# SCOTUS Finds Death Penalty for Those Under 18 Unconstitutional **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 1, 2005, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484 "2005-03-01T20:43:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2005, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/21 "2005-03-02T05:07:37Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > 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. Not the same thing. If we grant 17 year olds the vote, we are saying that ALL 17 year olds are capable of making an informed choice. Saying that 17 year olds can get the death penalty isn’t saying that ALL 17 year olds will get the death penalty, or even that all 17 year old murderers will get the death penalty. It says that juries are allowed to decide, on a case by case basis, whether the particular 17 year old was capable of making an “adult” decision about a particular crime. Read some of the crimes discussed in the link to the SCOTUS decision, and I think you’ll see that we are not talking about casual crimes. These were premeditated, gruesome murders. If we set up juries to decide if each 17 year old, on a case by case basis, was capable of voting, then you might have an point. But we can’t and we don’t. Personally, I would not vote to for having the death penalty apply to 17 year olds. But I want to be able to decide that, not have the SC judges decide it for me. ---
**Author:** ![rfgdxm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c0e974/32.png) [@rfgdxm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rfgdxm)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2005, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/22 "2005-03-02T05:13:21Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Personally, I would not vote to for having the death penalty apply to 17 year olds. But I want to be able to decide that, not have the SC judges decide it for me. Then get to work on amending the Constitution. The current Constitution say that it os the place of SC justices to decide this. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2005, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/23 "2005-03-02T05:17:13Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Read some of the crimes discussed in the link to the SCOTUS decision, and I think you’ll see that we are not talking about casual crimes. These were premeditated, gruesome murders. If you’re saying that proves the teenagers in question have adult judgment, then so be it. They can use that judgment to sign a contract, choose a candidate, run for office, buy cigarettes, etc. just like they can use it to plan a murder, right? > [@](#): > > If we set up juries to decide if each 17 year old, on a case by case basis, was capable of voting, then you might have an point. But we can’t and we don’t. That’s what I’m saying. If a jury decides that an individual 17 year old is an adult for the purpose of being tried and sentenced, then he should be treated as an adult everywhere else too. He doesn’t stop being an adult the minute he walks out of the courtroom. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2005, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/24 "2005-03-02T05:22:43Z")
> [@rfgdxm](#): > > Then get to work on amending the Constitution. The current Constitution say that it os the place of SC justices to decide this. Where, exactly, in the constitution does it say this? I’ll save you the trouble of looking it up-- it doesn’t. We’ve agreed, though, that this is the way it’s going to be, and I’m OK with that. But I’m also A-OK with the idea that Bush will appoint justices that are more constuctionist than many of those currently on the bench. And, btw, the president appointing justices IS in the consutition, and one party filibustering against nominations in NOT in the constitution. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2005, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/25 "2005-03-02T05:24:42Z")
> [@rfgdxm](#): > > Then get to work on amending the Constitution. The current Constitution say that it os the place of SC justices to decide this. Are you saying that law can only arise from the judicial branch? That would be a constitutionally flawed assumption, you know. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2005, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/26 "2005-03-02T05:50:53Z")
Reading the opinion now. I’m not quite following the dissent so far. “Yeah, it is just like that other case that I agreed with, except the part where I agree.” [paraphrase] Compelling. Then there was a, “Yeah, maybe there’d have been a stronger consensus if so many states didn’t already legislate against it, but since they did, the shift in legislation wasn’t as impressive even though 29 states and the federal government seem to agree. So, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. So mote it be.” [paraphrased] _Wicked_ compelling. > [@](#): > > Here, bycontrast, the proportionality argument against the juvenile death penalty is so flawed that it can be given little, if any, analytical weight—it proves too weak to resolve the lingering ambiguities in the objective evidence of legislative consensus or to justify the Court’s categorical rule. What’s next, striking down age of consent laws because of, whassit, lingering ambiguities in the objective evidence? Or would it be because there wouldn’t be a rush of legislation because that legislation largely exists? It is hard to make sense of this dissenting opinion. > [@](#): > > But at least at the margins between adolescence and adulthood—and especially for 17-year-olds such as respondent—the relevant differences between “adults” and “juveniles” appear