Supreme Court bans juvenile executions

[Ebowed]

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?

We are allowed to distingish.  But murder isn't healed by murder.  Life sentences are superior to the death penalty because life is preserved.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You dodged my question about accidental flaws in capital punishment.  Typical Republican.

[they don't love you like i love you]

If you die because of poor safety standards, that is wrong, wrong on the part of those who put in the poor safety standards. Similarly it's wrong to put it an institution which can kill innocent people and only exists to satisfy blood lust. My state is getting along perfectly fine without the death penalty, so is almost all of the civilized world.

[Ebowed]

If you die because of poor safety standards, that is wrong, wrong on the part of those who put in the poor safety standards. Similarly it's wrong to put it an institution which can kill innocent people and only exists to satisfy blood lust.

Agreed.

[A18]

I thought we were talking about murder here. Apparently we're now talking about "the poverty currently manifesting itself in America." Tell me, are you related to opebo?

The fact that four thousand people died means there's no reason to punish murder. Got it.

You mean killing someone for murdering someone else? That has to be kept separate from murdering someone for murdering someone else.

I didn't call you f****** looney tunes.

[Ebowed]

I thought we were talking about murder here. Apparently we're now talking about "the poverty currently manifesting itself in America." Tell me, are you related to opebo?

I detest opebo's posts.  His views on abortion, sex education, religion, and almost everything EXCEPT the death penalty leave a lot to be desired.  And hey, we WERE talking about murder, till you brought up the food poisoning.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nice oversimplification.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh... excuse me?  Why bother in the first place?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I know; I was quoting someone else.  That guy from Michigan.

[A18]

There are no 100% safety standards.

Just an hour or two ago someone on your side of the argument said it's far better to die than spend life in jail. Well, maybe to spare the innocent, we'd better execute them.

I don't even completely, flat out support the death penalty. I'm for replacing it with hard labor. It is, however, vastly superior to letting some coldblooded baby killer sit in a cell, work out, or whatever else they let people in prisons do.

Murder isn't healed by murder, but it is better met with execution than a prison cell.

I dodged what question? No, I think I made it very clear that there's a difference between death and the intent to kill.

Only if this person knew the 'criminal' was innocent would this be wrong.

Food poisoning stat is important, because we have to distinguish between people dying (bad) and people being murdered (atrocity that must be punished). Unless you think we need to lock people up for life over the food poisoning or leave al Qaeda alone, in which case, I suggest you hook up with Kucinich.

Well, it's pretty simple when you try to say that there's no reason to execute people over murder just because life apparently isn't worth that much, since people die all the time.

I can completely understand how someone can oppose the death penalty on the grounds that an innocent person might die but you seem worried about the guilty.

[Ebowed]

There are no 100% safety standards.

Just an hour or two ago someone on your side of the argument said it's far better to die than spend life in jail. Well, maybe to spare the innocent, we'd better execute them.

I don't agree with that person's argument.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If baby killers had to recieve the death penalty, abortionists would be added to death row by the thousands.

I'll finish replying later; got to go.  Consider my post on hold.  :-P

[The Duke]

I am conflicted by this ruling, though I oppose it in the end.

On the one hand, I do not support the death penalty for civilian crimes, regardless of the age of the offender.  I think the risk of executing the wrong person is not worth it when you get the same effect for society at lower cost by giving them life in prison.

The fact that juveniles will not be executed makes me happy, but I still oppose this ruling.

There is a growing national consensus in favor of ending this practice, and an established international consensus for ending this practice.  Neither is relevant, because:

1. Traditionally, international and national consensus tests (as well as history and tradition tests) are only applied to substantive due process rights, not to the interpretation of enumerated rights (ie. the 8th Amendment).  Enumerated rights are assumed to stand on their own, without consensus justifications.

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.

3. Since most founders were supporters of capital punishment, one cannot claim with any credibility that the death penalty was intended to be barred by the 8th Amendment.  The authors of that Amendment intended no such thing.

