# 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:** 3
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2005, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/41 "2005-03-02T18:17:10Z")
> [@treis](#): > > 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? Well, we _can_ do that. The reason we don’t is because making sure that 17 year olds are not mature enough to purchase alcohol, have sex, and smoke isn’t as important as making sure that 17 year olds are mature enough to execute. We’re not willing to spend thousands of hours of work and hundreds of thousands of dollars putting on evidence before a judge so some 17 year old can buy cigarettes. It’s not a matter of hypocrisy; it’s a matter of the relative importance of those decisions and the amount of effort we’re willing to put into making the right decision in each case. ---
**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, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/42 "2005-03-02T18:35:47Z")
> [@Lissa](#): > > 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. I’m surprised how few people know this. And, this is still common in many parts of the world. ---
**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, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/43 "2005-03-02T18:39:27Z")
> [@Lissa](#): > > 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. Not when interpreting the _United States Constitution_ it doesn’t. And it is not up to the judiciary to decide the rest of the world’s opinions when deciding con-law. Unless, of course you would prefer the opinions of foreign governments to be able to decide what should go into the US Constitution. Then we can agree to strongly disagree. ---
**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2005, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/44 "2005-03-02T18:55:30Z")
> [@Frostillicus](#): > > At least we no longer have this in common with Yemen, North Korea, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. You know, those bastions of enlightened thought. Actually, those countries abolished capital punishment for juveniles before we did! Here’s a quote from the opinion of the court: “Respondent and his amici have submitted, and petitioner does not contest, that only seven countries other than the United States have executed juvenile offenders since 1990: Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and China. Since then each of these countries has either abolished capital punishment for juveniles or made public disavowal of the practice. Brief for Respondent 49-50. In sum, it is fair to say that the United States now stands alone in a world that has turned its face against the juvenile death penalty.” > **[FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/543/551.html)** > > FindLaw's searchable database of United States Supreme Court decisions since Ed ---
**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, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/45 "2005-03-02T18:56:59Z")
I have to echo the concern others have raised about the courts referencing what foreign governments do. The legislative process is perfectly capable of taking “common international standards” into account when and if the people choose to do so. In particular, the reference to a treaty which the US explicitly declined to sign is just beyond the pale. I don’t care if only the US and Somalia have declined to sign it-- that authority is explicitly given to the executive branch (with advice and consent of the Senate) by the constitution. I realize, of course, that these were not the only reason listed in the majority opinion, but what the hell are they doing there in the first place? ---
**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, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/46 "2005-03-02T19:04:08Z")
> [@Lissa](#): > > 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. Certainly I had to make moral and ethical judgements. In addition to those made by everyone every day, I had additional obligations in this area as an American serviceman stationed overseas and living on my own in an Italian apartment. The consequences of failings in this area could have been far worse than if I were a civilian. I refer you to the Okinawa rape case of a few years back as an illustration of just how serious this can be. > [@Lissa](#): > > 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. My posting was about people over 25 doing so, which is happening more and more. You were the one who mentioned 25 as a cutoff here, yet you concede, and the evidence shows, far more people delaying their adulthood well past this point. What’s it to me? In addition to causing problems within my own family, I believe this has broader societal impact, and that this might well be a net negative. Independent living is an American ideal, yet some people are willing to trade this for security. This limits them at this point in their life at the same time it places additional burdens on the parents. At any rate, it is tangential to this discussion. I’d be interested in discussing the issue further at some other time. > [@Lissa](#): > > 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. In legitimate constitutional cases, sure. And we can disagree on whether the death penalty as lately constituted posed a constitutional problem. Not all that is wrong with society, though, is unconstitutional - a point I think a lot of people miss. > [@Lissa](#): > > 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. I never said they didn’t, and this is what treaties negotiated by the executive branch and ratified by the legislature are for. Unless those treaties are so ratified, though, they have no force in American law, and should not be used as a justification for decisions on American law. We have our own extensive jurisprudence, our own strong constitutional tradition, properly ratified treaties and our own legislatures to make law. This should be sufficient to provide a framework for judicial interpretation. ---
