Score one against barbarism

[Relbeek Einre]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7051296/

No more juvenile death penalty.

Huzzah!

[Relbeek Einre]

Oh, the ruling was 5-4. Perennial fascists Rhenquist, Scalia and Thomas dissented, as did swing vote O'Connor, though she had different, and IMHO more reasonable reasons for her dissent than the others

[Aabe]

Beek are you against the death penalty in all cases or just for juviniles?

[Relbeek Einre]

All cases. But especially so in the case of juveniles and the mentally disabled.

[ZanypherCocoapuffs]

While I agree with the decision, the ruling on the 8th Amendment I find odd. Why dont they just say the truth? Children under 18 are not protected nor prescribed within the Constitution (indeed, for all intents and purposes, a person isn't a citizen until they're 18) and therefore exempt from the capital punishments that are arraigned against adults?

Though I guess that might set a dangerous precedent. We have qualifications for juveniles by the very definition of the word. To include them in adult punishments is simply a violation of that particular definition. Just not sure it is "cruel and unusual punishment" nor covered under that amendment.

Still, like I said, I agree with the decision. People under 18 shouldn't be subject to the death penalty. Those who are not adults cannot be held under adult punishments.

[Aabe]

I find 18 an arbitrary age to pick. Some people are very mature at 18, some are not. One day POOF!! youare now an adult and subject to a host of laws, yesterday you were not subject to. Just seems odd.

[superwalrus]

inventing an arbitrary cap on when a person can or cannot be executed is the silliest thing I've ever heard of in my life. What needs to be put into place is a fluid test of competency and maturity.

Walrus

[Torakus]

Relbeek,

/semantic correctness hat on

I know that you see the death penalty as an act of barbarism, and in the case of executing children it is. But the language used to strike down juvenile death penalty is a strike against barbarity, not barbarism.

/semantic correctness hat off


It, however, in reality, is what you called it. Executing children and the mentally disabled is both ignorant and unacceptable, especially with the proven track record of our individual state justice system's abilty to convict innocents of capital crimes. Although I believe that the State should hold the power of the ultimate punishment in all cases, the margin of error is far from accpetable as it stands.

Tora

[Relbeek Einre]

walrus: That was O'Connor's opinion.

[Aabe]

It, however, in reality, is what you called it. Executing children and the mentally disabled is both ignorant and unacceptable, especially with the proven track record of our individual state justice system's abilty to convict innocents of capital crimes. Although I believe that the State should hold the power of the ultimate punishment in all cases, the margin of error is far from accpetable as it stands.

Tora

Interesting topic. I would guess at least 1 in 25 convictions of all kinds are inccorect convictions.

Sadly though many of those 1 in 25 were most likely guilty of the same or worse but not caught at it.

I was surprised initally when I heard the numbers, but after talking with a number of public defenders, kinda lost my part of my anger over it.

Seems there is not perfect system and in many of the incorrect convictions, the punished wasn't really innocent in a manner of speaking.

Usually to go to jail or to be executed you need priors, and such.

Till someone can create a perfect lie dectector (never happen) and the courts allow it to be forced used. I can't figure out what else there is to be done.

But giving what I understand, many of the innocent executed weren't all the atrocities as I had origninally thought.

The real scary thing is, that even if I follow all the laws, it is possible for me to end up in jail. But I live with the fear of a meteor striking me some day, I guess I can live with this.

[Beestyall]

Does this mean that we can cut off the age of driving to 18?

It's about personal responsibilty, if they can't be responsible enough to make decissions that impact their life, they shouldn't be able to get behind the wheel of a car. They shouldn't be able to keep kids and/or should be forced to maintain temporary sterilization.

In the end, you are setting an arbitrary line, nothing more, nothing less. It's great if you are against CP, however the larger debate should have been meaningful prision reform. There's a lot of wasteland in northern Alaska/northern Canada that could house super-max and max prisions...

[ZanypherCocoapuffs]

Does this mean that we can cut off the age of driving to 18?