When you twist and mangle the Constitution to suit ideological ends, you will reap unforseen dangers down the road.  This ruling, while the immediate outcome is pleasing on a base level, is very worrisome to the future of American jurisprudence.

[Ebowed]

Murder isn't healed by murder, but it is better met with execution than a prison cell.

I guess we'll just have to politely disagree on this one.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You dodged this: "Because that would mean INNOCENT LIFE was killed, which you profess to care so deeply about," in regards to the accidental incorrect people executed in capital punishment, by saying that if you slip and crack your head, innocent life is also killed.  But that's nobody's fault; innocent people wrongly convicted through the death penalty are killed at the fault of the entire system.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There are other ways of punishing, such as life sentencing, hard labor, and gun control.  No life is taken that way.

[qupte]Unless you think we need to lock people up for life over the food poisoning or leave al Qaeda alone, in which case, I suggest you hook up with Kucinich.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No thanks; I used to think Kucinich was one of the best guys in Washington till he switched his stance on abortion to run for president.  *sigh*...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Just because people die all the time doesn't mean it isn't worth much.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Guilty people have rights, too.

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

Ebowed,

Please don't use the bible to defend being anti death penalty. The words of Jesus, of which I strongly agree with, do not apply to the state as a whole. Jesus himself said that the state holds the right to "draw the sword" to punish criminals.

[Ebowed]

Ebowed,

Please don't use the bible to defend being anti death penalty. The words of Jesus, of which I strongly agree with, do not apply to the state as a whole. Jesus himself said that the state holds the right to "draw the sword" to punish criminals.

I did an online bible search (NIV) for "draw the sword" and found no such Scripture.  Can you point me to the Scripture please?

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

Ebowed,

Please don't use the bible to defend being anti death penalty. The words of Jesus, of which I strongly agree with, do not apply to the state as a whole. Jesus himself said that the state holds the right to "draw the sword" to punish criminals.

I did an online bible search (NIV) for "draw the sword" and found no such Scripture.  Can you point me to the Scripture please?

I will try and find it later on. I don't remember if it was that exact phrase. But it was something very similar.

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

Romans 13:1-17


   
   Page 1059 of 1189    
   
Romans 13

1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid;for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. 5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. 6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour. 8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. 9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. 11 And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. 12 The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light. 13 Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying. 14 But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.

[Ebowed]

Ebowed,

Please don't use the bible to defend being anti death penalty. The words of Jesus, of which I strongly agree with, do not apply to the state as a whole. Jesus himself said that the state holds the right to "draw the sword" to punish criminals.

Thanks for posting the scripture, I will post my thoughts in a moment.

First let me say that Jesus himself was given the death penalty (and for being a liberal, no less), so the death penalty may need to be reconsidered as a whole when looked at that context.  Also many of my fellow Southerners who support capital punishment are the same who opposed anti-lynching bills in the 1950s.  Lynching has gone the way of New Coke now in the U.S., and the death penalty should too if we are to join other countries like New Zealand, Canada, Australia, and almost all of Europe.  America is the only English-speaking country where the death penalty is still used to my knowledge, and that's a bad reflection on us.

Though the Law of Moses permits the use of the death penalty, Cain, who killed Abel, was not killed for his murderous crime but rather became a wanderer, and given a mark by God that told nobody to kill him.  But then the law of Moses came around; Jesus replaced it with a message of peace (like that casting the first stone thing).

Now as to your Romans quote.  "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers.  For there is no power but of God..."  Well Jesus was God and he preached a pacifist message, and since he is the higher power Paul speaks of here we must "be subject unto" Jesus.

I believe using the king james version, which is tough to understand many times, is rather deceptive, so here's Romans 8:1-4 in NIV:

Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. 3For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, 4in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.

I see absolutely no reason for the death penalty usage in this passage.  I see it as one of the greatest arguments against it in the new testament.  In fact, it claims Jesus is a sin offering, and he was sent to meet the 'righteous requirements of the law' so that all could be saved by simple redemption, not meeting the strict requirements of Moses.  This Scripture makes the death penalty look anti-Christian, primitive, and ancient.

