Supreme Court bans juvenile executions

[opebo]

One point not related to the issue itself:
Notice that the four dissenters were Thomas, Scalia, Rehnquist and O'Conner.  If Bush is able to replace those last two with conservatives, this case represents one situation where it would not have made a difference.  Bush's court picks will not be as earth-shattering as the Democrats often claim.

As for the ruling itself, I am opposed, though not strongly.  The laws overturned were found unconstitutional because they set the age limit at 16.  The correct answer appears to be 18.  Where did they get this?  The opinion was based on the 8th and 14th amendments, but I looked and looked and couldn't find mention of age in those (other than the voting age).  Does the right to be executed derive from the right to vote?

They consider it cruel and unusual punishment.  The eighth amendment doens't list every possible way punishment can be cruel and unusual, and age is as good as reason as any other to judge the matter.

[opebo]

The Court revoked the prosecution's discretion, revoked the jury's power to decide punishment and overturned the will of the people as expressed by the legislature and governor.  The Court must have a very good basis for such a decision.

Sure, the basis was, these prosecutors and juries were imposing cruel and unusual punishment.   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You could not extract anything from that vague statement, which is the point - it is left wide open for the courts to determine what is cruel and unusual.  No specifics are listed. 

Perhaps it does 'threaten' the basis for selectively trying juveniles as adults.  What of it?  Personally I would like to see 'juveniles' treated as adults at a much younger age in general - both in terms of rights and in terms of prosecution.  On the other hand it seems reasonable to call the death penalty for anyone of any age 'cruel and unusual punishment.

[opebo]

It's about time we joined the rest of the civilized world.

lets become full members and gut our military, abolish the office of president, and allow euthanasia.

Sounds good.

[opebo]

Well, Western Europe, Latin America and much of Asia, actually. Just a sidenote, though.

Here is a gedanken experiment for you:
What if the Massachusetts gay marriage dilemma goes to the Supreme Court.  Imagine that the majority rules that gay marriage must be banned in the U.S. as a whole based on:
--A large majority of states ban gay marriage.
--There has been an "evolving standard of decency", as evinced by the recent bans sweeping the nation, that gay marriage is morally wrong.
--A large majority of countries in the international community ban gay marriage and the majority of people on this planet believe homosexuality is evil.

Would you call this a solid Court ruling?  I certainly would not.  Substituting a morality test for the constitutional test can cut both ways.

The phrase 'cruel and unusual punishment' is the Constitution (or rather its authors) asking for a morality test!

As for gay marriage, it is covered under the equal protection clause - therefore the Constitution leaves no room for a morality test, since treating people unequally before the law is explicitly forbidden.

[opebo]

Well, Western Europe, Latin America and much of Asia, actually. Just a sidenote, though.

Here is a gedanken experiment for you:
What if the Massachusetts gay marriage dilemma goes to the Supreme Court.  Imagine that the majority rules that gay marriage must be banned in the U.S. as a whole based on:
--A large majority of states ban gay marriage.
--There has been an "evolving standard of decency", as evinced by the recent bans sweeping the nation, that gay marriage is morally wrong.
--A large majority of countries in the international community ban gay marriage and the majority of people on this planet believe homosexuality is evil.

Would you call this a solid Court ruling?  I certainly would not.  Substituting a morality test for the constitutional test can cut both ways.

The phrase 'cruel and unusual punishment' is the Constitution (or rather its authors) asking for a morality test!

No, it has a literal interpretation.  Cruel and unusual have nothing to do with ethics.

It is arguable that 'unusual' could merely be a statistical value, but cruel is a 'moral' valuation.