Supreme Court Strikes Down Juvenile Death Penalty

[Brooklynite]

By James Vicini
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday abolished the death penalty for juveniles, a major victory for opponents of capital punishment in the last country in the world that gave official sanction to the execution of people who commit crimes as minors.

By a 5-4 vote, the high court declared unconstitutional the death penalty those under the age of 18 when they committed their crimes, a decision that could affect more than 70 death row inmates who face execution for murders done when they were 16 or 17 years old.

The decision amounted to a significant change from the Supreme Court ruling 16 years ago when it held the execution of juvenile offenders did not violate the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

The Amnesty International human rights organization, which has campaigned for years against the execution of child offenders, hailed the ruling.

"Today's ruling we see as one of the final milestones in the road to global abolition of the death penalty for crimes committed by children," she said.

Opponents of capital punishment had argued that world opinion and a national consensus has now formed against the juvenile death penalty and said it should be struck down as unconstitutional, like the Supreme Court did in 2002 in barring executions of mentally retarded criminals.

In the court's majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy agreed and declared the U.S. Constitution forbids the imposition of the death penalty against offenders who were under the age of 18 when their crimes were committed.

"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," he wrote in the 25-page opinion.

Kennedy cited evidence of a national consensus against the death penalty for juveniles. "Neither retribution not deterrence provides adequate justification for imposing the death penalty on juvenile offenders," he said.

Kennedy noted that the United States was the only country in the world that still gave official sanction to the juvenile death penalty.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented from the ruling.

"The U.S. was the only country openly admitting and claiming for itself the right to do this. So the fact that the U.S. has now ended it by this ruling really is a huge step toward global abolition for the death penalty for children," said Amnesty International researcher Rob Freer in London.
He said the United States had carried out 19 of the 39 executions of child offenders that Amnesty has recorded world wide since 1990.

The other countries that carried out such executions were Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, China, Yemen and the Democratic Republic of Congo. But Freer said even those countries now consider the practice illegal, although they have not all succeeded in halting it.

Using the death penalty against offenders who were under 18 when they committed a crime is explicitly banned by the UN's Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified by 192 countries -- every country in the world except the United States and Somalia.

"But Somalia has no recognized government. The United States certainly has a recognized government," Freer said.

"It's one of the clearest principles around, which is why it is so shocking that the U.S. has until this time refused to do it," he added.

Thirty eight U.S. states and the federal government have the death penalty, of which 19 and the federal government have an age minimum of 18 for capital punishment, the Death Penalty Information Center, which opposes capital punishment, said.

It said the other 19 states allow the death penalty for juvenile offenders, with five states setting age 17 as the minimum and with 14 states using age 16 as the minimum. In 1988, the Supreme Court barred the death penalty for those 15 or younger at the time of their crime.

The group said 22 inmates have been executed for murders committed at ages 16 or 17 since the Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976. These executions make up about 2 percent of the total number of executions.

The justices agreed to revisit the juvenile death penalty after the Missouri Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional.

The state Supreme Court overturned the death sentence for Christopher Simmons, who was 17 in 1993 when he tied up a woman and threw her off a bridge, resulting in her death by drowning. The state court resentenced him to life in prison without parole.

Kennedy's opinion upheld the state court decision.

Opponents of the death penalty hailed the ruling.
In Atlanta, former President Jimmy Carter said, "This ruling acknowledges the profound inconsistency in prohibiting those under 18 years of age from voting, serving in the military, or buying cigarettes, while allowing them to be sentenced to the ultimate punishment."

David Elliot, a spokesman for the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, said, "Today's decision confirms what we all know and what science has recently proven. Kids are different."

William Schulz, executive director of Amnesty International USA, said, "Today, the court repudiated the misguided idea that the United States can pledge to leave no child behind while simultaneously exiling children to the death chamber."

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1807, old post ID:24551

[sintekk]

I'm curious as to what's going to happen to the kids already on Death Row. Are they going to get re-sentenced?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1807, old post ID:24563

[Stasi]

I'm curious as to what's going to happen to the kids already on Death Row. Are they going to get re-sentenced?

They'll likely serve life in prison.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1807, old post ID:24592

[sintekk]

Makes sense, I suppose.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1807, old post ID:24593

[000]

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/national...articleid=71200

A 14-year-old boy was charged with shooting a school bus driver to death as she drove her morning route Wednesday. A relative of the driver said she had reported the boy a day earlier for using smokeless tobacco on the bus.

