Murder At Any Age
by Big Dog on Mar 1, 2005 at 18:46 Political
The sometimes Supreme Court of the United States ruled today that executing minors, those under the age of 18, is unconstitutional. They declared that the Constitution forbids putting to death killers who are under the agre of 18. Now isn’t this interesting? I have not found any reference to this in the Constitution. I don’t claim to be a scholar in this area but I can read. There are age requirements to hold office and there is a voting age defined as 18 in the XXVI th Amendment but I just can not find the execution age defined anywhere. I suppose the justices cited the VIII th Amendment and its prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. So I guess it is OK for a 16 or 17 year old to kill someone, which is cruel and unusual, but the government can not seek the death penalty in retribution.
The Court has effectively taken away state’s rights. It is the individual states that decide on punishment for crimes committed within their boundries. The High Court took a postition today that effectively violates the rights of all 50 states. Disagreements over state’s rights is what caused the whole mess that caused the south to leave the Union and led to the Civil War.
I can not understand why the Court decided to take the state’s rights away, why they decided the Constitution forbids this practice, and I can not figure out how the arbitrary number of 18 was decided upon as the age upon which one is instantly accountable for his actions. I suppose that if a person is 17 years 364 days old and murders someone then he did not know any better. If he had only waited just one more day for the light to come on he would have realized the error of his ways. I also wonder how it is that we can claim that certain offenders will be tried as adults yet we will not allow them to receive adult punishment. It is beyond me how a 16 or 17 year old is not responsible for these actions. Our government has decided that 16 year old girls are mature enough to seek abortions without parental consent. Now, if the same 16 year old murders someone then she is not mature enough to receive the death penalty.
Justice Kennedy (just the name tells you it will be a disaster) wrote:
Our society views juveniles … as categorically less culpable than the average criminal
I want you to put on your thinking caps, something the justices must have left home. Remember a few years back there were a bunch of killings in the DC area. The DC area sniper was the term given by the press. If memory serves, there were 10 killed and 6 wounded, including a child. One of the shooters, Lee Malvo, was 17 at the time he murdered some of those people. Under this ruling, Malvo is now free of the burden of the death penalty. I wonder if Justice Kennedy feels that Malvo was less culpable than the average criminal. Kennedy claimed that our society views it this way. I think one would be hard pressed to find people in this society who feel Malvo was “less culpable.” I also wonder how the justices would have felt if Malvo had whacked one of their family members.
I am not against the death penalty but I don’t think it is the end all (except for the one put to death) but I feel that life without parole accomplishes the same thing, it costs less, and it does not give the murderer an easy way out. Living in a cage like an animal for the rest of one’s life has to be terrible punishment. Having said that, I do not think the death penalty should be abolished. People like Malvo need to be put to death. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court just told the youth of America that they can kill and not pay with their lives.
The story is at My Way News.
Tags: Political
“…the Supreme Court just told the youth of America that they can kill and not pay with their lives.”
It doesn’t mean they get away with murder. They will still spend life in prison.
Supreme Court says you’re not mature enough to face the death penalty until you’re 18…
it’s so telling that Democrats would think someone 4 years younger than that is mature enough to vote…
Adam,
They might spend the rest of their lives in prison. The way the juvenile justice system is they might figure the murderer is rehabilitated and let them out when they turn 21.
Perhaps, Big Dog. But what if it’s true? Maybe they can reform indeed. In the case of the DC Sniper, wasn’t that an issue of mind control, a key issue in young people? It seems so long ago now. I’d honestly not thought about it in a while until you brought it up…
Jason:
If you had to be at a certain maturity level to vote, a lot of us would be SOL. I don’t think I’d relate the age you can vote to the age you can be sentinced to death.
I didn’t. Here’s what Justice Anthony Kennedy writing for the majority said, “…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.”
And following up on the point you made re: the sniper and mind control, fully supports the point I was trying to make in that Democrats are targeting a segment of the population they know will be easy to manipulate and control in their voting practices. It falls in lockstep with their pandering to other groups that are easily duped by broken promises and false hopes.
Well, the largest group of voters for Democrats ARE the young ones. Maybe you’re right. The Democrats are just always duping somebody…
You stated an argument based on maturity though. I agree somewhat though. The average American isn’t as informed as they need to be, and it would only get worse with younger people. However, that’s not how voting works. As for maturity, it is pretty relative if you ask me.
I’m not sure if I agree with making the voting age younger myself. Not by four years anyway. Although, getting children involved earlier in life could be a good thing. It’s something I need to think about for a bit…