According to the Washington Post, the SCOTUS has issued a ruling striking down State laws that allow for the execution of those under 18 years of age. The ruling is the result of a 5-4 split, with Justices Scalia, Thomas, O’Connor, and Chief Justice Rehnquist dissenting.
What say you? Activism run rampant on the bench, a proper exercise of judicial review? Should those under the age of 18 be held to the same degree of culpability as those who are legally adults?
Linkety-link?
I find Ken Lay’s rapacity a whole lot more execrable than a five-year-old stealing a piece of candy, who may not even be aware that the open bin in the store is not like the candy bowl at home. I’m prepared to go either way on this, based on what the Court’s logic was. (That I’m personally opposed to most but not all death sentences admittedly has a bearing on my opinion.) A city planner’s brief summary of a Washington Post reporter’s story on a Supreme Court decision does not convince me about the acceptability of that decision, I regret to say. (I’d make an exception for Euclid v. Ambler or First English ;))
Here’s a link to a news story, but if someone has a link to the actual opinion of the court, that would help. It’s hard to comment on the rightness or wrongness until you see the actual arguments made.
The Washington Post link requires registration, and people never fail to flay me alive when I post the, so I neglected to do so.
And the fact that you’re aware of the Euclid decision means I have to keep my eye on you…
Here’s text of opinion.
Sorry 'bout that.
Based on what the news story says, I’m leaning a bit towards “activist judges” at this point. Is there any precedent for the court setting the age at which certain rights and/or responsibilities kick in? To quote one of the dissenters:
n.b.: I personally oppose the death penalty (even for adults), but still recognize that as something up to the legislature to determine, not the courts.
Time to amend the constitution to make it ok to treat non-adults like non-adults except when we don’t wanna (dp), and while we’re at it, make a note that it is ok to treat adults like adults except when we don’t wanna (drinking age). If we don’t the Supreme Court will run roughshod over our solemn and completely obvious and clear definition of what it means to be “adult”!
(note: I haven’t a clue what the court’s justification is, I’m just bitchy about the DP for people under the age of being declared totally competent for all activities. I’ll read it later and probably retract my bitchiness. This does smell rotten.)
I’m not a lawyer, particularly not a con-law expert and not resident in the US since 1996. So. Feel free to ignore my opinion one way or the other.
The description in the OP doesn’t make clear that we’re not talking about under-16s; no one mentioned in the story wants to execute them. It’s entirely a question about 16 and 17 year olds, and my feeling is that - unless and until we’re ready to discard the death penalty entirely, soon come the day! - 16 and 17 year olds are old enough to be executed for some crimes.
The “cruel and unusual punishment” justification seems flimsy if we don’t count the death penalty as such punishment. A quote that came up in a Google search:
That’s a pretty high bar, and I don’t think that it’s crossed in all cases. For example, executing a 17 year old who goes on a spree of killings does not seem to me to be so disproportionate as all that. This is not to say that the fact that the felon is under 18 shouldn’t /alter/ the bar for the death penalty, just that I don’t see any reason that it should be completely out of bounds for a 17 year old and in bounds for an 18 year old.
Argue against the death penalty in principle, and do it in the legislature. This sort of thing is what gets many people annoyed about judicial activism, and muddies the water when judges have to make necessary judgements over-turning the legislature.
The Constitution says “cruel and unusual.” If Congress wants a strict definition, amend the Constitution. As it now stands, the courts have vast latitude to interpret punishments under the Consitution.
As for why 18… why any number? Why do we vote at 18? If you accept the notion that it is unjust to execute people too young to understand the ramifications of their actions, then you’re left with very few choices. You can leave it vague and give this level of discretion to local judges and juries, resulting in wide variance of sentencing by district that would seem unjust to those sentenced. Or you can enforce a single standard that preserves uniform justice at the cost of individual discretion. Neither method is perfect. The specific age is just the currently accepted estimate of the average age at which people can grasp the end result of the crimes they commit.