[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."

[David S]

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?

It seems your concern is not so much with the death penalty as with the possibility that the justice system might convict the wrong person. Certainly that is an injustice. But death penalties are rarely carried out swiftly. With the exception of Tim McVeigh there is usually a long time period of appeals before the sentence is carried out. In the case that I cited above the individual confessed to the crime in 1995. It is now nearly ten years later and the sentence still has not been executed. That would seem like adequate time for new evidence, appeals etc which would reduce the risk of executing the wrong person. The advent of DNA evidence should also reduce the risk.

Many posters on this forum have stated that life in prison is a fate worse than death. So if we put someone in jail for life and after he died of old age we found out he was innocent, would that not be a bigger injustice?

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.

In my opinion there are some crimes that are so evil, that they just scream out for the death penalty. It isn't a question of deterent or revenge. It is simply justice.

[David S]

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."

I appologize for making the "f****** looney tunes" comment. It was crude and inappropriate.

[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.

[Blue Rectangle]

As our society continues to slip down the slope:
Lawyers for Zoloft Teen Seek Shorter Term

As I predicted, this ruling has had the effect of weakening all punishments for juvenile offenders.  Now juvenile defendants that fail in their diminished capacity defense can simply claim that the Supreme Court grants all minors this defense automatically.

[David S]

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.

My comment on car accidents was meant to illustrate that in all human endeavors mistakes can happen and they can result in injury or death. We try to minimize mistakes but we accept the fact that mistakes can happen.

Your profile says you're from the UK. Your country spends billions on the military. To put it in blunt terms the purpose of the military is to break things and kill people. In fact  your country is doing that in Iraq, right now. While there may be no intent to kill innocent people, there are still innocent people getting killed by your weapons and ours. Your government and our government understand that risk and they accept it.

Now suppose that you sentenced someone to life in prison. Prisoners in the U.S., and probably the UK, are routinely subjected to rape and other abuse at the hands of other prisoners. So lets say this guy spends the final fifty years of his life being brutalized in prison and then dies  of natural causes. The next day we find out he was innocent. Isn't that a horrible injustice too?

Also I would ask you to consider the hideous nature of the crime I cited. The killer stabbed to death a young mother who caught him in the act of burglarizing her home. Then he took her body to the woods and dug a grave for her. He then went back to her home and took her infant daughter out of her crib while she was sleeping. He put her on the ground by the grave. Now imagine that tiny child awaking to see her mother lying by the grave. Perhaps you have a young relative you might envision in that situation. Then imagine her crying for her mother and trying to crawl to her. Imagine her falling into the grave. Imagine the brutal killer shoveling dirt on her until she was completely buried alive. In his testimony the killer said he cried while doing it. Compasionate guy right? Well not compassionate enough to lift her out of the grave and spare her life. Not compassionate enough to stop shovelling dirt on her.

In my opinion the death penalty is a fitting punishment for such a horrible murder.

[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.

[David S]

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.

In the U.S. as far as I know victims are not allowed to be involved in sentencing, and certainly dead victims are not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I suppose we agree on the sentiment, but wouldn't you want to apply the same standard of justice if it was someone else's nephew?

[Cashcow]

The death penalty isn't justice. It's freedom. Instead of releasing the killers, why not create a system of hard labor? It should be obvious that I don't believe in hell, so it is our responsibility to create hell on earth for people like this:

Three teenagers convicted in Fishtown murder

By Jacqueline Soteropoulos

Inquirer Staff Writer

In a trial marked by accounts of brutality and adolescent treachery, a jury yesterday convicted three Fishtown teens of first-degree murder for beating their friend Jason Sweeney to death in 2003.

"My son got justice today. That's all I cared about," said the victim's father, Paul Sweeney, with his wife, Dawn, at his side.

When the jury foreman announced the verdict in the tense courtroom, Domenic Coia, 19, and his brother, Nicholas Coia, 18, showed no reaction.

