Death Penalty for Minors Ruled Unconstitutional

[Coral Rhedd]

The death penalty is not expensive compared to life in prison. Life in prison is more than twice as expensive as the death penalty.

 

If you consider the expense of the appeals process, I believe it is quite expensive to put someone to death.

[syntax252]

That's exactly right. And they continue to refine that decision through subsequent rulings. The Supreme Court's job is not to decide large' date=' 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:

 

 

 

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.[/quote']

 

First of all, I am not frustrated at all, I just consider it logically inconsistent to say that the DP is cruel and unusual punishment if applied to a minor, but not cruel and unusual if applied to an adult.

 

And the SCOTUS has indeed givin it's answer, and as a citizen, I am prepared to live with that answer. That is the way the system works.

 

It is however, a logically inconsistent decision. In my opinion.

[syntax252]

Your apparent thick skin is actually pretty thin!

 

 

 

 

In regards to innocent life' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

I am not arguing for or against the DP. I am only pointing out that it is a logical inconsistancy to say that it is cruel and unusual for a minor, but NOT cruel and unusual for an adult.

[syntax252]

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' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

Oh, I understand that you left yourself a crawlout that is not at all unusual. But since you now say that you do not value a young murderers life more that an old murderers life, and since the SCOTUS confirmed the missouri SC's decision that the DP was cruel and unusual when applied to a minor how is it that the age of the murderer affects the cruelity of the punishment?

 

It is eother C&U, or it is not. Correct?

 

Any I really don't care what you think of my age or my appearance. I only pointed out your cheap shot because it speaks to the overall intellectual value of your debating skills.

[syntax252]

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' date=' 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."

 

[b']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.[/b]

 

I noted that. But what you have cited here is one logically inconsistent decision to support another logically inconsistent decision.

 

Again--if it is C&U to execute a minor or a fruitcake then it is also C&U to execute an adult or one who is more blessed with brains.

 

There are all manner of arguments to support abolition of the DP, but C&U is not one of them when it still exists for a portion of the population.

[Pangloss]

First of all' date=' I am not frustrated at all, I just consider it logically inconsistent to say that the DP is cruel and unusual punishment if applied to a minor, but not cruel and unusual if applied to an adult.

 

And the SCOTUS has indeed givin it's answer, and as a citizen, I am prepared to live with that answer. That is the way the system works.

 

It is however, a logically inconsistent decision. In my opinion. [/quote']

 

Understood and agreed. I think you raised some excellent points.

[Coral Rhedd]

I noted that. But what you have cited here is one logically inconsistent decision to support another logically inconsistent decision.

 

Again--if it is C&U to execute a minor or a fruitcake then it is also C&U to execute an adult or one who is more blessed with brains.

 

There are all manner of arguments to support abolition of the DP' date=' but C&U is not one of them [b']when it still exists for a portion of the population.[/b]

 

I don't disagree with you at all. IMO, the death penalty should be abolished in all instances. I was merely explaining that the Court considered the Atkins case as important in it's decision. Please read the post in which I first mentioned Atkins and pay attention to my word choices.

 

You are arguing with me when there is no necessity. Or perhaps you are just enjoying yourself. You can go on and on about how the Court should have ruled or what they should have considered in their ruling, but that won't change the facts. Are you aware that the majority also took into account world opinion on executing minors? I suspect you are a strict constructionist. That should make you blanch.

[Lance]

Again--if it is C&U to execute a minor or a fruitcake then it is also C&U to execute an adult or one who is more blessed with brains.

 

uh... I dont think its "C&U" to torture a fruitcake but that doesnt mean that I advocate the tortue of kids.

 

I think your logic is failing.

[Coral Rhedd]

Small objection to the fruitcake designation: Mental retardation is in no way the same thing as mental illness. It's not nice to torture anybody. Fruitcake designation is not nice either.

[Lance]

Are we talking about people or pastries?

[syntax252]

Are you aware that the majority also took into account world opinion on executing minors? I suspect you are a strict constructionist. That should make you blanch.

 

I am and it did.

 

What do you think about the SCOTUS nodding to world opinion when interpreting the Constitution of the United States?