Of course you can dismiss the notion of the age of reason entirely, but that’s not perfect either. How are you going to feel when they electrocute a seven year old?
In fact, the Supreme Court has already struck down the death penalty once for leaving too much latitude for judges and juries to interpret and apply the punishment. The current death penalty statutes leave much less latitude. Specifically, judges and juries are now required to weigh mitigating and aggravating circumstances before deciding whether the death penalty is appropriate. It’s no longer a “fly by the seat of your pants/go by your gut instinct” determination by the judges and juries.
Obviously, not all latitude is removed. But if we removed all latitude, we’d actually require juries to execute criminals even when they felt the death penalty wasn’t warranted under the circumstances. I think that would be terrible.
Let me first say that I oppose the death penalty for minors, and think we use the death penalty way too often in this country. But there are a number of reasons that I don’t feel good about this decision.
First, it means that five people in robes have determined what is “cruel and unusual punishment.” If that phrase refers to anything, it should refer to what’s cruel and unusual to Americans in general. And Americans clearly appear to support the death penalty – in certain limited circumstances – for individuals under the age of 18. But because five robed individuals feel otherwise, the apparent morals of America in general appear to be immaterial.
Second, I have great faith in the jury system, which relies heavily on the will and wisdom of the people when confronted with the individual facts in each case. I have faith that the judges and juries that get to hear and weigh the individual circumstances of each case will make the best decision possible. I have much less faith that nine Justices, without any knowledge of the facts and circumstances of those cases, will be able to decide whether the death penalty would be moral.
Third, the decision relied heavily upon the laws in other countries and international treaties, including some treaties that were not ratified by the US. Suddenly, the US Supreme Court is de facto forcing the US to comply with treaties that the People (through their legislature) rejected. Suddenly, the Legislatures in Belgium and Paris get to overrule the American Legislature in deciding what laws will be passed and enforced in America. In my opinion, that sets a dangerous precedent.
Moreover, if the situation were reversed and world opinion strongly supported and American opinion strongly opposed the death penalty for minors, I don’t think the Justices should or would have cited to world opinion in overruling American opinion on what is “cruel and unusual.” If world opinion begins to favor flaying as an effective means of punishment, does that mean that it is no longer “cruel and unusual” in the US?
I don’t think the voting age is an appropriate metaphor. Sure, in some things we accept a number that we all agree on as an estimate of an appropriate age. But in death penalty cases, the individual circumstances are weighed. No state allows the death penalty for a minor without the judge and jury finding that the individual has the requisite mental capacity to be treated as an adult. So if the person is actually one of the immature minors that you’re talking about, then he or she will not receive the death penalty. I think when we’re talking about the death penalty, it would be much more appropriate to weigh the individual circumstances each time, rather than just set an appropriate estimate.
As pointed out earlier, they’re not going to execute a 7 year old. The Supreme Court has already ruled that executions of anyone 15 and under shocks the conscience enough as to constitute “cruel and unusual punishment.” This decision was focused solely on executions of those that are 16 or 17.
You may be able to vote at 18, but you can’t rent a car until you’re 25. There’s a good reason for that, too-- not just statistics. The human brain doesn’t really mature until that age. The section of the brain that deals with moral choices and impulse control isn’t fully formed until about that age. Arguably, people under the age of 25 who commit crimes are doing so under a sort of impaired capacity.
This is not to say that they shouldn’t be punished-- else how would they learn? However, it seems to me that there should at least be an understanding of biological factors. After all, the most mature fourteen-year-old is still a fourteen-year-old-- you wouldn’t let them live alone, for example. But it’s possible that we would consider them old enough to be executed?
Conversely, some forty-year-olds have never become mature. My husband, who works in corrections, has expressed frustration because sometimes he can’t make inmates understand what seem to him to be very simple concepts of right-and-wrong that every adult should find almost instinctive by their age. They just were never taught crucial concepts like empathy, and thus the concepts seem foreign and a bit bizarre. They genuinely cannot understand why they should care if their actions hurt others.