**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, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/47 "2005-03-02T20:12:10Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > 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. Obviously. At any point, the legislature is free to amend the constitution if they think the court has not correctly understood it. **Well** , it is not a matter of shortsightedness. Was Congress being shortsighted when it removed the federal death penalty from those under 18 at the time the crime was committed? Were the other 29 states? The Supreme Court acts with what it thinks is reasonable prudence. Should they be in error, we _are not_ reduced to handwringing and riots. The legislature is just as much there prior to the ruling as it is after it. I trust that amendment to kill minors will be coming along any day…? ---
**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, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/48 "2005-03-02T22:06:21Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Certainly I had to make moral and ethical judgements. In addition to those made by everyone every day, I had additional obligations in this area as an American serviceman stationed overseas and living on my own in an Italian apartment. > > The consequences of failings in this area could have been far worse than if I were a civilian. I refer you to the Okinawa rape case of a few years back as an illustration of just how serious this can be. I think you will agree that intensive millitary training gives a person a different mindset than a civilian-- in a sense, the millitary trains you to think in a millitary fashion, almost reprogramming you mentally, if you will. Most people do not have this sort of intensive mental training-- hell, some people get practically no training at all. My husband works with over 2,500 of these people in the correctional institute. All I am saying is that you cannot compare your highly trained and disciplined mind to that of an average young person. > [@](#): > > I never said they didn’t, and this is what treaties negotiated by the executive branch and ratified by the legislature are for. Unless those treaties are so ratified, though, they have no force in American law, and should not be used as a justification for decisions on American law. > > We have our own extensive jurisprudence, our own strong constitutional tradition, properly ratified treaties and our own legislatures to make law. This should be sufficient to provide a framework for judicial interpretation. I do understand what you’re saying, and I do agree with you to some extent. My only point is that America is not an “island.” I do think that in some cases, we should take wise decisions by the high courts of other countries into account-- not _basing_ our decisions on them, per se, but seeing them as valuable input. You never know when a point will hit home in the “Oh-I-never-thought-of-it_that_-way-before” sense. We are a sovreign nation, but we are also citizens of the world. I personally cringe at the idea of other nations looking at us as barbaric or cruel. I think many people here in the States see America as a shining beacon of hope and that we have an admirable, strong dedication to human rights. It’s hard to justify this viewpoint if we’re standing with rogue nations in our practices. ---
**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, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/49 "2005-03-02T23:02:31Z")
> [@Lissa](#): > > I do understand what you’re saying, and I do agree with you to some extent. My only point is that America is not an “island.” I do think that in some cases, we should take wise decisions by the high courts of other countries into account… Which cases are those and how do you ensure that only those “some cases” are the ones where the SC takes other countries’ courts’ opinion into account? It sounds like you are saying “it’s OK as long as I agree with it.” But there is nothing to make sure that you will always agree with it. ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2005, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/50 "2005-03-02T23:38:58Z")
> [@Lissa](#): > > All I am saying is that you cannot compare your highly trained and disciplined mind to that of an average young person. But the issue isn’t whether we a 24 year old, an 18 year old, or even a 16 year old has a _fully formed_ prefrontal cortex. It’s whether a 24/18/16 year old’s prefrontal cortex is mature enough to be able to tell that murder is wrong. And I don’t think you have to have a _fully formed_ prefrontal cortex to be able to tell that it’s wrong to kill people without adequate justification. And if someone’s brain is so underdeveloped that they don’t know that murder is wrong, then under our current system, that individual will not be found guilty of murder by reason of insanity, and won’t be subject to the death penalty. > [@Lissa](#): > > My only point is that America is not an “island.” I do think that in some cases, we should take wise decisions by the high courts of other countries into account-- not _basing_ our decisions on them, per se, but seeing them as valuable input. You never know when a point will hit home in the “Oh-I-never-thought-of-it_that_-way-before” sense. > > We are a sovreign nation, but we are also citizens of the world. I personally cringe at the idea of other nations looking at us as barbaric or cruel. I think many people here in the States see America as a shining beacon of hope and that we have an admirable, strong dedication to human rights. It’s hard to justify this viewpoint if we’re standing with rogue nations in our practices. The question isn’t whether the foreign nations are correct. I’d argue that in this case, they were. But what do we do when the foreign nations are not correct? And if the foreign nations are correct, then the best redress was through the legislature and executive. In other words, pass laws restricting the execution of juvenile defendants, just like they did in (I believe) 31 states already. ---
