Supreme Court bans juvenile executions

[Peter]

--It is possible for a 17 year old to enlist in the military; there is no blanket ban on this.
--Voting right can obviously not be doled out on a case-by-case basis, but I think you will agree that some 17 year olds would be far more competent than some 60 year olds.
--17 year old are not banned from signing contracts.  In addition, a 17 year old can be emancipated, giving them the right to enter into contracts.
--17 year olds are not banned from marriage; they simply must get parental permission unless they are emancipated.
--17 year olds cannot buy pornography, but just try to ban them from possessing it.

With the exception of the contract thing which I'm not sure about, it has nothing to do with the de facto status of a 17 year olds rights in comparison to the de facto status of 18 year olds, but the actual strict legal status of that comparison. The Supreme Court cannot make rulings based on "what things are like in a good number of cases though in violation of the Law", they have to make it on the basis of the actual Law.

Whilst a lot of 17 year olds would be more competent to vote than 60 year olds, it doesn't change the fact that society chose to make the distinction that 17 year olds cannot vote; Nor does the fact change that 17 year olds cannot legally possess porn, even though they all do a brilliant job of laying hands on it.

[A18]

A 17 year old murderer is no less fit for the death penalty than an 18 year old murderer.

This is the "old enough to know not to kill people" status we're talking about. It has absolutely nothing to do with voting, contracts, or any other BS that actually takes maturity.

A 10 year old who murders someone should surely be put to death.

[??????????]

What is the difference between a 17 & 18 y.o.? Nothing.

You can be drafted into the military
You can vote
You can enter into legal contracts without parental consent
You can get married
You can buy or appear in pornography

The list goes on and on...

True, but the point the court made was that a 16/17 y.o. didnt have a founded understanding of right from wrong. Which of course is utter nonsense.

[Ebowed]

A solid ruling.

Agreed.

[Blue Rectangle]

With the exception of the contract thing which I'm not sure about, it has nothing to do with the de facto status of a 17 year olds rights in comparison to the de facto status of 18 year olds, but the actual strict legal status of that comparison. The Supreme Court cannot make rulings based on "what things are like in a good number of cases though in violation of the Law", they have to make it on the basis of the actual Law.

My point was that your examples, for the most part, were not examples of strict age limits but rather starting points and guidelines that can be waived in certain circumstances.  I have no argument with the idea that many, if not most, juveniles are less mature and therefore should not have rights afforded adults.  I just think that our laws are correct in allowing exceptions for certain individuals.

The argument that all 17 year olds are less mature and therefore less criminally culpable is in no way specific to the issue of capital punishment.  The policy of waiving some juvenile offenders to adult court is based on the concept that some juveniles are sufficiently culpable to warrant this tougher treatment.  The Court's ruling therefore attacks the very notion that juvenile offenders can be tried as adults.  This is extremely dangerous, as the juvenile justice system is totally inadequate for many offenses and offenders.

I’ll bolster my slippery-slope argument with this fact: the ACLU supports the ending life sentences without parole for juvenile offenders and instead limiting sentences to 25 years with parole optional after a maximum of 15 years.  In my earlier example of the 36-year-old convict on death row who committed a brutal murder at the age of 17, he could have been paroled years ago if the ACLU had its way.  Reading the ACLU’s arguments for this policy, I found them nearly identical to Kennedy’s opinion.

[??????????]

I find it funny liberals on here cry about how the younger have rights to privacy, speech, etc. And how those under 18 should be treated on the same level as adults. But when the topic of juvenile executions come up then they argue. You can't execute them, they are just CHILDREN who cant properly tell right from wrong.

[David S]

This is one of the guys who was sentenced to death but now won’t get the death penalty because he was 17 at the time of the crime. Tell me he doesn’t deserve the death penalty.

The case of Raymond Levi Cobb
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-1702.ZO.html
After a short time, respondent confessed to murdering both Margaret and Kori Rae. Respondent explained that when Margaret confronted him as he was attempting to remove the Owings’ stereo, he stabbed her in the stomach with a knife he was carrying. Respondent told police that he dragged her body to a wooded area a few hundred yards from the house. Respondent then stated:
“I went back to her house and I saw the baby laying on its bed. I took the baby out there and it was sleeping the whole time. I laid the baby down on the ground four or five feet away from its mother. I went back to my house and got a flat edge shovel. That’s all I could find. Then I went back over to where they were and I started digging a hole between them. After I got the hole dug, the baby was awake. It started going toward its mom and it fell in the hole. I put the lady in the hole and I covered them up. I remember stabbing a different knife I had in the ground where they were. I was crying right then.” App. to Pet. for Cert. A—9 to A—10.
Respondent later led police to the location where he had buried the victims’ bodies.

http://cf.us.biz.yahoo.com/law/050307/2e4e39955dcf9cf1d6cb0f2db13c17d3_1.html

Simmons infuriates Walker County District Attorney David Weeks, because it will result in a life sentence for Raymond Levi Cobb, who was sentenced to death for a 1993 double murder in which he killed a young mother and buried her 16-month-old daughter alive. Cobb committed the crimes when he was 17 years old.

[Ebowed]

I find it funny liberals on here cry about how the younger have rights to privacy, speech, etc. And how those under 18 should be treated on the same level as adults. But when the topic of juvenile executions come up then they argue. You can't execute them, they are just CHILDREN who cant properly tell right from wrong.

I believe that younger people have rights, they can tell right from wrong, and that nobody, regardless of age, should be executed.  It's not that children can't properly tell right from wrong; it's that the government shouldn't be trying to end all violence and crime and then going off and killing people they deem guilty.  It's a double standard.

