WASHINGTON (AP) - 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 19 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.
I think this is long overdue. I have a problem with the idea that people under 18 aren't responsible enough for decisions like drinking and voting, but somehow they are responsible enough to make decisions that result in their execution. you can't have it both ways. In this world, only a few nations have (in recent years) executed their young: Iran, Pakistan, China and Saudi Arabia. Yeah, what a stellar list! once more ALL of those countries have now gone on record against executing minors.
I believe that at 18 you should become a citizen in full. That means you can do anything allowable under law. Get married, run for President, go to a bar, go to war,...or be executed. we're moving there.
Note: I'm not against the death penalty. That being said, i think it is sinful for Christians to support the death penalty and I'm a Christian. ultimately I support the death penalty because i know i am a vengeful person and I don't mind it. At least I admit it, and I don't pretend to pervert the bible to justify my beliefs here.
2 comments:
So, I'm not for executing minors but why, exactly, is it wrong? Suppose the worst case scenario; underage but malisciously violent, a 17 year old serial killer. Can't determining responsibility be judged by the court? Is there anything about 17 that necessarily means one cannot be responsible?
In a related issue, I'm not convinced that at 18 all rights should be conferred to minors. The idea that suddenly, at the age of 18, we are fully capable and responsible is suspect at best. The age itself is arbitrary. I do believe that if we expect individuals to be responsible then we ought to give them the requisite associated liberties but wouldn't a staged entrance to full citizenship make more sense?
hud
Societies have, for a long very long time, given different culpability standards for children and adults. We do this in the United States. As a matter of public policy we have decided to create a status called "Minor" and to treat them differently. If we will not hold a child accountable for their actions when they enter into a contract (for example, in MS it is voidable), then how can we execute them for other actions they take? taking one's life is not teaching them a lesson. there is no education. it is a killing with the sole purpose of ending that person's existence. It has been deemed that children are treated differently because of their youth, inexperience, and ability to 'make good' in the future.
of course, that doesn't mean they cannot be punished. You asked "Can't determining responsibility be judged by the court?" well it has, and they will not be executed any more.
We operate, under the government, based on dates when things can happen and when they cannot. it is not an individual judgement, but a best guess as to what time GENERALLY certain rights and priviledges may be given. Social Security at 65, Drivers' License at age __, waiting 90 days before XX goes into effect, etc.
A 'staged entrance' into citizenship is just not practical. 18 comes along, in part, because that is generally the age when children end their compulsory education years. It is also the cut off for many aid/benefit/support programs and orders. If these aids in the development and survival of the child end because they are NOW and 'adult' then they should be able to avail themselves of all priviledges of citizenship.
Post a Comment