to be a matter of degree, rather than ofkind. You know, I _knew_ the bartender should have sold me that drink. Doesn’t this judge wish to respect all the legislation surrounding being a competent adult? What’s the problem? > [@](#): > > And Simmons’ prediction that he could murder with impunity because he had not yet turned 18—though inaccurate—suggests that he did take into account the perceived risk of punishment in deciding whether to commit the crime. Err, note to judge: “expecting to get away with it” doesn’t mean “expecting to get punished and thinking it is worth the risk.” To competent 17 year olds or incompetent ones. Or most native English speakers. > [@](#): > > The Court’s proportionality argument suffers from a second and closely related defect: It fails to establish that the differences in maturity between 17-year-olds and young “adults” are both universal enough and significant enough to justify a bright-line prophylactic rule against capital punishment of the former. Oh, I thought we were talking about deferring to the legislatures. My bad. > [@](#): > > Indeed, the age-based line drawn by the Court is indefensibly arbitrary—it quite likely will protect a number of offenders who are mature enough to deserve the death penalty and may well leave vulnerable many who are not. Next time you are facing a statutory rape charge, you know what judge you want sitting on the bench! “Indefensibly arbitrary.” I like that. Someone should tell the legislature. > [@](#): > > But these concerns may properly be addressed not by means of an arbitrary, categorical age-based rule, but rather through individualized sentencing in which juries are required to give appropriate mitigating weight to the defendant’s immaturity, his susceptibility to outside pressures, his cognizance of the consequences of his actions, and so forth. Except the voting thing. And the joining the military thing. And the drinking age thing. And the… oh, hell, let’s face it. All laws are arbitrary, everything should be up to the legislature, except killing 7 year olds, or the jury, and my penis pump is not performing as advertised. **John Mace** > [@](#): > > Where, exactly, in the constitution does it say this? Where, exactly, is “cruel and unusual” defined anywhere? Who but the judicial system, which of course includes jurors, can decide this? The legislature _can_… and there is a nice appendix in the opinion which shows that quite a few _have_, or at least in specific cases like executing minors. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2005, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/27 "2005-03-02T06:06:28Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > Where, exactly, is “cruel and unusual” defined anywhere? Who but the judicial system, which of course includes jurors, can decide this? The legislature _can_… and there is a nice appendix in the opinion which shows that quite a few _have_, or at least in specific cases like executing minors. My point, in case you missed it, was that the constitution does NOT grant the authority to the SCOTUS to overturn laws in grounds of unconstitutionality. Most people assume that it does, but it doesn’t. Here’s everything the constution says about the judiciary: > [@](#): > > Article III > > Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office. > > Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;–to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;–to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;–to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;–to controversies between two or more states;–between a state and citizens of another state;–between citizens of different states;–between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects. > > In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make. > > The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed. > > Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. > > The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted. It was the court itself, in [_Marbury v Madison_](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison), that estblished the authority of the court to rule on the constitutionality of laws. Clearly, this authority is now well established and seldom, if ever, challenged. However, claiming that the constution gives the court this aurthority is simply incorrect. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2005, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/28 "2005-03-02T06:15:35Z")
No, I caught that point. Meanwhile, you can get down to the “cruel and unusual” definition I was looking for. I couldn’t find that, either. Guess anything goes, then? ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2005, 6:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/29 "2005-03-02T06:56:06Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Not the same thing. If we grant 17 year olds the vote, we are saying that ALL 17 year olds are capable of making an informed choice. Saying that 17 year olds can get the death penalty isn’t saying that ALL 17 year olds will get the death penalty, or even that all 17 year old murderers will get the death penalty. It says that juries are allowed to decide, on a case by case basis, whether the particular 17 year old was capable of making an “adult” decision about a particular crime. Why don’t we do this for other age related crimes? Your Honor I was propositioned by this underage person for sex and told her to wait a month and see if she still felt the same way before we had intercourse. Your Honor I gave my keys to my friend who was not drinking, had a full stomach and limited my alchohol intake clearly I am responsible enough to handle alcohol. Your Honor I spoke with my doctor who said that if I limited my cigarette smoking to a three a week I would not suffer any health effects. Honestly if we are going to decide that someone is an adult for punishment why don’t we decide that they are adult enough to purchase alcohol, have sex or smoke? ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2005, 7:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/30 "2005-03-02T07:11:23Z")
