High court: Juvenile death penalty unconstitutional

david m · 03-01-2005, 10:28 AM

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the Constitution forbids the execution of killers who were under 18 when they committed their crimes, ending a practice used in 19 states.

The 5-4 decision throws out the death sentences of about 70 juvenile murderers and bars states from seeking to execute minors for future crimes.

The executions, the court said, were unconstitutionally cruel.

It was the second major defeat at the high court in three years for supporters of the death penalty. Justices in 2002 banned the execution of the mentally retarded, also citing the Constitution's Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishments.

The court had already outlawed executions for those who were 15 and younger when they committed their crimes.

Tuesday's ruling prevents states from making 16- and 17-year-olds eligible for execution.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, cited the fact that most states don't allow the execution of juvenile killers and those that do use the penalty infrequently. The trend, he noted, was to abolish the practice.

"Our society views juveniles ... as categorically less culpable than the average criminal," Kennedy wrote.

kevin1 · 03-01-2005, 10:32 AM

Since the average 15-17 year old of today knows vastly more than I did at their age I somehow find it difficult to spare them from the needle when they kill people . I can understand the rationale for sparing the mentally retarded who kill , although I don't agree with it either . Those who kill have forfeited the right to live on my planet whether the understood the implications or not .

datamax · 03-01-2005, 10:37 AM

I don't get how they ruled it Unconstitutional ? Based on what in the Constitution did they make those decisions on ??

Deleted User · 03-01-2005, 10:44 AM

[Deleted by Admins]

Eagleone · 03-01-2005, 10:49 AM

I'm kind of on the fence for this one. Not really sure what I think about it, now I'm sure that if one of my close family members were killed by a kid then I'd be for it 100%. Thats a tough choice to put a kill to death but then again if they did the crime they should get what's coming to them.

Aught Six · 03-01-2005, 11:04 AM

Quote:

If one is under 18 they do not have full rights under the Constitution, and therefore, cannot be subject to maximum penalties allowed for under the Constitution - kind of a "double jeopardy" argument at the core of it all I suspect.

Ding ding ding ding!!!

Come on, we went through the same thing with the draft during Vietnam. Children are children, and in this country that's determined by age, not individual mental state.

If you want to judge a person on psychological maturity, you'd better be willing to allow those above-average juveniles vote, work full time, get married and start a family, etc., etc., etc.

bearklr · 03-01-2005, 11:15 AM

Never thought of it that way Aught but it makes alot of sense.

datamax · 03-01-2005, 11:19 AM

So a 17 year old, 357 day old person is incapable of making the decision to committ murder ?

Aught Six · 03-01-2005, 11:21 AM

Quote:

So a 17 year old, 357 day old person is incapable of making the decision to committ murder ?

Sure he is (in the vast majority of cases), but remember that he doesn't have the rights nor responsibilities of an adult.

tardfarmer · 03-01-2005, 11:30 AM

Quote:

If one is under 18 they do not have full rights under the Constitution, and therefore, cannot be subject to maximum penalties allowed for under the Constitution - kind of a "double jeopardy" argument at the core of it all I suspect.

My guess is that they ERRONEOUSLY deemed it "cruel and unusual" punishment, which is absolute bunk.

Ask any of the LEO's on these boards, some of the most grotesque and viscious crimes are committed by minors. They should have an express lane to the chair for alot of them.