[syntax252]

uh... I dont think its "C&U" to torture a fruitcake but that doesnt mean that I advocate the tortue of kids.

 

I think your logic is failing.

 

And your sense of humor will likely never be your strongest asset.

[syntax252]

Small objection to the fruitcake designation: Mental retardation is in no way the same thing as mental illness. It's not nice to torture anybody. Fruitcake designation is not nice either.

 

Listen to this....comming from a person who takes cheap shots at someone because of his age.

[Coral Rhedd]

Syntax, do ever bother to actually read more than skim anyone else's posts?

[Coral Rhedd]

Are we talking about people or pastries?

 

I believe that Syntax was referring to people but only he can really confirm this for us.

[Coral Rhedd]

I am and it did.

 

What do you think about the SCOTUS nodding to world opinion when interpreting the Constitution of the United States?

 

I did not like it. But I like the result.

[Coral Rhedd]

Oh' date=' I understand that you left yourself a crawlout that is not at all unusual. But since you now say that you [b']do not[/b] value a young murderers life more that an old murderers life, and since the SCOTUS confirmed the missouri SC's decision that the DP was cruel and unusual when applied to a minor how is it that the age of the murderer affects the cruelity of the punishment?

 

It is eother C&U, or it is not. Correct?

 

Any I really don't care what you think of my age or my appearance. I only pointed out your cheap shot because it speaks to the overall intellectual value of your debating skills.

 

Too bad there is no laugh out loud emoticon. I already apologized for offending your sensibilities about age. You just refuse to accept my apology.

 

As to trying to badger me into taking some sort of position or other just so you can argue with it, be assured that I reserve the right to decide what I will argue and what I will not. As to your opinion of my debating skills, I do not care. This is a forum, not life itself. If you want to make it some sort of passion for red meat of aggression, be my guest.

[atinymonkey]

Hmmm. I wouldn't call it nodding to pubic opinion, rather than acceding to the fact that the justice system in America was based on the English court of law which has since repelled the death penalty. Draconian punishment had it's place in society, however it's no longer a viable or agreeable method in the eyes of the international court.

 

I feel this type of politically motivated decision fits with Americas attempt to present itself on the international stage as the Boy Scout, and not a vengeful and vindictive cowboy.

[Coral Rhedd]

I feel this type of politically motivated decision fits with Americas attempt to present itself on the international stage as the Boy Scout' date=' and not a vengeful and vindictive cowboy.[/quote']

 

You mean the Judicial Branch might be trying to make up for the appalling hijinks of the Executive Branch? I am afraid that that is rather like putting makeup on one's A$$ to cover the wart on one's nose.

[syntax252]

Syntax, do ever bother to actually read[/b'] more than skim anyone else's posts?

 

Well excuuuuuuuuse me.

Fruitcake designation is not nice either

 

Well listen to this, comming from someone who takes cheap shots at a person because of his age.

[Coral Rhedd]

He's getting a little repetitive, isn't he?

[syntax252]

I did not like it. But I like the result.

 

It is indeed refreshing to know that you consider the Constitution to be more important than world opinion.

 

Good girl!

[atinymonkey]

Well, it was probably a rather simplistic conclusion. But we seem to be heading back to simplified leading questions.

 

Perhaps it's all due to the poor 'intellectual value of my debating skills'

 

 

Good girl!

 

Patronising, old man, patronising.

[syntax252]

Too bad there is no laugh out loud emoticon. I already apologized for offending your sensibilities about age. You just refuse to accept my apology.

 

As to trying to badger me into taking some sort of position or other just so you can argue with it' date=' be assured that I reserve the right to decide what I will argue and what I will not. As to your opinion of my debating skills, I do not care. This is a forum, not life itself. If you want to make it some sort of passion for red meat of aggression, be my guest. [/quote']

 

You--apologized?

 

Musta missed it.

 

Anyway, don't bother, it is not necessary, I was not offended. I have no problem with getting old because I turned down so many chances to avoid it.

[syntax252]

 

 

Patronising' date=' old man, patronising.[/quote']

 

So what?