We could. Driving is not a right protected in the constitution nor any state law. It is a privaledge. The right to life, and the crimes involved with taking another's life, are completely seperate matters.

[Torakus]

We could. Driving is not a right protected in the constitution nor any state law. It is a privaledge.

Not true. In the United States Supreme Court decision in Bell v. Burson they recognized that a license's "continued possession may become essential in the pursuit of a livelihood" and therefore is a right. Because of their value, then, they "are not to be taken away without that procedural due process required by the Fourteenth Amendment".

Tora

[jookkor]

you dont need a wasteland to house a supermax prison, in fact its better to place one near a populated area, its generally a really good move for the community. And if it presents a danger, then its not a supermax and isnt being run correctly.

[Tholiak Eladamri]

If you murder someone...your old enough to die

[vaulos]

I don't have a real problem with getting rid of the death penalty for minors (or in general really), but the supreme court is the WRONG group to be making that decision. Last I checked, the voice of the people concerning "our modern notions of morality" was Congress.

[Riggen]

The particular justification used to make the ruling doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Personally, I don't care one way or the other, as long as the sniper and those like him are never given the chance to harm anyone again.

But I'll bet that many family members of that guy's victims would willingly accept Beek's mantle of "barbarian" to see him dead, as would many of us had we similarly lost loved ones to his sniping.

I know I would in a heartbeat.

[Relbeek Einre]

As would I, Riggen, but that's a bogus argument.

Because a lot of those same people wouldn't be interested in giving him a fair trial either.

There's a reason we have the rule of law in this country.

[Riggen]

Not an argument, Beek. Just a statement.

[Narith]

While I agree with the decision, the ruling on the 8th Amendment I find odd. Why dont they just say the truth? Children under 18 are not protected nor prescribed within the Constitution (indeed, for all intents and purposes, a person isn't a citizen until they're 18) and therefore exempt from the capital punishments that are arraigned against adults?

Though I guess that might set a dangerous precedent. We have qualifications for juveniles by the very definition of the word. To include them in adult punishments is simply a violation of that particular definition. Just not sure it is "cruel and unusual punishment" nor covered under that amendment.

Still, like I said, I agree with the decision. People under 18 shouldn't be subject to the death penalty. Those who are not adults cannot be held under adult punishments.

Ah, but the crimes they commit are very adult in nature are they not? What makes a murder commited by a 16 year old any less of a crime than one commited by a 19 year old? A person under the age of 18 may not have the same rights as one over the age of 18, however they should still be held accountable under the same penalties for heinous crimes. The arguement against that I believe is that someone under the age of 18 does not have the comprehension to understand what they did was a crime which we all know is false reasoning. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong in my understanding of why someone under the age of 18 is not held to the same reponsibility in the case of a crime such as murder as someone over the age of 18.

Capitol punishment is a nessicary (sp?) evil of our society unfortunatly. Due to the fact that our justice system is flawed however you will find a small percentage of people who are truely innocent caught in the system. This presents a catch 22, people who do things to deserve the death penalty actually do deserve it and in order to maintain societies saftey and remove these predators from our midst it is needed as they can not be rehabilitated, and releasing them into the general population of the prisons only servers to endanger those in prison who though do deserve punishment for thier crimes, do not deserve that sort of risk... you are placing a fox in the hen house so to speak. On the other hand due to the flawed system it is no more right to execute an innocent person than it is to remove such a violent threat from our population.

So I geuss it boils down to, which creates more victims? Allowing someone to live who deserves the death penalty, or keeping the death penatly knowing that one day you may execute an innocent? Personally in my opinion allowing those who deserve the death penalty to live will ultimatly create more victims, it does not however make it any easier on the concious knowing that you may slay an innocent person in the process, I still stand by that the death penalty is a needed evil, one that should not be removed and one that should be applied to all predators of this type no matter the age.

As disgusting and vile as it makes me feel I have to agree with Tholiak. If you are old enough to visciously murder someone, you are old enough to die for your crimes.

I need to shower now for agreeing with Tholiak