I honestly can’t see much sensible support behind the rationale of the case. But then, “cruel and unusual” is just bad law, unless what you want IS for judges to define the term age to age. Of course, as long as people are going to talk about how they want to vote to raise the age to 18… and yet not DO anything about it… I’m not really going to be impressed by them either. > [@](#): > > John Mace: Is there any precedent for the court setting the age at which certain rights and/or responsibilities kick in? Read Scalia’s opinion! That said, Scalia is sort of funny on this one. He accuses other judges of flip-flopping from abortion parental notification cases, but his charge seems false, because only in Stevens’s case was the argument made that abortion cases weren’t really decided on the same standard. It’s unfair against O’Connor and Kennedy. Yet it was Scalia, apparently unaware of the irony of his own argument, that flipped from the abortion cases: kids aren’t mature enough to decide if they can get an abortion, yet they are mature enough to be killed for culpability. ---
**Author:** ![Well](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/df788c/32.png) [@Well](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Well)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2005, 7:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/31 "2005-03-02T07:50:07Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > No, I caught that point. Meanwhile, you can get down to the “cruel and unusual” definition I was looking for. I couldn’t find that, either. Guess anything goes, then? Those that praise the attempts of the judiciary to legislate from the bench just because you agree with them seem a bit shortsighted. Remember, 9 people decided over the everyone else on what their ideologies are. Many praise the legislating done in RoeVWade. Hey, it’s final and there is nothing those that dissagree with them can do about it right? Yet they live in fear that a more conservative court will overrule it. And there wont be anything they can do but cry foul like their opponents do. What would you rather have? 535 elected officials decide the laws, or 9 selected? If it is not stated in the Constitution then the legislators should decide it. And the extra-constitutionality of this decision is mind boggling. 80+ _ **foreign** _\* “freinds of the court” where allowed to brief in this ruling? At what point was the Justices allowed to interpret anything into American laws but the Constitution? If this isn’t blatant judicial activism, I do not know what is. Just another boost for the conservatives . (as if they need one at this point) ---
**Author:** ![plnnr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@plnnr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/plnnr)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2005, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/32 "2005-03-02T13:14:40Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > And, btw, the president appointing justices IS in the consutition, and one party filibustering against nominations in NOT in the constitution. Article II. Section 2. Subparagraph 2 (Powers of the Executive) …and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, appoint…Judges of the Supreme Court…" The process by which the Senate provides advice and consent, and its rules in-general, are completely left up to the Senate. If the Senate doesn’t like the filibuster rule it is certainly free to adopt other rules. There isn’t anything at all un-Constitutional about the filibuster in that the Constitution is silent on the matter. If you’re going to be a strict constructionist, be a strict constructionist. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2005, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/33 "2005-03-02T15:24:23Z")
> [@plnnr](#): > > The process by which the Senate provides advice and consent, and its rules in-general, are completely left up to the Senate. If the Senate doesn’t like the filibuster rule it is certainly free to adopt other rules. There isn’t anything at all un-Constitutional about the filibuster in that the Constitution is silent on the matter. If you’re going to be a strict constructionist, be a strict constructionist. Agreed. And the Republicans are in the process of trying to eliminate that rule for judicial appointees. Watch how many people (especially around here) will cry FOUL! if this is actually taken up for a vote in the Senate. ---
