POLITICS: No more death penalty for juveniles

[Longest]

In case you missed it, the Court ruled on Tuesday that the 8th and 14th amendments prohibit the death penalty for juveniles.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=03-633

Read the opinion. The dissent by Scalia, signed by Rehnquist and Thomas, is downright hilarious. They really smack the majority around.

It's weird because I only support the death penalty for serial killers. And I can see the Court's point in doing this. But the majority reasoning is so convoluted and inconsistent that I think I would have signed on to Scalia's dissent. It is far more logical than the majority opinion on the matter. The Court appeals to international law and policies in deciding it but refuses to check out what IL says on issues like abortion. The Court uses all states in their discussion of a "consensus" of states that execute juveniles except it is wholly illogical to use states that execute nobody to decide how they would rule IF they did have capital punishment ("Consulting States that bar the death penalty concerning the necessity of making an exception to the penalty for offenders under 18 is rather like including old-order Amishmen in a consumer-preference poll on the electric car"). And as Scalia points out, of the 38 states left, 47% do NOT execute juveniles: "Words have no meaning if the views of less than 50% of death penalty States can constitute a national consensus." Here, here.

On top of that, choosing 18 has absolutely no proven scientific or rational basis while there is at least *some* such basis for choosing 25 as the age (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-02-28-teen-drive-cover-usat_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA ; http://www.nimh.nih.gov/publicat/teenbrain.cfm) But no one is going to advocate moving adulthood back to that point. So the Court dodged exactly WHY 18 is so magical either scientifically, spritually, or any other -ly.

Dan

[roughrider]

While 18 serves as no instant transformer number that is the widely accepted age of adulthoot. Why, who knows, but that is the precident. Until this age, we youngsters are denied many of the same rights as citizens. We are died the fundemental right to vote until this age because we are thought to be too naieve, undereducated, unaccountable and unresponsible enough to deserve the right to vote. In this society where I am less than you, Dan, I find it silly that in some states I could be sentenced to death. If I am denied the right to vote because I am not old enough to make an informed decision yet, why am I fully able to die for a premeditated murder? If it is assumed that at a tender age of 17 I cannot make informed decisions about who I vote for then why does that precident change for murder. Frankly, I do not care about the states sovereignty in issues like this.
In my personal opinion, I feel that we should abolish the death penalty. But that is another thread...

[Longest]

While 18 serves as no instant transformer number that is the widely accepted age of adulthoot. Why, who knows, but that is the precident.


Before arbitrarily establishing new policy, we should stop and ask ourselves "Why 18? Why not some other age?" This would seem the perfect time to ponder such things.


Until this age, we youngsters are denied many of the same rights as citizens. We are died the fundemental right to vote until this age because we are thought to be too naieve, undereducated, unaccountable and unresponsible enough to deserve the right to vote. In this society where I am less than you, Dan, I find it silly that in some states I could be sentenced to death. If I am denied the right to vote because I am not old enough to make an informed decision yet, why am I fully able to die for a premeditated murder?


If you don't vote, you have not infringed on someone else's life or liberty directly. If you kill them, you certainly have. Is taking a life more or less serious than the right to cast a ballot for a representative? Elections come and go, deaths remain.


If it is assumed that at a tender age of 17 I cannot make informed decisions about who I vote for then why does that precident change for murder. Frankly, I do not care about the states sovereignty in issues like this.


That is because, with all due respect Tom, you prefer a larger, more poweful central government than I do. I wish to retain more power in the states and far less nationally and would do so by letting each state decide for itself when its residents are capable of voting, driving, drinking, smoking, or what have you. If the Fed is smaller, then you could have some states where you do everything at 16, some where ages are staggered, some where the age is set at 20 or whatever the state decides is right for its residents. Surely they can do a better job tending to their citizens than can the Fed trying to stuff a one size fits all policy into the nooks and crannies of a large and diverse populace. Tell me your stance on abortion rights and parental notification. Do you believe juveniles should be required to obtain a parental signature before obtaining an abortion? That question is highly relevant to a theoretical discussion on juvenile rights.


In my personal opinion, I feel that we should abolish the death penalty. But that is another thread...