**Author:** ![laigle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ce7236/32.png) [@laigle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/laigle)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2005, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/51 "2005-03-02T23:58:22Z")
> [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > 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. They’ve always been immaterial on matters of Constitutionality. The Constitution doesn’t say anything about what the general public decides to be cruel and unusual in a TV poll. It inserts the category and leaves it to the courts to decide what it means. This decision is exactly what was intended by that usage. The alternative is hundreds of people in robes deciding what it means and coming to different conclusions, or thousands of jurors doing the same thing. It is an essential principle of American jurisprudence that the Federal Constitution be applied uniformly throughout the nation. Despite what’s being pushed here, latitude given to individual cases is not meant to be as wide as possible in our legal system. Similar cases are supposed to get similar results across the board. > [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > 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. Did you not see the OJ trial? Have you not seen the statistics about DNA reversals for death row cases? If you put twelve people too dumb to avoid jury duty in a room together, you are going to get a decision that has little to do with either law or fact. > [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > 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. That means they wrote a decision you didn’t like the wording of. The legal principles for the decision are sound and are based on the US Constitution and US precedent. This isn’t a principled argument, it’s a nitpick. > [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > 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. That’s why you’re not on the SC. If we followed discretionary principles on issues of Constitutional law, desegregation would have been enforced in the Northeast but not the South. The pledge would include “Under God” in the East but not the West. The whole thing would be pointless. We abandoned the system you’re arguing centuries ago in favor of a unified federal government. The Constitution means the same thing in Alabama, Maine, California, and Hawaii. It’s the role of the SC to enforce that principle. ---
**Author:** ![Ignatz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/3be4f8/32.png) [@Ignatz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ignatz)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/52 "2005-03-03T00:37:09Z")
How ironic that the decision came on the same day that a 14-year old schoolbus passenger shot and killed his/her bus driver on the bus in front of 20 other students. (No cite-heard on news-sidn’t catch location-maybe cited elsewhere on Board) ---
**Author:** ![Well](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/df788c/32.png) [@Well](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Well)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/53 "2005-03-03T04:27:19Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > **Well** , it is not a matter of shortsightedness. Was Congress being shortsighted when it removed the federal death penalty from those under 18 at the time the crime was committed? Were the other 29 states? The Supreme Court acts with what it thinks is reasonable prudence. Should they be in error, we _are not_ reduced to handwringing and riots. The legislature is just as much there prior to the ruling as it is after it. > > I trust that amendment to kill minors will be coming along any day…? What? Do you think I am advocating the killing of minors? Congress is not short sighted in making laws. SCOTUS is because they have no authority to make laws. Just interpret them. It is short sighted when you take away the peoples power to make the law without a Constitutional Amendment, (which we pass around like candy right?) **OR** put in different thinking Justices. Would there be riots in the streets if a conservative court finds abortion against the constitution based on some sort of interpreted right to life? Kind of how they made up the right to privacy? Before R.V.W abortion was legal in many states. A ban by the courts would make that impossible. How soon do you reckon an amendment to kill babies would come along? I say this, not because I disagree with the outcome of either case, but because it is not the courts job to arbitrarily make laws. If they think the death penalty is not cruel and unusual then they should stick with that and not make up arbitrary restrictions. If they think abortion is a right to privacy, don’t pull a term limit out of their asses when the Constitutional right to abortion sounds icky and can be infringed upon. If they think more laws should be made on a subject so that they can do a better job on itnerpreting them then they should petition the legislators to make those laws more clear by amending them or making new ones. Because that is their job. Not have 9 people sit on some sacrosanct dais to change the country to their personal views. ---
**Author:** ![rfgdxm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c0e974/32.png) [@rfgdxm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rfgdxm)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/54 "2005-03-03T04:34:17Z")
> [@Well](#): > > If they think the death penalty is not cruel and unusual then they should stick with that and not make up arbitrary restrictions. I wouldn’t consider this arbitrary. Pretty much everyone would agree there is _some_ age the death penalty is too young for. Note the “cruel and unusual” clause WAS something left to the courts. The courts interpret the Constitution. When it gets arbitrary is when the courts find things in the Constitution that doesn’t seem to be there. ---
**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 3, 2005, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/55 "2005-03-03T04:53:29Z")
> [@Well](#): > > Would there be riots in the streets if a conservative court finds abortion against the constitution based on some sort of interpreted right to life? Kind of how they made up the right to privacy? Before R.V.W abortion was legal in many states. A ban by the courts would make that impossible. > > How soon do you reckon an amendment to kill babies would come along? A lot sooner than an amendment to kill minors, IMO. There’s a lot more public support for keeping abortion legal than for executing teenagers. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/56 "2005-03-03T15:38:52Z")