In a sense, people like these need therapy more than they need prison. Prison isn’t a learning or constructive experience. More likely than not, the inmate will leave with more negative behaviors than he came in with unless there is therapy which aims to make him understand his role in society-- almost resocialization.
It’s very hard, if not impossible for a jury of twelve strangers who see the defendant for only a few hours out of his/her life, and hear only biased testimony (defense and prosecution) about that person, to make a sound decision about that person’s maturity level.
When all is said and done, a single standard for everyone is the only way that’s fair. Leaving the decision up to individual judges or juries leaves room for too many abuses and miscarriages of justice.
Discretion can, and often does, equal unfairness: after all, who’s to say that a jury member isn’t really judging maturity, but rather deciding whether or not to try a defendant as an adult on basis of, say, race? Juries are comprised of human beings with various flaws, predjudice being one of the most concerning.
Secondly, sometimes, a defendant is just plain unlikable-- what if juries base their judgement of maturity based more on the fact they dislike the defendant than whether or not the defendant is really responsible for his actions?
And, again, juries only see a person for a few hours out of a lifetime. Stories are presented on both sides to demonstrate maturity, or lack thereof. Juries may hear a particular story and give it more weight because of its emotional impact than testimony about years of dissimilar behavior which aren’t as memorable. They may see a well-dressed, quiet defendant in court who looks like a responsible, sober adult, but they may never hear of him acting up in jail.
Guilt or innocence are decided on forensic evidence. Maturity levels must be judged on antectdotes and appearance. It’s inherently flawed.
I’m confused by this-- doesn’t ***every ***trial depends on the decisions of individual judges or juries? That’s the whole premise of the jury system and why we don’t use a computer to determin guilt or inocence.
I’m mildly in favor of the death penalty but I’m also in favor of this decision. I don’t believe people under the age of 18 should be treated as adults by criminal courts.
Marc
I have a feeling this won’t sit well with alot of people.
I wonder what Mr Carter thinks about the Georgia’s laws with regards to marriage.
You don’t have to agree with him or his stance on abortion to acknowledge he does has a point
Exactly. That part of the Constitution invites judicial activism.
At least we no longer have this in common with Yemen, North Korea, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. You know, those bastions of enlightened thought.
No. As I said-- while guilt or innocence is decided upon based on facts, or at least reasoned inferrance, based on evidence, deciding on a defendant’s maturity depends on antecdotes, appearance and guesswork-- a flimsy basis for judgement at best. It’s almost impossible to prove or disprove a state of mind.
The question is, though, how you get there. Do you get there thru the legislative process, or thru a ruling by a few judges. Keep in mind that you won’t always agree with the judges, and there is nothing* you can do to change a ruling.
*not in the absolute sense, but compared to how you can change a legislative decision, it’s pretty much nothing
Horseshit. If my capacity were limited before that age, I doubt the Navy would have allowed me to become an OPCON watch supervisor, monitoring numerous NATO aircraft in-flight while simultaneously preparing briefing materials and debriefing returning aircrews.
I am disturbed by people who’d push full adulthood and full adult responsibility further and further into a person’s life. We have tons of people over age 25 now living with mommy and daddy because they’re not ready to live on their own. By that age, my parents had been married for three years, and I had already been born.
I have no problem with an age of execution being set at 18. I am troubled that the Supreme Court decided such, rather than letting the legislatures handle it. I’m infuriated that international treaties were invoked in the decision - treaties the United States were not party to.
This is a bad decision, even if I agree with the ends.
Considering that they’re not given the same rights as those who are legally adults, then no. Absolutely not! You don’t get to arbitrarily call someone a child or an adult based on which one suits your interests. If you want to treat a 17 year old as an adult in court, then let him vote and buy cigarettes too.
Actually, you can rent a car if you’re under 25, depending on the company (but you’ll probably be charged extra - $10/day at Enterprise, IIRC). As far as I’m aware, there are no laws against renting cars to folks under 25, just company policies based on driving statistics.