Supreme Court Debates Juvenile Executions

[Kasca]

Updated: 02:12 AM EDT
Supreme Court Debates Juvenile Executions
By GINA HOLLAND, AP

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court is considering whether the United States is out of step with the rest of the world, and with national and global standards of decency, by allowing teenage killers to be put to death.

Nineteen states allow capital punishment for 16- and 17-year-olds, and more than 70 juvenile murderers are on death row.

Justices were hearing arguments Wednesday in a case that will determine whether those executions are unconstitutionally cruel, the latest step in the Supreme Court's reexamination of capital punishment in America.

The high court already has barred the death penalty for the mentally retarded and for people under age 16.

At issue for the court is whether people under 18 should be treated as adults.

Juvenile offenders are executed in just a few other countries, including Iran, Pakistan, China and Saudi Arabia. International leaders contend the practice leaves the United States diplomatically isolated and vulnerable to charges of hypocrisy on human rights issues.

The Supreme Court has looked increasingly at international opinion, and its four most liberal members have gone on record against a practice they said was "a relic of the past and is inconsistent with evolving standards of decency in a civilized society."

Justices are considering a case involving the kidnapping and killing of a Missouri woman. Two teens forced the victim, wearing only underwear and cowboy boots, into a van and later threw her off a bridge to drown.

A 17-year-old, Christopher Simmons, was sentenced to die for the 1993 murder, but Missouri's highest court overturned the death sentence last year. A younger teen was sentenced to life in prison.

Supporters of the death penalty, including families of victims, traveled to Washington for the landmark case.

"The death penalty is reserved for the worst of the worst. It is not just for adults," said Dianne Clements, president of the victims' rights group Justice For All. "It doesn't matter how old the killer is. What matters is that your loved one is gone."

Simmons, meanwhile, has big name supporters.

Former President Carter said the Supreme Court should recognize that "basic principles of American justice require rejection of child offender executions once and for all."

And C. Everett Koop, a former surgeon general, said scientific research shows that "juveniles are underdeveloped and immature, particularly in the areas of the brain that dictate reason, impulse control and decision-making."

Moderate Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony M. Kennedy probably will cast the crucial swing votes, as they did two years ago when justices barred executions of the mentally retarded on a 6-3 vote.

That ruling drew fierce dissents from the court's three most conservative members, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Justice John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer have said that it is shameful to execute juvenile killers.

The case is Roper v. Simmons, 03-633.

On the Net:

Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/

[Tarkan]

Capital crimes in the United States:
murder.
treason.

Capital crimes in Saudia Arabia:
practicing witchcraft
smuggling
murder
heresy
apostasy

Capital crimes in Iran:
adultery (for women)
homosexuality

[Prodigal Son]

The death penality is like "preemptive war" -- it sounds good in theory but in actual practice.....

Here in Illinois we've actually freed more people from death row due to wrongful convictions than have put to death. Nice huh?

But, hey, Texans like to put retarded people down.

[Tarkan]

The death penality is like "preemptive war" -- it sounds good in theory but in actual practice.....

Here in Illinois we've actually freed more people from death row due to wrongful convictions than have put to death. Nice huh?

But, hey, Texans like to put retarded people down.

If the retarded people are murderers and offer absolutely no benefit to society and represent a harm to society, other prisoners, or prison officials, then yes. And it's a good thing. It's a fucked up value system that places the rights of murderers over the rights of their victims both past and future.

[patriot]

I wonder how hard it would be to frame a retard?

[Prodigal Son]

If the retarded people are murderers and offer absolutely no benefit to society and represent a harm to society, other prisoners, or prison officials, then yes. And it's a good thing. It's a fucked up value system that places the rights of murderers over the rights of their victims both past and future.

Yes Mein Fuehrer, I too believe all the untermenschen mongoloids should be put to death.

Let's play Nazi madlibs....

If the JEWS are murderers and offer absolutely no benefit to society and represent a harm to society, other prisoners, or prison officials, then yes. And it's a good thing. It's a fucked up value system that places the rights of JEWS over the rights of their victims both past and future.

