Supreme Court bans juvenile executions

[Peter]

Why keep the scumbags around? Why feed them for years at the cost of my tax money? Why risk them breaking out and escaping? If you are going to keep them around at least put them to good use and use them as slaves of some sort. Building roads or something like that.

It costs more money to keep having the defendant go through the endless death penalty appeals that stem from the death penalty sentence than keeping them in jail for life on average.

I quote Justice Kennedy: "This reality [of international opinion] does not become controlling, for the task of interpreting the Eighth Amendment remains our responsibility". The Court then actually goes on to use the only foreign law insertion that Justice Scalia says is allowed: pre-1776 English Law (obviously what is now at least in part the US was subject to this law at the time).

Whilst the links they draw are tenuous, they draw at least in part on the British having abolished the juvenile death penalty as being related to the deriving document of the Eighth Amendment - The Bill of Rights 1689.

The Court then totally rebukes the suggestion that this in anyway is the basis of its decision, merely an affirmation of its conclusions: "The opinion of the world community, while not controlling our outcome, does provide respected and significant confirmation for our own conclusions."

The decision is based on a growing national consensus against the the practice and to cite Justice Kennedy one last time: "The age of 18 is the point where society draws the line for many purposes between childhood and adulthood. It is, we conclude, the age at which the line for death eligibility ought to rest."

The Court acknowledges the fact that younger teenagers are not able to make decisions as well as adults and draws on society's own definition of adult (which of course is actually bound up in the 26th Amendment) to draw the line.

[Peter]

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...

[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.

[Peter]

2. The whole purpose of having a Bill of Rights is to protect citizens rights, not subject those rights to the whims of majorities no matter how large.  Therefore, I believe the consensus tests are illegitimate prima facie, even if there was a precedent for using them in these kinds of cases.

This precedent was set by Standford v. Kentucky in 1989 I think.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

By that argument you can say that Lawrence v. Texas was totally wrong because the drafters of the 5th and 14th amendments supported prohibitions on homosexual sodomy.  To paraphrase Justice Kennedy in that same case:

"Had those who drew and ratified the [Eighth Amendment] known the components of [cruel and unusual punishment] in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths."

[Peter]

The risk of error exists in everything we do. Everytime you get behind the wheel of your car and drive somewhere there is a risk that you might get killed or kill an innocent person. In fact 40,000 people die that way every year, and yet that does not deter us from driving.

You are comparing apples and oranges; When you set out on a car journey, you never intend to kill somebody in an accident. When the state sentences somebody to death it is with the sole intent of killling them.

The act of driving is pretty much integral to today's society; I personally couldn't conceive what society would be like without cars and roads. The death penalty is not integral to society, and I live in one where it has ceased to exist.

The prospect of innocent deaths on the roads is a necessary evil, the prospect of innocent deaths in the execution chair is an unnecessary risk.

[Peter]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In my opinion, the intent of having a military is to protect my country and to ensure that some standards of decency are upheld in other countries. There is obviously no intent to take innocent life, but in the course of doing what I consider the actual intent to be, they often end up doing so. This is a necessary evil, not an unnecessary risk because the protection of my country is necessary imo.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Its a horrible injustice to be sure, but then I don't think we ever send anybody to jail with the intent that they get raped by other prisoners. Inevitably people will get jailed wrongly, for no justice system is perfect, but the longer they remain alive and in jail, the longer society has to discover its mistake, to apologise and to return the prisoner's freedom.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And in my opinion you just demonstrated exactly why we shouldn't allow the victims of horrific crimes to be involved in the sentencing of crimes.

I have young nephews who I love very much; If somebody did this to them, I would not want the state to execute the murderer, I would want to do it myself. If there's anybody here who wouldn't, frankly, you aren't human. This doesn't negate the fact that justice should be administered objectively and not subjectively.

[Peter]

The 8th amendment which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment was ratified in 1791.  In 1792 congress passed the coinage act of 1792, which specified the death penalty for any employees of the mint who intentionally reduced the precious metal content of coins. So people who participated in ratifying the 8th amendment didn't believe the death penalty was cruel and unusual.

I've already dealt with that rather specious argument:

By that argument you can say that Lawrence v. Texas was totally wrong because the drafters of the 5th and 14th amendments supported prohibitions on homosexual sodomy.  To paraphrase Justice Kennedy in that same case:

"Had those who drew and ratified the [Eighth Amendment] known the components of [cruel and unusual punishment] in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths."

[Peter]

Shall we infer that you, or the Supreme Court, know better what the founders meant than they did?

I'm saying that the Founders didn't fully appreciate the full meaning of what they wrote (and neither do I), they knew this, and thus allowed for interpretations that would change with time.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

At no point does it mention anything about the death penalty, meaning that the Founders wished the Eighth Amendment to be controlling on this issue, not what we know to be their personal views of the time on the Constitution. The Eighth Amendment refers to "cruel and unusual" and I'm pretty sure that the Founders didn't want us to be stuck with 18th Century Justice for the continuing existence of the United States, so obviously an evolving interpretation is appropriate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True, but I never said that.

[Peter]

But actually you did say that. Your idea of an "evolving interpretation" means exactly that. It says that the constitution may mean something different tomorrow than it does today even though the words did not change. It says that the constitution means whatever somebody wants it to mean rather than what it actually says.

My point is that the Constitution in this case effectively says that its meaning should change over time. If you don't like this, feel free to use the methods of amendment you describe to change this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obviously the Supreme Court and the Courts of Law more generally since they are the arbiters of the Constitution under the Marbury v. Madison decision. Neither I nor Senator Clinton are members of the Supreme Court, so we can only express an opinion of absolutely no weight on the issue, even though our opinion may or may not be correct. Justice Ginsburg is a member of the Supreme Court so obviously her opinion does have some actual bearing on the matter.

[Peter]

Prison is slavery, Ebowed. It is involuntary servitude. In all realistic situations it can be considered slavery.

The 13th amendment does draw a distinction between slavery and involuntary servitude. Slavery tends to involve viewing people as being owned by somebody for life and therefore as property to be bought and sold. Involuntary servitude is simply being forced to do something by somebody else as opposed to ownership.