Feel free to go through it then. I would tacitly suggest we still execute serial killers. I have yet to hear a criminologist or sociologist who has studied them who has referred to them as anything less than soulless, evil and with no redeeming qualities for society. That seems like a harsh pronouncement from me, a Christian, about one of His children. But it is for the Lord to judge his heart and we secular persons to judge his Earthly deeds. Serial killers, almost as a rule, want recognition and fame for their killings and are not ashamed of having performed them and the risk of falsely executing them is what I would call 0. For almost every other type of murder that gets the death penalty, I cannot say this and the large body of DNA evidence that is exculpating convicted persons year to year is starting to be quite damning at keeping capital punishment around. Nor is it particularly a deterrent as some would argue.

Regards
Dan

[Thrillhouse]

To start, I don’t support the death penalty. Killing people is wrong, so when we kill people because they killed someone else I get confused as to why we are better than the original killer.
This decision troubles me as I believe it opens the doors for other arguments to be made regarding how the justice system should treat minors.
To keep things lighthearted, let’s assume there was a law requiring everyone to make their bed in the morning. Failure to do so would result in the offender not being given dessert. If this decision was applied to that law, only those who were over 18 would risk his/her dessert for not making their bed. (While I’m sure they would be subject to less severe punishment.) Enforcers of the law would find this frustrating because the majority of people over 10 are capable of understanding the importance of making their bed.
If someone is capable of understanding our society’s values (In this case, we make our beds and don’t kill each other.) they should be held accountable if they decide not to obey our laws. (If they can convince a judge that they weren’t capable of understanding what they were doing was wrong, then that is a different story. We can’t expect a person who is severely mentally challenged or 2 years old to understand our values.)
This decision opens the door for people to argue that minors shouldn’t be subject to adult justice. I think that unless they can prove that they weren’t capable of understanding what they were doing; serious crimes should be dealt with seriously.
It’s a step in the right direction; we shouldn’t kill people under the age of 18, but we shouldn’t fool ourselves into thinking it’s OK to kill someone after they reach 18 either.

It is interesting that we are talking about this. Last night’s West Wing had a side plot about Children’s Suffrage, which is certainly connected to how children will be treated in the justice system; but probably deserving of its own thread.

[Dan]

I'm up for killing serial killers. I'm slightly objected to killing juveniles, but in reality, after about 14, I think you ought to have that same punishment. I mean, an 8-year-old knows the difference between right and wrong, but I'd feel disgusted with our government if it killed children. Who wouldn't?

Serial killers are scum. They could just rot in a cell, but they could escape. Why not be done with that? They don't deserve to live. I'm not really an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth person at all, but when it comes to murder, well, that's something else.

You know what I wish we had punishment for? Affairs and such. But, that's something else. I mean, it destroys families. Let's not argue about it, it's just something that popped into my head.

[Frndlefire]

Feel free to go through it then. I would tacitly suggest we still execute serial killers. I have yet to hear a criminologist or sociologist who has studied them who has referred to them as anything less than soulless, evil and with no redeeming qualities for society. That seems like a harsh pronouncement from me, a Christian, about one of His children. But it is for the Lord to judge his heart and we secular persons to judge his Earthly deeds. Serial killers, almost as a rule, want recognition and fame for their killings and are not ashamed of having performed them and the risk of falsely executing them is what I would call 0. For almost every other type of murder that gets the death penalty, I cannot say this and the large body of DNA evidence that is exculpating convicted persons year to year is starting to be quite damning at keeping capital punishment around. Nor is it particularly a deterrent as some would argue.

Regards
DanWhile I agree with you in that they should be executed (habitual killers are the only people I think deserve it), however from a psychological point of view they may actually be, in a sense, be unable to understand their actions (not mentally suitable to stand trial). Many serial killers (many, deffinitly not all) are psychopathic. Now, you really must seperate the term psychopath from the ideas that are connected to it. A psychopath is not inherently violent. For example, Hughes and Abignaile (I dont know if I spelt them right) the true life character's portrayed by Di Caprio in Catch Me IF You Can and The Aviator were both psychopaths. Others include Dostoevsky, Che Guevera (oooh, I'm gonna get flamed for that one), JIm Morrison, Marlon Brando, Winston Churchill, Ozzy Osbourne...and yes, I am just pointing some "successful" examples. Of course Hitler, Stalin, Mengele, Manson, etc. are also psychopaths. Ok, sorry, just wanted to try and disconnect the term psychopath from its connotations.