The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery.  In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.  But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger.  When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.  At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there.  Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”  “No one, sir,” she said.  “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.” -- John 8:3-11

[Ebowed]

This is one of the guys who was sentenced to death but now won’t get the death penalty because he was 17 at the time of the crime. Tell me he doesn’t deserve the death penalty.

Okay: he doesn't deserve the death penalty.

Advocates of the death penalty may as well be put to death for every sin they have committed.  Way to go, hypocrites.

[A18]

Um putting to death murderers is a double standard...how?

[David S]

This is one of the guys who was sentenced to death but now won’t get the death penalty because he was 17 at the time of the crime. Tell me he doesn’t deserve the death penalty.

Okay: he doesn't deserve the death penalty.

Advocates of the death penalty may as well be put to death for every sin they have committed.  Way to go, hypocrites.

You are f****** looney tunes!

Can you not comprehend the difference between the crime of a woman who commits adultery and a 17 year old who murders a woman and then buries her and her infant daughter while the child is still alive?

[Ebowed]

Um putting to death murderers is a double standard...how?

Two wrongs don't make a right.  Life isn't replaced by killing another person.

[Ebowed]

This is one of the guys who was sentenced to death but now won’t get the death penalty because he was 17 at the time of the crime. Tell me he doesn’t deserve the death penalty.

Okay: he doesn't deserve the death penalty.

Advocates of the death penalty may as well be put to death for every sin they have committed.  Way to go, hypocrites.

You are f****** looney tunes!

Can you not comprehend the difference between the crime of a woman who commits adultery and a 17 year old who murders a woman and then buries her and her infant daughter while the child is still alive?

Yes, I can comprehend the difference.  The Law of Moses says that the death penalty is applicable for both; Jesus' message of peace which replaced it is apparently uncomprehensible to you.

[A18]

Um putting to death murderers is a double standard...how?

Two wrongs don't make a right.  Life isn't replaced by killing another person.

How is killing a murderer a second wrong?

[Akno21]

Um putting to death murderers is a double standard...how?

Two wrongs don't make a right.  Life isn't replaced by killing another person.

How is killing a murderer a second wrong?

What if it turns out he's not a murderer, after new evidence comes up, but you've already killed him?

[A18]

Still not wrong. Just an unfortuante situation.

[Ebowed]

Um putting to death murderers is a double standard...how?

Two wrongs don't make a right.  Life isn't replaced by killing another person.

How is killing a murderer a second wrong?

It shows that you're stooping to the level of the murderer by reciprocating his sin, not showing any compassion or mercy whatsoever.

[Akno21]

Still not wrong. Just an unfortuante situation.

Unfourtuante situation? Try explaining that to his wife/parent/kid.

[Ebowed]

Still not wrong. Just an unfortuante situation.

If you kill someone by mistake, that's not wrong?  It's become extremely obvious that your value on human life is absent, or badly misplaced!

[Ebowed]

Still not wrong. Just an unfortuante situation.

If you kill someone by mistake, that's not wrong?  It's become extremely obvious that your value on human life is absent, or badly misplaced!

Also, I've just noticed a huge flaw: it's an "unfortunate situation" if capital punishment turns out flawed, but for the person who commits a murder, it's a crime punishable by death?  Think about it.

Sally goes out and brutally kills Jimmy.  What Sally did is wrong, and she must now be executed.

Alan goes out and brutally kills Joey.  But Alan frames Suzy, so Suzy gets executed.  That's not wrong.

Talk about a double standard.

[A18]

Um putting to death murderers is a double standard...how?

Two wrongs don't make a right.  Life isn't replaced by killing another person.

How is killing a murderer a second wrong?

It shows that you're stooping to the level of the murderer by reciprocating his sin, not showing any compassion or mercy whatsoever.

You're not reciprocating his sin. His sin was killing an innocent person.

How the hell could it be wrong to kill someone and then find out after the fact that they're innocent?

[Ebowed]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nobody is innocent.  A person who kills one person could say, "But Adolf Hitler killed more than 5 million people, and I only killed one!  I'm innocent... in comparison."  No such thing as innocent.  We might as well just execute everyone.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because that would mean INNOCENT LIFE was killed, which you profess to care so deeply about.

[A18]

It isn't just the fact that someone died. It's that he was murdered. There was wrongdoing on the part of the murderer.

On September 11th, 2001, three thousand people died of terrorism.

And four thousand people died of food poisioning that year.

[A18]

You support life sentancing. Should everyone be thrown in jail for life, or are we allowed to distinguish between mass murder and stealing some kid's lunch money when you were 12?

Because that would mean INNOCENT LIFE was killed, which you profess to care so deeply about.

If I slip and fall, and crack my head open, innocent life was killed. I guess that means it was wrong?

[Ebowed]

It isn't just the fact that someone died. It's that he was murdered. There was wrongdoing on the part of the murderer.

On September 11th, 2001, three thousand people died of terrorism.

And four thousand people died of food poisioning that year.

One could blame the poverty currently manifesting itself in America at the fault of Bush's disastrous administration.  Should Bush get the death penalty?

The fact that 4,000 people died of food poisoning in 2001 only serves to prove my point.  People die; there's no reason to execute them based on your ideas of right and wrong.  Yes, I agree murder is wrong, but if I were to murder someone for murdering someone else, then, under your system, someone would have to murder me.

Hey, what do I know, I'm "f****** looney tunes."