Us Supreme Court: No Executions Of Youths

This week we had a ruling from the Supreme Court in the case of Christopher Simmons. In 1993 Simmons was 17 and decided, along with his 15-year-old buddy, to kidnap Shirley Crook in her St. Louis home. Simmons and his pal must not have liked Shirley Crook too much, for they tied her up, threw her into a minivan and drove to a bridge over a river. There they covered her face in duct tape and threw her over the railing and into the water. She drowned. Christopher Simmons later bragged to his friends that they could get away with it because they were minors. Sadly, because of this ruling, they will get away with it.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the practice of executing individuals for crimes they committed below the age of 18 is a violation of the Eighth Amendment. Cruel and unusual punishment, says the court. The opinion was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Justice Kennedy relied on international law and practice to "confirm" his view that the juvenile death penalty constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. He also cited the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which the U.S. signed only subject to the reservation of its right to impose the death penalty for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age.

But Justice Scalia writes: "The Court thus proclaims itself sole arbiter of our Nation's moral standards--and in the course of discharging that awesome responsibility purports to take guidance from the views of foreign courts and legislatures. Because I do not believe that the meaning of our Eighth Amendment, any more than the meaning of other provisions of our Constitution, should be determined by the subjective views of five Members of this Court and like-minded foreigners, I dissent."

The Supreme Court is disdainful of public opinion in the U.S. as expressed by the laws passed by Congress and the state legislatures, but respectful of public opinion in Europe. Can anyone articulate a philosophy of jurisprudence in which European opinion, however manifested, is given priority over American opinion, as expressed in laws passed by legislators?

The Court now strikes down longstanding policies and practices adopted through the democratic process on the grounds that five or more Justices personally don't approve. These people are supposed to be interpreting the Constitution, not balancing it against Europe, or simply going on how they personally feel.

Here's one more item I'll leave you with. When three San Luis Obispo police officers entered Gerald "Jerry" O'Malley's mobile home Monday night to find out why his Ford Explorer was abandoned, they discovered the 87-year-old dead in the living room. His killer, they would suspect by the end of the night, was 13 years old. And the cause of the blunt head trauma, they now say, was a skateboard.

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisob...po/11030353.htm

So a nice old man dies in a brutal fashion, and his killers will live, all thanks to five people wearing robes in Washington.

But they're not going to get away with it. They'll spend the rest of their lives in prison. It's not like they'll be released and allowed to spend their lives free.

It's a largely conservative court that made this decision.

You also say that five or more Justices are making decisions based on personal feelings. Did you hold this same view during the 2000 Presidential election and the whole Florida vote counting debacle? It was the same group of justices, and five people made a decision that some could say was based on personal feelings.

There are other instances where the Supreme Court has struck down "practices adopted through the democratic process." (And never mind that they're part of our whole system of checks and balances.)

They struck down Jim Crow laws in the South -- which were democratically adopted -- "separate but equal" schools for children -- which were democratically adopted -- and a host of other civil rights and personal freedom issues that we take for granted nowadays.

So, is it just five people making personal decisions or the highest court in the land trying to make sure that laws are fairly applied and justice is fairly meted out?

Erik

The question before the Supreme Court was whether this presented a case of cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the 8th Amendment to our Constitution.

No, the court was not concerned with whether being assaulted in your home, wrapped in a towel, duct tape and electrical wire and thrown off a bridge was cruel and unusual punishment. That's OK. The court is only concerned with whether it was cruel and unusual to execute the 17-year-old murderer who did it.

The gist of the majority's analysis is that whether the crime is constitutionally "unusual" depends on whether "evolving standards of decency" have reached the point in our history when such punishment has been clearly rejected by society.

It happens that only 15 years ago the Supreme Court found that the kind of statute in question was constitutional. But, rather than overturning that case, the court yesterday found that in the last 15 years a national consensus against such punishment had emerged. I'm not sure where this "emergence" happened - it didn't happen in Georgia.