**Author:** ![rfgdxm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c0e974/32.png) [@rfgdxm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rfgdxm)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2005, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/34 "2005-03-02T15:34:16Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Are you saying that law can only arise from the judicial branch? That would be a constitutionally flawed assumption, you know. Who other that the judicial branch could interpret what “cruel and unusual” punishment was? This doesn’t mean law can only arise from the judicial branch. However, this does limit what the legislative branch can pass. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2005, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/35 "2005-03-02T15:38:15Z")
**plnnr** : Just wanted to add that I’m not trying to take an adversarial role against you, and I apoligize if I came off that way. I did want to correct the error, though, that judicial review is somehow enshrined in the consitution-- it isn’t. I also think that decisions like this one feed right into the hands of the Republicans when they campaign against “activist judges” and when and if they put forth an effort to prevent filibuster of judicial nominees in the Senate. I do favor a strict interpretation of the constitution, and if I ever post something that seems to go the other way, I’ll welcome anyone to call me on it. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2005, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/36 "2005-03-02T16:07:49Z")
> [@rfgdxm](#): > > Who other that the judicial branch could interpret what “cruel and unusual” punishment was? This doesn’t mean law can only arise from the judicial branch. However, this does limit what the legislative branch can pass. You have it exactly backwards. The limitation on what the legislature can pass is the Constitution, and the legislature is enjoined not to pass legislation in conflict with it. Does the court have a check against the legislature on this? Certainly. But this by no means gives the court sole say over the constitutionality of a law or regulation. ---
**Author:** ![rfgdxm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c0e974/32.png) [@rfgdxm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rfgdxm)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2005, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/37 "2005-03-02T16:17:00Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > You have it exactly backwards. The limitation on what the legislature can pass is the Constitution, and the legislature is enjoined not to pass legislation in conflict with it. > > Does the court have a check against the legislature on this? Certainly. But this by no means gives the court sole say over the constitutionality of a law or regulation. Who else but the courts can decide what is meant by “cruel and unusual” punishment? If the courts interpret cruel and unusual in a ridiculous way, the constitution could be amended. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2005, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/38 "2005-03-02T16:24:58Z")
Yes, and that would be a legislative change, wouldn’t it? Not to mention the fact that constitutional requirements should have been observed with the original legislation. It may sound like a nitpick, but it’s not. We’re all enjoined to observe constitutional requirements and limitations at all times. I may not infringe in an official capacity with freedom of the press or religion. Period. The mere fact that prople do this sometimes makes it no less wrong under the Constitution whether a court intervenes or not. You are ascribing sole authority here to the courts, where in reality it is all branches of the government and the citizenry that have duties here. ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2005, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/39 "2005-03-02T17:01:26Z")
The main thing that annoyed me about the decision was the part that talked about howe a “consensus” of the states had outlawed it so that was a justification. I just do not buy that as a valid argument on a Consitituional level. ---
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2005, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/40 "2005-03-02T18:07:07Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > 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. The tasks you describe wouldn’t be directly affected by the immature section of the brain: the prefrontal cortex. I’m assuming that you had a set of protocols for dealing with various situations. You were carefully trained on how to complete your tasks. Memory and obedience wouldn’t be a problem. However, you probably were not asked to make _moral_ or _ethical_ judgements-- those are what are affected by the immature prefrontal cortex. > [@](#): > > 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. Why do you have a problem with this? If mommy and daddy don’t, what’s it to you? Remember, in our past, kids didn’t strike out on their own-- this is a modern invention. Girls stayed home until they were married, and boys brought their new brides home to live with mom and dad. The “nuclear family” is arguably what is unusual. > [@](#): > > By that age, my parents had been married for three years, and I had already been born. And it wasn’t unusual for 13-year-olds to be married in the sixteenth century. Children of royalty had their own households when they were only a few months old. What’s your point? > [@](#): > > 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. Letting individual state legislatures set their own rules is a concept which make my heart quail. What if a state legislature decided, say, to execute ten-year-olds, or to make blacks sit at the back of the bus again? This is not a legislature issue, in my opinion, but a Constitutional one-- meaning that the Supreme Court is logically the one who must make the decision. > [@](#): > > I’m infuriated that international treaties were invoked in the decision - treaties the United States were not party to. I disagree. It seems reasonable to me to look at what the rest of the world is doing. Personally, I’d rather keep company with “civilized” nations than rogue ones which have abominal human rights records. I know this may be an unpopular notion in some quarters, but the rest of the world’s opinions of us does matter. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484.md?page=3)