the difference between 17 and 18
 

Supreme Court Strikes Down Death Penalty for Juveniles

By Hope Yen
Associated Press
Tuesday, March 1, 2005; 10:32 AM

The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the Constitution forbids the execution of killers who were under 18 when they committed their crimes, ending a practice used in Virginia and 18 other states.

The 5-4 decision throws out the death sentences of about 70 juvenile murderers and bars states from seeking to execute minors for future crimes.
The executions, the court said, were unconstitutionally cruel.

It was the second major defeat at the high court in three years for supporters of the death penalty. Justices in 2002 banned the execution of the mentally retarded, also citing the Constitution's Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishments.

The court had already outlawed executions for those who were 15 and younger when they committed their crimes.

Tuesday's ruling prevents states from making 16- and 17-year-olds eligible for execution.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, noted that most states don't allow the execution of juvenile killers and those that do use the penalty infrequently. The trend, he noted, was to abolish the practice.

"Our society views juveniles ... as categorically less culpable than the average criminal," Kennedy wrote.

Juvenile offenders have been put to death in recent years in just a few other countries, including Iran, Pakistan, China and Saudi Arabia. All those countries have gone on record as opposing capital punishment for minors.

The Supreme Court has permitted states to impose capital punishment since 1976 and more than 3,400 inmates await execution in the 38 states that allow death sentences.

Justices were called on to draw an age line in death cases after Missouri's highest court overturned the death sentence given to a 17-year-old Christopher Simmons, who kidnapped a neighbor in Missouri, hog-tied her and threw her off a bridge. Prosecutors say he planned the burglary and killing of Shirley Crook in 1993 and bragged that he could get away with it because of his age.

The four most liberal justices had already gone on record in 2002, calling it "shameful" to execute juvenile killers. Those four, joined by Kennedy, also agreed with Tuesday's decision: Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, as expected, voted to uphold the executions. They were joined by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Currently, Virginia and 18 other states allow executions for people under age 18: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Utah and Texas.

In a dissent, Scalia decried the decision, arguing that there has been no clear trend of declining juvenile executions to justify a growing consensus against the practice.

"The court says in so many words that what our people's laws say about the issue does not, in the last analysis, matter: 'In the end our own judgment will be brought to bear on the question of the acceptability of the death penalty,' he wrote in a 24-page dissent.

"The court thus proclaims itself sole arbiter of our nation's moral standards," Scalia wrote.

Awesome! :thumbsup:

i don't understand what the problem is. if the crime was heinous enough and the evidence solid enough to result in a conviction and a death sentence, why does it matter if the criminal is 18 years and 1 day old vs 17 years and 11 months old. same crime should generally equal same punishment (all other things being equal)

edit: on what constitutional grounds was this case argued?

Where's Lady Sidhe?

Why does the state say they are an adult at 16 for execution purposes, at 18 for voting and at 21 for drinking? It's bullshit to have three different ages. Pick one and stick to it. 18 seems to be the one that has been picked for most adult related rights. It should apply to all scenarios.

Plus, the death penalty is wrong, so any chipping away at it is a good thing.

ok glatt - if you are opposed to the death penalty in all cases, i understand what you are saying here. i'm in favor of it. (in fact, i think i should be able to apply it's use, at will :rattat: )

i agree about the age differences for different events to a point though. but i look at it in reality. if the death penalty is legal (it is) and used (it is) - why an 18 year old, but not a 17 1/2 year old?

Would like to pay my share of supporting these miscreants for the next 50 years or more? :eyebrow:

She's retired from the field, to other pastures.

For myself, I think it is a bad decision. In time we're going to reap the benefits of our declining educational, ethical, and moral standards and this ruling will change, even if only for expediency's sake.

I have no citations for you to support this, but I understand that it generally costs more to execute a person than it does to lock them up for life. It's all the legal costs of the numerous appeals in a death penalty case, the time spent in special facilities on death row, etc. There is an economy of scale to just throwing them in with the general prison population for life.

But I don't think the death penalty is wrong because it costs more.

I don't know that they stood on solid legal ground in trying to say that there is a sensus plenarius to states moving away from minor's and capital punishment. I think they would have been better to look back at the recent judicial sentencing rulings (US v. Booker and US v Fanfan). There principle there was upheld that a judge cannot make an additional finding of fact in a case that adds additional punishment.

Establishing a defendant as an adult for capital cases seems a really similar practice. The judge is in essence making a finding of fact that says "This person exists under special circumstances, and they are therefore eligible for additional punishment". In this case, the finding of fact is that the defendent is a fully culpable adult in regards to the crime they committed.

It would be similar to a jury finding a person not guilty by reason of insanity, but a judge saying "I find this person to be sane, and therefore guilty". The judge can't decree that finding - it's a jury question.

I'm no lawyer, but that seems like it would have been a better tack to take that saying "All the cool kids are doing it ..."

So OC, when do you think the cut-off point should be? I'm sure you'll agree that a 5 year old should not be sentenced to death for a murder? This is an impossibly vague debate since no two crimes are the same etc etc but at what point does an individual become responsible for their actions? 10? 12? 18? I know some 30 year olds who don't understand that washing makes dishes clean.

if i understand correctly this was not an issue of all 16 year old being eligible for lethal injection. 18 is the standard, but there are cases where someone younger knew exactly what they were doing, chose to do it and deserves the same punishment that someone over 18 deserves. this ruling is saying that if someone is 17 they can jump up and down and scream at the top of their lungs "i am going to commit XYZ crime! i know what i'm doing! you can't put me to death because it's not my birthday!"

i know that is extremely unlikely and even ridiculous, but according to this ruling, even in that case, the individual cannot receive the death sentence.

I believe you and I also believe that's fucked up.
Lawyers are the bane of us all. :(

Yes, but how can you tell? If you kill a 17 year old, by the same logic, you must kill a 5 year old for the same crime.

I am for the most part opposed to the death penalty. If it is wrong to take a human life, then the law should have to adhere to the same morality. It's rather like saying, "Do as I say and not as I do." And, really, the death penalty amounts to an easy out. The convicted killer committed these horrific acts and gets euthanized. That's nice. I bet most of the victim's deaths were nowhere near as easy and painless as lethal injection. Let the bastards rot in a maximum security cell for 40 years to reflect upon their sins. If you want to punish someone, that's the way to do it. It would also end this ridiculously arbitrary line between someone who at age 17 and 364 days commits a murder versus someone who commits a murder at age 18 and 0 days.