The majority also wrote, "In the end our own judgment will be brought to bear on the question of the acceptability of the death penalty under the 8th Amendment." Well, ain't that nice. Scalia replied, "juries cannot be trusted with the delicate task of weighing a defendant's youth along with other mitigating factors."

So, is it just five people making personal decisions or the highest court in the land trying to make sure that laws are fairly applied and justice is fairly meted out? That's exactly the question. This is one, I think, they wimped out on.

Simmons assured his friends they could 'getaway with it' because they were minors. And today they live and breathe, will live a minimum of 20 years in prison paid for by my tax dollars. Boy, that really makes me feel a lot better.

Let us suppose that John Doe commits a murder at 11:30 PM the night before his eighteenth birthday. According to this ruling, he can not be executed. But if he committed the murder at 12:30 AM on the morning of his eighteenth birthday, he can be executed. Now, to be even more hypocritical, if he was born at 12:00 Noon, then at 12:30 AM he was technically not yet eighteen, but legally he was, so he may be executed.

I agree with Justice O'Connor that this should be decided on a case by case basis and with the rest of the dissenters that it is in the province of the states to decide.

I agree that the way it was before, is they way it should be. However, playing the devil's advocate here...How is it any different for Europe to put pressure on us to change our ways, than when we try to pressure the middle east to change how they punish their people in their legal system? What makes us so sure that our way is the best way?

Anyway...we call their people "repressed" because some of what we call "minor" infractions can cost you your life. Maybe Europe thinks our youth are "repressed" for getting put to death for killing people while you're young. Isn't it all part of growing up to kill a few people here and there?

As a person who believes in the Higher Power (I believe that all of the deities are the same being, regardless of names like God, Zeus, Allah, Odin, Buddha, etc.), I believe that no punishment dished by humans is enough. When we die, it is my belief that our Higher Power will decide what to do with us.

Brother Carolina has it correct: this should be decided on a case by case basis. This ruling takes power away from the local community's judges and juries.

Justice Kennedy's opinion, in which Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens joined, is a jumble of reasons why those five think the court had a duty to do what state legislatures have the rightful power and, arguably, the moral responsibility to do.

While discussing America's "evolving standards of decency," Kennedy announces: "It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty." Why is that proper when construing the U.S. Constitution? He is remarkably unclear about that. He says two international conventions forbid executions of persons who committed their crimes as juveniles. That, he thinks, somehow illuminates the meaning of the Eighth Amendment. Europe didn't put pressure on us to change our ways - five justices simply Xeroxed their laws over the top of the US Constitution.

Kennedy says "any parent knows" and "scientific and sociological studies" show that people under 18 show a "lack of maturity" and an "underdeveloped sense of responsibility" and susceptibility to "negative influences" and a weak aptitude for "cost-benefit analysis."

Huh? The 17-year-old in the case bragged about planning to do what he then did: He broke into a woman's home, put duct tape over her eyes and mouth, wrapped her head in a towel, bound her limbs with electrical wire, then threw her off a railroad trestle into a river where, helpless, she drowned. Poor guy, huh? He simply had a "lack of maturity" and an "underdeveloped sense of responsibility" and susceptibility to "negative influences" and a weak aptitude for "cost-benefit analysis." Oh, and by the way, the lady that he threw off the bridge is very dead.

Do any of you remeber the D.C. Sniper of just fairly recent news?

Well this ruling now overturns his sentence that was imposed on him by judge and jury....

If you do the crime you pay the price no matter what age.

Do you really want to spend upwards of $40,000 a year to keep a convicted murderer living in jail for their natural life? I sure as hell don't!

As many of you who are parents well know, once past the age of 10 -12 years old nothing you do or say is going to change the values, mindset, or attitude of a child... once they taste blood.... need I say more?

I also find it ironic that this issue once blamed on the "Liberals" is now being blamed on the "Conservatives"... folks it is all whoever is in power at the time that makes the rules, so be wise in who we give that option to!

Crap. I forgot all about him.

Geez. He simply shows a "lack of maturity" and an "underdeveloped sense of responsibility" and susceptibility to "negative influences" and a weak aptitude for "cost-benefit analysis."

How many innocent people did he kill?