Supreme Court bans juvenile executions

[Blue Rectangle]

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?

[Blue Rectangle]

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 doesn’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.

Prosecutors in those states with the age 16 limit did not seek the death penalty for every offense that had a capital option.  They used prosecutorial discretion to determine which cases merited it.  In addition, the prosecutor had to pass another hurdle: the death penalty can only be imposed by a jury (as it should be, not by judges).

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.  Extracting an exact age limit from the rather vague statement against cruel punishment does not meet this standard.  If executing a juvenile is cruel, then how is locking up a juvenile for the rest of his life not?  Doesn't this ruling threaten the whole basis for selectively trying juveniles as adults?

[Blue Rectangle]

"It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty, resting in large part on the understanding that the instability and emotional imbalance of young people may often be a factor in the crime."

The Supreme Court is not in the business of acknowledging the opinion of international views regarding a particular subject matter. Their job is to interpret the Constitution of the United States which they swore an oath upon. In the most part they did in this case, but to recognize international opinion when interpreting United States law is a dangerous precedent. International opinion or even international law should never be considered when interpreting United States law. The key word here is interpreting not creating.

...although the phrase "cruel and unusual" throws the doors wide open to doing that. (Not saying it requires it, just that it is open to such an interpretation.)

I hadn't anticipated this ruling at all. It came as a surprise treat.
Does this automatically overturn all such convictions currently in existence or does it only prevent future ones?

Most of the Western world abolished the Death Penalty for under-18 or under-21 year olds in the 19th century, btw. IIRC there was about 5 or 6 countries left where you could be executed for a crime committed when you're not even 18 years old. Saudi Arabia, (parts of) the U.S., DR Congo, I forget the other ones.

It overturns the sentence, not the conviction, of those already sentenced.  I believe those will simply revert to life sentences, but there may have to be new sentencing hearings.  I'm not a lawyer.  If it is the latter, we could see some of these previously condemned criminals only sentenced to 20 years with parole option after 5.

My major concern with the application of "cruel and unusual" is the arbitrariness of it.  What is it about when the crime was committed that makes the punishment "cruel"?  One example on the news was a man who is now 36 and was awaiting execution.  Why is it cruel to execute him now for a crime he committed 19 years ago, but not cruel if the crime had been 18 years ago?

The majority ruled that the human brain is undeveloped at 17, but is fully developed at 18.  Therefore, they reasoned, it would be cruel to condemn someone at 17.  How is this cruelty unique to capital punishment?  Answer: it is not--the same exact argument can be used against any punishment that treats some juveniles as adults.

The majority also referred to the 14th amendment's "due process" clause.  I'm at a complete loss to explain this one.  Any difference in the process of convicting a 17 year old versus a 18 year old in the same justice system would be minor and would seem to favor the 17 year old.

The "international opinion" argument is the most dangerous and most insulting.  There are many countries in the world without capital punishment that have atrocious human rights records and that have wholly dysfunctional judicial systems.  Why do we look to them for guidance?  Of course, the majority didn't mean those countries, we all know that "international" meant Western Europe.  The Court overturned the will of a majority of citizens by using the will of the "international" community as justification.

[Blue Rectangle]

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.

[Blue Rectangle]

It appears that those in the forum that support this ruling are those who oppose the death penalty in general.  Is there anyone out there who generally supports the death penalty and thinks this ruling makes good law?

[Blue Rectangle]

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...

The states were not simply executing any 17 year old guilty of first degree murder.  Capital murder charges are only sought against certain offenders.  The point here is that some, not all, crimes warrant this punishment.  It is decided on a case-by-case basis.  In response to your list:

--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.

In other words, 17 year olds often are allowed similar rights as 18 year olds, if the circumstances warrant it.  Why should the states not have the power to pursue capital charges in cases where it is warranted?

[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.

[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.