> [@Well](#): > > Congress is not short sighted in making laws. SCOTUS is because they have no authority to make laws. Just interpret them. How are they to interpret “cruel and unusual” to you? Where do they look? What law tells them? As **rfgdxm** says, it is up to the courts to interpret that in the first place. No one has suggested how else it is to be understood so far, no one else has mentioned the mechanism. “Oh, but I didn’t want the courts to interpret it _like that._” Why is that the court’s fault? You left it up to them, and they decided. > [@](#): > > It is short sighted when you take away the peoples power to make the law without a Constitutional Amendment, (which we pass around like candy right?) **OR** put in different thinking Justices. Which, as a standard, paradoxically means every amendment is short-sighted. Judges are not robots, and legislators cannot account for every situation that arises. There was a time when SCOTUS felt that the execution of minors was reasonable, given the state of the union at the time. Now they feel it has swung around. When SCOTUS heard the case originally, and sided in favor of executing 17-year olds, shouldn’t our Rule of Law eyebrows been raised? “They could have read that the other way, let’s pass some laws now…” Well, I guess legislatures are short-sighted, too… > [@](#): > > Would there be riots in the streets if a conservative court finds abortion against the constitution based on some sort of interpreted right to life? That seems unlikely. What seems likely is that they would overturn Roe, meaning that states can pass laws one way or the other again. > [@](#): > > Kind of how they made up the right to privacy? Made it up? ---
**Author:** ![Well](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/df788c/32.png) [@Well](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Well)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/57 "2005-03-03T17:19:21Z")
> [@rfgdxm](#): > > I wouldn’t consider this arbitrary. Pretty much everyone would agree there is _some_ age the death penalty is too young for. Note the “cruel and unusual” clause WAS something left to the courts. The courts interpret the Constitution. When it gets arbitrary is when the courts find things in the Constitution that doesn’t seem to be there. You have got to be kidding me. In 1988 it didn’t “seem” to be there but now it does? That’s arbitrary judgement no matter how you look at it. > [@Mr2001](#): > > A lot sooner than an amendment to kill minors, IMO. There’s a lot more public support for keeping abortion legal than for executing teenagers. Possibly, but, IMO I don’t see an amendment ever passed where abortion on demand is some sort of fundamental right. Especially once the debate is on a more level playing field. > [@erislover](#): > > How are they to interpret “cruel and unusual” to you? Where do they look? What law tells them? As **rfgdxm** says, it is up to the courts to interpret that in the first place. No one has suggested how else it is to be understood so far, no one else has mentioned the mechanism. “Oh, but I didn’t want the courts to interpret it _like that._” Why is that the court’s fault? You left it up to them, and they decided. That’s the crux. if no one tells them then they shouldn’t make the shit up. They, more often than not, refuse to look at cases because it is not within their purview or their jurisdiction. In this case they disdided to go with consensus. Wouldn’t the proper mechanism for deciding consensus be by letting the legislators decide? > [@](#): > > Which, as a standard, paradoxically means every amendment is short-sighted. Judges are not robots, and legislators cannot account for every situation that arises. There was a time when SCOTUS felt that the execution of minors was reasonable, given the state of the union at the time. Now they feel it has swung around. When SCOTUS heard the case originally, and sided in favor of executing 17-year olds, shouldn’t our Rule of Law eyebrows been raised? “They could have read that the other way, let’s pass some laws now…” Well, I guess legislatures are short-sighted, too… Legislators are short sighted. That is why they have the ability to pass laws and amendments to fit with the current times. Justices are not. That is one of the reasons they have life terms and can’t change laws or pass amendments. > [@](#): > > That seems unlikely. What seems likely is that they would overturn Roe, meaning that states can pass laws one way or the other again. And I guess it was seen as likely that they deicded the way they did on Roe. Funny it was seen as a major shock that effected pretty much every state. > [@](#): > > Made it up? > **[FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/410/113.html)** > > FindLaw's searchable database of United States Supreme Court decisions since “The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy.” It’s funny how the Constitution doesn’t currently mention any right to life, but I don’t see how that couldn’t be inferred in the near future regarding capital punishment and possibly abortion. ---
**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 3, 2005, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/58 "2005-03-03T17:28:50Z")
There’s an emerging consensus among state legislatures and voters on the subject of gay marriage, and Massachusetts and Vermont are outliers in this area. I can only imagine the wrath on this board if civil unions in Vermont and gay marriage in Massachusetts were invalidated on the basis of this alleged consensus. ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/59 "2005-03-03T18:18:55Z")