Back on subject, serial killers who fit the criteria for psychopathy (which many can and do) lack empathy. Not in the sense that they just dont care about anyone else, but they are physically incapable of it. They understand the rules of society, but can only regard them in superficial manners. In this regard, psychopaths may be able to walk the walk and say that they know killing is wrong, but they are incapable of understanding this. A psychopath will say they are sorry for killing someone, but if you ask them way they will say (if being truthful)that they feel bad not because of waht they did but because they dont like being in jail. If you lack the capacity for empathy (along with many other things) how can you understand these things are wrong. They are non-psychotic and technically regarded as sane, but it is often refered to as a "mask of sanity." These individuals are not mentally capable of understanding these choices. They do not suffer from the standard mental handicaps that would deem them insane for court, but it could very strongly be argued that they are truely too mentally deficient to take the stand.

hm...ok, sorry for the long post. I wanted to keep myself from ranting, but it seems I slightly did anyway. I dont, of course, defend these individuals or feel they arent responcible for their actions...just playing devils advocate and pointing out an arguement. Also, if anyone happens to be intereasted PM me and I can go into a lot more detail about psychopathy.

[zak]

Winston Churchill was manic depressive, learned that today in health. Im not sure yet where I stand on the whole death penalty thing yet, i have an idea, but not enough to formulate into something cohesive. However, I do think that if we say 18 it must be 18. I dont think it should be "welllllll he has a mental disorder so its not his fault" or "wellllll he knew what he was doing it was his fault." The law shows no emotion, jurys do but thats why we haev appelate courts. Even that guy who beat a guy to death 2 days shy of his birthday, not a minor, no death penalty. This should hold regardless of what you think of the death penalty.

[Frndlefire]

Winston Churchill was manic depressive perhaps, also conformed to criteria for psychopathy

[zak]

On top of that, choosing 18 has absolutely no proven scientific or rational basis while there is at least *some* such basis for choosing 25 as the age But no one is going to advocate moving adulthood back to that point. So the Court dodged exactly WHY 18 is so magical either scientifically, spritually, or any other -ly.



While I do agree a bit on this, unless 18 can be proven unconstitutional, the supreme court wouldnt be the ones to change it. Wouldnt say, a testimony in front of congress be a better way to bring it up. While I guess they could have put it in thier write ups, I dont really see them making an issue of it. I didnt read the opinions, but I could see ti going into a concurring opinion. Correct me if im too off, but its just not the right place to actually change anything.

Edit - But in otehr more important news, Motley Crue rang the bell today at the Dow. Apparently heroin is going publicly traded.

[Longest]

While I do agree a bit on this, unless 18 can be proven unconstitutional, the supreme court wouldnt be the ones to change it. Wouldnt say, a testimony in front of congress be a better way to bring it up. While I guess they could have put it in thier write ups, I dont really see them making an issue of it. I didnt read the opinions, but I could see ti going into a concurring opinion. Correct me if im too off, but its just not the right place to actually change anything.



They've invented far more odious and mysterious reasons than that. As I said, they have taken on the charge of a 2nd legislature. Read the dissent, Scalia calls them that directly.

Dan

[GeorgiaMiddie2]

i was glad to hear about this decision on tuesday... it's one step closer to realizing that the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment altogether. and, to answer Dan, they choe 18 because studies have come out from many social scientists that say that many people don't have fully developed reasoning skills until around the age of 18. In other words, many people are still making the decisions of a child at age 17, so instead of ruling on a person to person basis, the courts would rather just set the age limit for everyone.

[Longest]

i was glad to hear about this decision on tuesday... it's one step closer to realizing that the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment altogether. and, to answer Dan, they choe 18 because studies have come out from many social scientists that say that many people don't have fully developed reasoning skills until around the age of 18. In other words, many people are still making the decisions of a child at age 17, so instead of ruling on a person to person basis, the courts would rather just set the age limit for everyone.