Their accomplice, Edward Batzig Jr., 18 - once the victim's best friend - dropped his head, bit his lip, and appeared to fight back tears. His mother, seated in the courtroom behind him, wept.

The jury of eight men and four women deliberated about 21/2 hours before convicting the three of all charges, including conspiracy, robbery, and possessing an instrument of crime.

When the Coias and Batzig are sentenced May 6, each faces a mandatory sentence of life in prison without parole. Common Pleas Court Judge Renee Cardwell Hughes could elect to add 321/2 to 65 years to each life sentence for the other crimes.

Sweeney was 16 - and believed he was on a romantic rendezvous with his first girlfriend, Justina Morley, who confessed to the crime - when he was clubbed and hacked to death with a hammer, a hatchet and a rock. He was murdered for the $500 he had earned working in construction with his father.

"We just kept hitting him and hitting him. We took Sweeney's wallet and split up the money, and we partied beyond redemption," Domenic Coia confessed, adding that he used the proceeds to buy marijuana, heroin and pills.

As they fled the murder scene, the killers engaged in a "group hug."

"It was like we were all happy [with] what we did," Domenic Coia told detectives.

Prosecutors intended to ask the jury to sentence Domenic Coia, the eldest defendant, to death. But last week, in the middle of the trial, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a different case that killers under age 18 may not be executed. Coia was 14 days shy of his 18th birthday when Sweeney was slain in a vacant lot.

The trio's accomplice, 17-year-old Morley, will receive a 171/2-to-35-year prison term when she is sentenced March 21. Morley, who was 15 at the time of the slaying, admitted she lured Sweeney to his death with the promise of sex.

She was the prosecutor's star witness during the eight-day trial in adult court. However, her violent and sexually graphic jailhouse letters were used by both the prosecutor and defense attorneys to demonstrate the group's depravity.

"I'm a cold-blooded [expletive] death-worshiping bitch who survives by feeding off the weak and lonely. I lure them, and then I crush them," Morley wrote last year to Domenic Coia.

Assistant District Attorney Jude Conroy told reporters yesterday: "We had to pick our poison, and Justina was exactly that."

Morley's letters, Conroy added, were "just affirmation of what we knew all along - that she was a cold-blooded killer."

But defense attorneys used the letters to try to convince jurors that Batzig and the Coia brothers were no more culpable than Morley, who they argued was the mastermind of the deadly plan.

Morley glorified violence and used sex to manipulate the teens, they maintained.

The defense attorneys asked the jurors to find the trio guilty of third-degree murder, with the hopes that one day their clients could be released.

"I'm disappointed and sad," said Nicholas Coia's attorney, Barbara McDermott, after the verdict. "I'm not just sad for Nicholas Coia, I'm sad for all of us... . We as a community have really failed to address the needs of our youth.

"I think Nicky's reaction was acceptance [of the verdict]. He knew what he had done was wrong," she said. "There's been remorse as soon as these kids got off of the drugs they were on."

Police Detective Aaron Booker, the lead investigator on the case, said: "In my 10 years in homicide, this is the most unique case, and I've never seen anything quite as brutal."

Jason Sweeney's face was unrecognizable from the 20 to 40 powerful blows, a deputy medical examiner testified during the trial. Every bone in his face, save one, was fractured, and the wounds were so severe that investigators could not initially determine whether he was young or old.

When the jurors announced their verdict, Paul Sweeney bowed his head in his hands. Dawn Sweeney's eyes filled with tears, and she put her arm around her husband.

After the killing, they launched the Jason Keel Sweeney Foundation to fund scholarships to the Valley Forge Military Academy. Their son had planned to join the Navy after he turned 17. The Sweeneys have a 17-year-old daughter.

Leaving the courthouse with his family after the verdict, Paul Sweeney told reporters: "My son was special, and it's the beginning of trying to have a life again."

[A18]

Someone needs to start an advocacy group for "Hell on Earth."

[Cashcow]

Someone needs to start an advocacy group for "Hell on Earth."

You can start it Philip.