Come on Tarkan, are you SERIOUSLY saying executing a retarded person is hunky dory? It's like killing a puppy for not understanding pissing on the floor is bad form. Medeival Europeans used to put animals on trial for breaking out of their pens and causing property damage -- should we go back to that too? Executing the retarded is barbaric.

[Buzzsaw]

Prodigal, there's a gaping chasm in your logic.

The Nazis murdered Jews, gypsies, queers, retards, cripples, and Poles without any other reason other than their status.

We are talking about executing capital criminals, not commiting genocide on children and retards.

As far as framing a retard, I say let's start with Lanky.

[patriot]

Yes Mein Fuehrer, I too believe all the untermenschen mongoloids should be put to death.

LOL LOL LOL!!! Too funny...

[patriot]

As far as framing a retard, I say let's start with Lanky.

Lanky isn't smart enough for that classification.

[Buzzsaw]

As far as framing a retard, I say let's start with Lanky.

Lanky isn't smart enough for that classification.

Is he eligible for some sort of euthanasia?

[patriot]

I believe retroactive abortion was suggested in an earlier thread.

Perhaps Lanky will take the initiative and give Dr. Kervorkian a call...

[holden]

If the retarded people are murderers and offer absolutely no benefit to society and represent a harm to society, other prisoners, or prison officials, then yes. And it's a good thing. It's a fucked up value system that places the rights of murderers over the rights of their victims both past and future.

You sound like a fucking Nazi. Hope theres not that many of you bastards left, and I hope to see you die off quickly.

[Prodigal Son]

I know Buzz, but come on.

Corky. We're talking about putting CORKY to death here. Why don't we just put children to death? Many children are farther along in intellectual development than many retarded people so killing a retarded person is the equivalent to killing a child. If a 6-year-old brings a gun to school and kills someone intentionally, not as some show-and-tell accident, should we put them to death? Doing so is the equivalent to putting a retarded person to death.

But if we put juveniles to death, why not younger? Surely 10-year-olds know the difference between right and wrong? Death for them for them I guess. Why not an eight-year-old? Seven?

A society is judged by how well it treats its most vulnerable members. A retarded prisoner surely deserves our pity, not our vengeance. I doubt very much Christ would demand the execution of a retarded person.

I feel for the victims -- but putting a retarded person to death will not bring their loved one back. I'm sorry, but putting a retarded person to death is barbaric. Only someone equally barbaric could think otherwise.

[Kasca]

Tarkan, I admire your loyalty and patriotism, but to quote G.K. Chesterton, ""My country, right or wrong," is...like saying, "My mother*, drunk or sober."

*Or husband 8-D

-------------------------------------------------------------
Prodigal Son wrote:

Here in Illinois we've actually freed more people from death row due to wrongful convictions than have put to death. Nice huh?

>>>>A seminal event: January 11, 2003 Outgoing Gov. George Ryan commutes the sentences of all 157 of Illinois' death row inmates, saying he would "sleep well knowing I made the right decision," during a speech at Northwestern.

"This is a blanket commutation," Ryan said. "I realize it will draw
ridicule, scorn and anger."

------------------------------------------------------

A society is judged by how well it treats its most vulnerable members

>>>>Precisely.

[Renard]

I've read psychology studies that compare adolescence and mental retardation. The revelations are startling. For a more recent example that adds fodder to this comparison, please see the essay submitted by one of Skiritai's students in another thread: http://www.comebackalive.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=5399&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30

The comparison can also be a legal one, as mental retardation and minors are on similar footing when it comes to the question of capacity. Sure, a 15 or 16 year old usually understands the consequences of his actions, but often in the case of mental retardation, the afflicted individual doesn't. This would put the mentally ill more in line with young children.

In any case, killing a mentally ill and an individual for crimes they committed as minors is not the mark of a progressive society. The problem in the US though is that criminal matters are a state's jurisdiction, and not the federal government's. This makes it harder to put paid to questionable executions, never mind the death penalty altogether, as some states cling more to killing juveniles and retards than others.