I'm sure he's real sorry about the whole thing. I say get him off the planet!

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1807, old post ID:24595

[Bookworm]

What I am wondering is if we will even continue charging juveniles as adults in any criminal cases, after all, what is the point of charging them as adults if they cannot recieve the same sentence that an adult would get for the same crime. If capitol punishment is too stringent for a juvenile, wouldn't life in prison also be too stringent for a juvenile?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1807, old post ID:24620

[sintekk]

What I am wondering is if we will even continue charging juveniles as adults in any criminal cases, after all, what is the point of charging them as adults if they cannot recieve the same sentence that an adult would get for the same crime. If capitol punishment is too stringent for a juvenile, wouldn't life in prison also be too stringent for a juvenile?

That's a good question, though I think that Life in prison is reasonable if they commit a crime that'd land an adult for life in Prison.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1807, old post ID:24627

[Chris Vogel]

I was certainly happy to hear of this!

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1807, old post ID:24631

[Bookworm]

"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," he wrote in the 25-page opinion.

Isn't instability and emotional imbalance a factor in adult crimes, too? Yet we still expect people to not commit those crimes, and if they do, they should suffer the consequences. People younger than 18 can understand that murder is wrong.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1807, old post ID:24736

[MrSelf]

Isn't instability and emotional imbalance a factor in adult crimes, too? Yet we still expect people to not commit those crimes, and if they do, they should suffer the consequences. People younger than 18 can understand that murder is wrong.

Certainly so, however, the legal system is set up for adults, we give right and responsbilities to those able to handle them, deemed 21 by the fact that our government is elected by those over 21. This kind of gray area needs to be addressed, imo. Do children have all the rights of adults? At what point do you accept the full rights and resposibilities of being a member of society? Society seems to say parents/adults have rights over children, yet the law is blurry. Regardless, when the violation is so grave as to take anothers life, something drastic must be done.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1807, old post ID:24747

[Red Squirrel]

You can only vote at 21 in the states?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1807, old post ID:24762

[Bookworm]

You can only vote at 21 in the states?

No, voting is at 18. You can't buy alcohol until you're 21, though.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1807, old post ID:24765

[Brooklynite]

Certainly so, however, the legal system is set up for adults, we give right and responsbilities to those able to handle them, deemed 21 by the fact that our government is elected by those over 21. This kind of gray area needs to be addressed, imo. Do children have all the rights of adults? At what point do you accept the full rights and resposibilities of being a member of society? Society seems to say parents/adults have rights over children, yet the law is blurry. Regardless, when the violation is so grave as to take anothers life, something drastic must be done.

Where have you been? The last time that the age of majority was 21 was in 1971.

Children should not have all the rights of adults, but they should have all the rights that are guaranteed to them by the constitution. Unfortunately the government seem to deny them even those rights, with curfew laws, random drug searches in schools, censorship and the like.

You accept all the rights and responsibilities of society when you turn 18 with the exception of the right to drink, gamble or buy a machine gun. I think that that one should have full rights at 18. It doesn't make much sense that you are can take a gamle with your life by going to war at 18, but not be able to gamble for fun untill your 21. It makes little sense that you are considered mature enough to handle a gun at 18, but not be able to handle a can of beer.

I don't think the law is blury about parent's rights. Basically parent's have full rights over their children untill they're 18.

How far do you go when it comes to punishing children for their crimes. Recently their was a case where a ten year old shot and killed his father. Do you think that this kid should get the death penatly?



Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1807, old post ID:24809

[Red Squirrel]

You can only vote at 21 in the states?

No, voting is at 18. You can't buy alcohol until you're 21, though.

Oh ok, yeah same in Canada, well you can buy alcohol at 19 I think. Smoking is weird, since you have to be 19 to buy smokes, but 18 to smoke, or something like that. That's basically saying it's ok to have someone else buy it for you. lol

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1807, old post ID:24812

[Bookworm]

Children should not have all the rights of adults, but they should have all the rights that are guaranteed to them by the constitution. Unfortunately the government seem to deny them even those rights, with curfew laws, random drug searches in schools, censorship and the like.

Where does the Constitution guarentee no curfew laws?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1807, old post ID:24813

[Brooklynite]

First Ammendment to the Constitution
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free excercize thereof or abridging the freedom of speech or the press, or the right of people to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1807, old post ID:24815

[000]

or the right of people to peaceably assemble

I'm pretty sure that this is not pertaining to your curfew.

freedom of assembly:
The right to hold public meetings and form associations without interference by the government.




Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1807, old post ID:24823

[Brooklynite]

Exactly, and if there is a curfew law in effect, that would prevent children from holding public meetings and forming associations without interference from the government. The constitutionality of a law doesn't really matter too much when it comes to children though. All the government has to say is that there is a compelling state interest, and that right can easily be denied.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1807, old post ID:24828

[Bookworm]

Curfews don't prevent children from holding meetings. They can hold all the meetings they want before their curfew time. If I as an adult organize a protest rally in front of the mayor's house, I would be wise to make it happen during the day rather than at 1:00 in the morning. Public nuisance laws would interfere with my right to assemble at that time in that place. And I don't see anything wrong with random drug searches in schools if the kids know at the beginning of the year that random drug searches are a possibility.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1807, old post ID:24830

[000]

Exactly, and if there is a curfew law in effect, that would prevent children from holding public meetings and forming associations without interference from the government. The constitutionality of a law doesn't really matter too much when it comes to children though. All the government has to say is that there is a compelling state interest, and that right can easily be denied.

What is you point? Do you want to walk the streets at 2am?


Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1807, old post ID:24835

[Brooklynite]

No I don't. I just think there is something wrong with arresting a person because they are under a certain age and out late at night. This kind of law is makes a mockerey about what this country is all about- freedom.
Here are some specific arguments against having curfews:

1. They don't necessarily reduce juvenile crime. In fact a curfew may even increase it.
2. Parents can set their own curfews for their children.
3. Most juvenile crime occurs between the hours of 2PM and 8 PM a time that no curfew law covers.
4. Curfews are age discriminatory
5. Loss of an individual's freedom to walk on the streets without being set upon by the police.
6. A direct violation of people's civil rights
7. Relations between the police and youth become more antagonistic
8.Children will grow up with a hatred for the police and the law.
9. Finally, a curfew will do does not solve the problems that lead a child to a life of crime

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1807, old post ID:24876

[MrSelf]

Certainly so, however, the legal system is set up for adults, we give right and responsbilities to those able to handle them, deemed 21 by the fact that our government is elected by those over 21. This kind of gray area needs to be addressed, imo. Do children have all the rights of adults? At what point do you accept the full rights and resposibilities of being a member of society? Society seems to say parents/adults have rights over children, yet the law is blurry. Regardless, when the violation is so grave as to take anothers life, something drastic must be done.

Where have you been? The last time that the age of majority was 21 was in 1971.

Yeah, I wasn't thinking that sentance through, I meant that all the rights are not given until the age of 21, not voting rights. 21 is when you have all the rights given to you.

Children should not have all the rights of adults, but they should have all the rights that are guaranteed to them by the constitution. Unfortunately the government seem to deny them even those rights, with curfew laws, random drug searches in schools, censorship and the like.

Yet below you give all rights to parents, which one is it? You can't have both, parents have to be able to control exposure to parent at if you give children all rights of the constitution, if you treat them like adults, parents have no rights over their children. And there are no special clauses that refer to children specifically in the rights they have differently from adults, nor does it give the rights to parents.


You accept all the rights and responsibilities of society when you turn 18 with the exception of the right to drink, gamble or buy a machine gun. I think that that one should have full rights at 18. It doesn't make much sense that you are can take a gamle with your life by going to war at 18, but not be able to gamble for fun untill your 21. It makes little sense that you are considered mature enough to handle a gun at 18, but not be able to handle a can of beer.

I agree, I think the law needs to be more consistant in this regard.

I don't think the law is blury about parent's rights. Basically parent's have full rights over their children untill they're 18.

How far do you go when it comes to punishing children for their crimes. Recently their was a case where a ten year old shot and killed his father. Do you think that this kid should get the death penatly?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1807, old post ID:24897

[000]

OK, so where do you draw the line? Should a 10yr old be allowed to drive? Drink? Smoke, own and carry a gun? walk the streets alone at 2am?

A person needs to be mature enough to make a decision about there actions and know the consequences. Some adults can't even do this, but I think most curfew laws are ok. What are your curfews? and why would your parents let you stay out later? Just to hang out?
I believe here it's 11pm on the weekday and 1am on the weekend.
But my daughter will have a different cerfew when she gets of age of course.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1807, old post ID:24914