Cite them JJ. I put forth some using 25 as the maturation age. If I'm 17, 364 days, am I less able to think for myself and foresee the consequences than the next day, 18 years 0 days? Certainly not. That's my main problem with an arbitrary age. If we trust the jury process and allow them to use age as a mitigating but all encompassing factor, I think they make the right decision. I don't think most people want juveniles to be executed, I really don't. But in the right situations I believe many people will feel it is proper, based on factors such as premeditation, past history, family upbringing, psychology, and yes, age. Read about what Charles Simmons did in this case, or that of John Lee Malvo and decide for yourself how cognizant they were of their decisions and whether they did not understand the tangible consequences or just didn't care a whit.

My second big problem with this is that the Supreme Court has usurped the charge of the legislature here. It is the job of elected officials to decide what they feel is best for their citizenry. If Missouri officials decided that, based on their citizens, their feelings, sentiments, and opinions, that the execution of juveniles in some cases was justified based on jury decision, I am unconvinced that that should be usurped by a non-democratic plurality that voted 5-4. That's hardly an overwhelming push for this as "cruel and unusual." Using international standards is tenuous at best considering the Court ignores those same standards at their will and pleasure all the time. Stare decisis was apparently laughable to the Court here. And some of the justices cannot pass basic logic or math courses if they think 47% of death penalty states constitutes a consensus OR that states with no death penalty should logically weigh into a discussion about executing juveniles. Hence I am far more impressed by the dissent's side in this debate than I am that of the majority opinion even though I personally find executing most people distasteful. Are we a democracy or are we not?

Dan

[GeorgiaMiddie2]

Sorry, I wish i could cite, but it came from the mouth of my government professor on wednesday. To be honest with you, I'm in huge opposition of the death penalty altogether, and i'm just happy to see progress towards the abolition of capital punishment completely

[Longest]

Sorry, I wish i could cite, but it came from the mouth of my government professor on wednesday. To be honest with you, I'm in huge opposition of the death penalty altogether, and i'm just happy to see progress towards the abolition of capital punishment completely

To summarize glibly, the ends justifies the means? Because you want capital punishment ended, you are willing to overlook the gross inconsistencies and illogic used by the Court in making it and hand over more and more power to the judiciary? That troubles you not one iota?

Dan

[GeorgiaMiddie2]

the way i see it... x people would be getting the death penalty this year. now x - # of people under 18 are going to get the death penalty

[Longest]

the way i see it... x people would be getting the death penalty this year. now x - # of people under 18 are going to get the death penalty

You didn't answer my questions from my previous post.

Dan

[GeorgiaMiddie2]

i dont find it very illogical and therefore, no, it doesn't trouble me one bit... esp seeing that less ppl are getting lethal injection.

[Longest]

i dont find it very illogical and therefore, no, it doesn't trouble me one bit... esp seeing that less ppl are getting lethal injection.

So the ends does justify the means from my side in reference to your opinion but not from your side. I respect your opinion even though I disagree.

Regards
Dan

[GeorgiaMiddie2]

although i am a firm believer in the ends justifies the means, thats not how i see it here... i dont think the courts rulings have gross illogic and inconsistencies... i think the age we have established as being an adult is very fair.

[Longest]

although i am a firm believer in the ends justifies the means, thats not how i see it here... i dont think the courts rulings have gross illogic and inconsistencies... i think the age we have established as being an adult is very fair.

Fair or not, it's arbitrary and that makes me nervous. Using the "it's the draft age" argument is weak because it's based not on maturation or psychology but just physical age: at 18, most people are at least out of HS and in college or working. I just do not see the majority opinion as that well reasoned but as those 5 happened to personally feel a certain way, voted that way, and then had to find a way to justify it.

Ends vs means:
If we suspect a captured insurgent has vital intelligence information (let's say it's the date, time,location of a planned attack on US soil like 9/11), is torturing said detainee morally and ethically justified? What if those in a position to judge and act are positive he has said information? What if it's a US citizen captured on US soil? Do the ends still justify the means?

Dan

[roughrider]

Ends vs means:
If we suspect a captured insurgent has vital intelligence information (let's say it's the date, time,location of a planned attack on US soil like 9/11), is torturing said detainee morally and ethically justified? What if those in a position to judge and act are positive he has said information? What if it's a US citizen captured on US soil? Do the ends still justify the means?

