earlier post:

 

Whether it is right or wrong is not the point.

 

The point is that the Constitution is supposed to apply to all citizens equally, so if it is "cruel" to apply the DP to someone under 18, is it not also cruel to apply it to someone who is over 18?

 

I would say that your question has been asked of the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court has given its answer. Or at least it has given the only answer it is capable of, and that answer appears to be "no", their rationale being that beyond the age of 18 they are capable of understanding the extent of their crime. As far as the Supreme Court is concerned, there is no contradiction here (and no indication that the four dissenters today saw such a contradiction).

 

Of course, that having been said, the court may well change its mind, tomorrow or next year or next decade. One can only hope, because frankly the list of countries that allow ADULT capital punishment ain't a whole lot more distinguished than the one that allowed juvenile capital punishment.

[john5746]

I will overlook your snide remarks about my personal appearence because it is not to the point.

 

Your apparent thick skin is actually pretty thin!

 

 

Since you seem to agree that one's years left are irrelevant to the value of one's life' date=' then your original point about it being more cruel to execute a young person for murder than an older person is undermined somewhat, doncha think? [/b']

 

In regards to innocent life, I feel more sad hearing the death of a child than a 88 year old person, so there is a correlation there. But, in regards to the death penalty, I still maintain the threat to society is the concern IMO. A 15 year old psychopath might as well be terminated as opposed to a 70 year old man who committed a murder out of "passion" 30 years ago.

 

But, as discussed endlessly in other forums, since the death penalty is expensive, blah blah blah, might as well just lock'm up and throw away the key. Or can they even get life in prison? Now there someone might be able to argue life in prision for a 15 year old is much greater than for a 60 year old.

[Coral Rhedd]

I will overlook your snide remarks about my personal appearence because it is not to the point.

 

Since you seem to agree that one's years left are irrelevant to the value of one's life' date=' then your original point about it being more cruel to execute a young person for murder than an older person is undermined somewhat, doncha think?

 

I mean, that [b']is[/b] what you meant when you posted this?

One might answer that yes. They lose more years. The suffering from thinking of losing all those years may be more acute. Rather difficult to quantify, wouldn't you say?

 

No. Please pay attention to the words beginning the first sentence you quote: ONE MIGHT . . .

 

If I had wanted to use the first person singular, I would have. If I had wanted to use a less equivocal word than "might," I would have.

 

You didn't read the link, did you? You have a little problem with nuance, don't you?

 

I did not mean to be snide concerning your appearance. Just factual. I am as matter of fact about my own age.

 

Now if you were hoping to pass for thirty, I sincerely apologize for offending you.

[Coral Rhedd]

The case that you provided a link to is not the case ruled on today.

 

In today's case the rationale was that it is cruel punishment to subject a person under 18 to the death penalty' date=' but the death penalty for people over 18 was let stand.

 

The Constitution disallows "cruel or unusual" punishment for crimes. If the SCOTUS rules the DP cruel under that prohibition, then it is cruel for [b']any[/b] person, not just young people.

 

The SCOTUS can indeed have it both ways, the Constitution allows them that kind of authority, but to be logical, we cannot.

 

In my opinion.

 

The link I provided was used as precedent in the case decided today. Just below the NYT article you linked to was the decision itself by Justice Kennedy. I quote it to show that the Atkins decision on the execution on the mentally retarded was very much considered in the current decision.

 

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=03-633&friend=nytimes

 

"Three Terms ago in Atkins, however, the Court held that standards of decency had evolved since Penry and now demonstrated that the execution of the mentally retarded is cruel and unusual punishment. The Atkins Court noted that objective indicia of society's standards, as expressed in pertinent legislative enactments and state practice, demonstrated that such executions had become so truly unusual that it was fair to say that a national consensus has developed against them. 536 U. S., at 314-315. The Court also returned to the rule, established in decisions predating Stanford, that the Constitution contemplates that the Court's own judgment be brought to bear on the question of the acceptability of the death penalty. Id., at 312. After observing that mental retardation diminishes personal culpability even if the offender can distinguish right from wrong, id., at 318, and that mentally retarded offenders' impairments make it less defensible to impose the death penalty as retribution for past crimes or as a real deterrent to future crimes, id., at 319-320, the Court ruled that the death penalty constitutes an excessive sanction for the entire category of mentally retarded offenders, and that the Eighth Amendment places a substantive restriction on the State's power to take such an offender's life, id., at 321. Just as the Atkins Court reconsidered the issue decided in Penry, the Court now reconsiders the issue decided in Stanford. Pp. 6-10 . . .

 

As in Atkins, the objective indicia of consensus in this case--the rejection of the juvenile death penalty in the majority of States; the infrequency of its use even where it remains on the books; and the consistency in the trend toward abolition of the practice--provide sufficient evidence that today our society views juveniles, in the words Atkins used respecting the mentally retarded, as "categorically less culpable than the average criminal."

 

It is judgment here that is at issue. If they had deemed teenagers to have the same culpability as adults their decision would have been different.

[Macroscopic]

But, as discussed endlessly in other forums, since the death penalty is expensive

The death penalty is more expensive than life in prison. The death penalty is more than twice as expensive as life in prison.