> [@laigle](#): > > It is an essential principle of American jurisprudence that the Federal Constitution be applied uniformly throughout the nation. Despite what’s being pushed here, latitude given to individual cases is not meant to be as wide as possible in our legal system. Similar cases are supposed to get similar results across the board. Yes, the Constitution must be applied equally everywhere. But that doesn’t mean that it has to be applied in the manner you argue. Look, the Constitution provides a baseline of rights. The states are always free to provide their citizens more protections than are afforded in the Constitution. That’s why, despite the fact that the Supreme Court decided that execution of minors was Constitutional in 1989, the majority of states decided to prohibit it in 2005. So my argument does not require there to be different applications of the Constitution in different states. It just means that _my_ standard is the one being applied. Moreover, there is nothing in the Constitution that says that the same crime must receive the same punishment in different states. Each state has its own criminal code, and each state sets whatever punishments it thinks are adequate and just. That’s why the punishment for murder is different in Texas than it is in Illinois. And there’s nothing unconstitutional about that. > [@laigle](#): > > Did you not see the OJ trial? Have you not seen the statistics about DNA reversals for death row cases? If you put twelve people too dumb to avoid jury duty in a room together, you are going to get a decision that has little to do with either law or fact. I’m guessing the OJ trial is the only one you’ve watched. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, the American justice system is the worst in the world … except for all the others. The truth is that jurors and judges are generally exceedingly careful and deliberate, and they take their duty seriously, and they almost always do a wonderful job. There are doctors and engineers and scientists and college professors that serve on juries, so your comments about them being “dumb” are ridiculous. And I’m aware of the fact that DNA evidence generally confirms almost all of the death row cases, which for some reason you seem to find disheartening. But if you think there’s a better method for criminal justice, I’d love to hear your suggestion. > [@laigle](#): > > That means they wrote a decision you didn’t like the wording of. The legal principles for the decision are sound and are based on the US Constitution and US precedent. This isn’t a principled argument, it’s a nitpick. You’re wrong on just about everything here. It’s not that I don’t like the wording of the decision. The Supreme Court commits its opinions to writing for an important reason: to provide guidance to other and future Courts in their decision-making. This is something called “precedent,” and is supposed to be applied by lower courts as well as the Supreme Court in the future. It’s the main job of the Supreme Court to provide precedent for lower and future courts. By relying on foreign sources of law and mandating that the US must follow the obligations of treaties that the President and legislature have rejected, the Supreme Court is setting a dangerous precedent. It is also exceeding its enumerated powers under the Constitution. The decision was also **not** based on the US Constitution and US precedent. In fact, precedent was clearly dictated by the US Supreme Court’s decision on this very issue in 1989, and which arrived at _the opposite conclusion_. So I’m at a total loss for how anyone can argue that this decision was mandated by the Constitution and precedent. So you can see that my issues are anything but nitpicks. They go to the fundamental role of the US Supreme Court, separation of powers, federalism, and _stare decisis_. > [@laigle](#): > > That’s why you’re not on the SC. If we followed discretionary principles on issues of Constitutional law, desegregation would have been enforced in the Northeast but not the South. The pledge would include “Under God” in the East but not the West. The whole thing would be pointless. We abandoned the system you’re arguing centuries ago in favor of a unified federal government. The Constitution means the same thing in Alabama, Maine, California, and Hawaii. It’s the role of the SC to enforce that principle. This is just odd. You cut the last sentence of one of my statements and pasted it with another post, and then your response doesn’t address the issues raised in either post. Was this some kind of a mistake? Or could you please explain to me how what you’ve said here relates to either (a) the fact that our justice system already had a built-in protection for immature individuals insofar as it decided the maturity of individual defendants based on their individual facts and circumstances or (b) the fact that the Supreme Court had already decided that it was unconstitutional to execute people under the age of 16? ---
**Author:** ![plnnr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@plnnr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/plnnr)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/60 "2005-03-03T18:43:01Z")
> [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > The decision was also **not** based on the US Constitution and US precedent. In fact, precedent was clearly dictated by the US Supreme Court’s decision on this very issue in 1989, and which arrived at _the opposite conclusion_. So I’m at a total loss for how anyone can argue that this decision was mandated by the Constitution and precedent. Certainly the Court is free to set new precedents, though. **Pleasey vs. Ferguson** was decided in 1896 and the Court, in its widsom, found that “separate but equal” accommodations for blacks were a perfectly Constitutional concept. In 1954 the Court, presumably operating under the same Constitution as before, found that the concept of “separate but equal” was anything **but** Constitutional when it ruled in **Brown vs. Board of Education**. Granted, the shift took 60 years, but that’s beside the point. Perhaps this Court just realized the error of its way more quickly than other Courts before it. Justice Powell recognized the error in his thinking pretty soon after the **Bowers v. Hardwick** decision came down, and was quoted as saying so. That case was decided in 1986 and the Court did a complete reversal of its thinking in **Lawrence v. State of Texas** just seven years later. Precedent ain’t what it used to be, apparently. What’s changed? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484.md?page=4)