Dan

The ends never justify the means. Common, that is my Communist rhetoric right there...

[Marzola]

I think having 18 be the set age for deth penalty is less for psychological means, but more so we don't start rolling back the death penalty to younger ages. If you think a 17 year old is close enough to 18, and they should be able to recieve the death penalty, then eventualy people will think 16 year olds are close enough to 17, and then 15 year olds are close to 16, and then 14 year olds are close to 15, and 13 year olds are close to 14, while forgetting that there is a big difference between a 13 and an 18 year old. By having 18 be the set age and no one younger can be executed, it protects the younger and less mature ages, who may not be able to make as good decisions as someone who is 18.

[Longest]

I think having 18 be the set age for deth penalty is less for psychological means, but more so we don't start rolling back the death penalty to younger ages. If you think a 17 year old is close enough to 18, and they should be able to recieve the death penalty, then eventualy people will think 16 year olds are close enough to 17, and then 15 year olds are close to 16, and then 14 year olds are close to 15, and 13 year olds are close to 14, while forgetting that there is a big difference between a 13 and an 18 year old. By having 18 be the set age and no one younger can be executed, it protects the younger and less mature ages, who may not be able to make as good decisions as someone who is 18.

That's a fine argument which I do not buy. It means nothing of the sort. What not having a set age means is that the jury (remember, we have a jury system) is free to accept or reject age as a mitigating factor. Just because the average 17 year old may not be "matured" (and I quote that because it has yet to be at all proven) does not mean that some 17 year olds are not capable of that type of thought.

Dan

[Longest]

The ends never justify the means. Common, that is my Communist rhetoric right there...

Well at least you came out and stated how you feel, I respect that. Theoretical discussions are almost always harder than ones on just an isolated issue.

Dan

[GeorgiaMiddie2]

That's a fine argument which I do not buy. It means nothing of the sort. What not having a set age means is that the jury (remember, we have a jury system) is free to accept or reject age as a mitigating factor. Just because the average 17 year old may not be "matured" (and I quote that because it has yet to be at all proven) does not mean that some 17 year olds are not capable of that type of thought.

Dan

True, but i'll play devil's advocatre and make you think of this then... two kids, A and B, both 16 yrs old, forcefully and intentionally drown the kid down the street for the same reason in both cases. Now, in kid A's trial the jury decides age is not a factor and says the kid comitted homicide ad that's that... fry him. In kid B's trial the jury decides he's 16 and wasn't thinking straight since he's just a kid... so he gets life in prison. Now, here are two kids in the same situation, where one dies and the other doesnt all because these two different juries had two different views on the subject. Does that not seem, in your words, "grossly inconsistent and illogical" to you?

[Longest]

No two people approach any situation the same. Everyone has different neuroses, fears, likes, etc. It is the job of a jury to weigh all those factors and decide as they see fit. That is the point of HAVING a jury system: a unanimous vote of 12 as opposed to the whim of 1.

It would have been a better argument to say that they're not getting a jury of their peers because no one their age can sit on the jury, period. I counter that by saying juries compose a cross-section of the voting populace in a given area which is the peers, and not people of the same demographic, age, race, ethnicity, etc.

Dan

[GeorgiaMiddie2]

but you must agree with me that some juries, ideologically speaking, are more conservative than others, while some are more liberal... this is what i'm talking about... one jury gives a 16 yr old death while another doesn't. While having a jury is a good system, you have to admit that they can be somewhat inconsistent, esp on issues such as issues like capital punishment, abortion, racial discrimination, etc.

[Longest]

but you must agree with me that some juries, ideologically speaking, are more conservative than others, while some are more liberal... this is what i'm talking about... one jury gives a 16 yr old death while another doesn't. While having a jury is a good system, you have to admit that they can be somewhat inconsistent, esp on issues such as issues like capital punishment, abortion, racial discrimination, etc.

Jurors are people just like the defendant. Some will be more conservative, some less so. I would delight in seeing some documented examples of inconsistencies and not just our speculations. What we need to get are some juror robots. That would save us some time :-)

Dan

[GeorgiaMiddie2]

haha... you're a genius... dan for president in '08