# 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:** 4
**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, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/61 "2005-03-03T18:45:57Z")
> [@Well](#): > > 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. Actually, if something is an arbitrary judgment any way you look at it, it probably says more about your overinclusive sense of arbitrariness than it does about SCOTUS justices’ sense and standards of reasonableness. > [@](#): > > That’s the crux. if no one tells them then they shouldn’t make the shit up. That is downright ridiculous. This means court cases with ambiguous circumstances **couldn’t actually be decided.** They have to “make shit up” all the time. Most often, I agree with their standards. Sometimes I don’t. > [@](#): > > In this case they disdided to go with consensus. Wouldn’t the proper mechanism for deciding consensus be by letting the legislators decide? **They examined what legislators had decided.** Honestly. > [@](#): > > And I guess it was seen as likely that they deicded the way they did on Roe. Why would you extrapolate that from my comment? i was merely suggesting the likely outcome of a new abortion ruling: an overturning of RvW rather than a unique decision. Much like this case, which overturned a previous ruling based on reasoning from other rulings rather than starting from scratch as apparently you think they did. > [@](#): > > [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol=113](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol=113) > > “The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy.” What you said was that no right of privacy is found in the constitution. It is terribly difficult to grasp the fourth amendment specifically without relating it to privacy. The right to avoid self-incrimination also entails some kinds of privacy. An explicit statement is not necessary for native English speakers. Perhaps you are of the mind that the government can pass any laws it likes whatsoever without much regard for the constitution; after all, if they can’t pass laws against the constitution, any law they pass must be in line with what the constitution means. That’s absurd. Same with John Mace’s pining for a time when the court system wasn’t an arbiter of constitutionality. Without such a mechanism in place, the constitution is a window-dressing. If the legislature bans political speech against a sitting president, obviously political speech against a sitting president wasn’t what the first amendment was supposed to protect. How is _that_ better than deferring to judges who _are not_ bound by political pressure? --Indeed, that is why the court system _is_ a good arbiter of constitutionality: because they _are not_ subject to the whims of democratic power. This does not mean I like tyranny. It means I recognize that without an independent body being the judge of constitutionality, constitutionality is a completely arbitrary standard: it means whatever it has to for whatever law to take effect. Who is to say otherwise? Why amend the constitution when its intent is only found in the laws decided by simple majority? ---
**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 3, 2005, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/62 "2005-03-03T18:55:45Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > Same with John Mace’s pining for a time when the court system wasn’t an arbiter of constitutionality. Wrong, wrong, and wrong. I explicitly said I was OK with having the SC be the arbiter of constituionality, and that I was simply correcting a misstatement of fact about that authority being DERIVED from the constitution. Please be more careful in restating other people’s positions in the future. ---
**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, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/63 "2005-03-03T19:01:48Z")
I apologize. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/64 "2005-03-03T19:08:27Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > 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. :shrug: That’s one way of looking at it, I suppose. Another would be to note that, just a couple of years ago, there was not just consensus but \*unanimity \* against it. Now, there is a growing movement, as evidenced by MA and VT , toward change. There’s no sign that those states are going to “come back into the fold”, and numerous signs that others (CT is next) will take the same step. What is this “consensus” to the contrary you see as “emerging”? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/65 "2005-03-03T19:11:09Z")
Oh, and **AQA**? The SC found foreign laws to be persuasive to them in this case, not “binding” in every or even any case. Don’t undercut yourself any more than necessary if you want to be convincing. ---
**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 3, 2005, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/66 "2005-03-03T19:38:05Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > I apologize. Well, if you put it that way, then… no problem. 🙂 **Moto** : While I share your disagreement about the consensus claimed in this SC majority opinion, I don’t think your gay marriage analogy stands up to scrutiny. The court is talking about a consensus of opinion wrt the 8th amendment (cruel and unusual punishment). While there seems to be a growing consesus to legislate against SSM, the constitution is completely silent on the matter of marriage, either straight or gay. Therefore, the court would have no constitutional issue on which to rule about a consensus. ---
**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, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/67 "2005-03-03T19:39:37Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > :shrug: That’s one way of looking at it, I suppose. Another would be to note that, just a couple of years ago, there was not just consensus but \*unanimity \* against it. Now, there is a growing movement, as evidenced by MA and VT , toward change. There’s no sign that those states are going to “come back into the fold”, and numerous signs that others (CT is next) will take the same step. What is this “consensus” to the contrary you see as “emerging”? Those 13 states that have explicitly banned same sex marriage through constitutional amendment, and the even greater number that have done so through legislation. Not to mention the federal Defense of Marriage Act. And if state-by-state trends are to be the new yardstick, guess who falls short? ---
**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, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/68 "2005-03-03T19:47:13Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Well, if you put it that way, then… no problem. 🙂 It was just sloppy rhetoric. I knew you weren’t suggesting it was necessarily bad. I really am sorry. You don’t deserve that kind of treatment. But it is fair to say that I was not claiming the judiciary was explicitly granted that authority, either. The question I asked, rhetorically, was what other standard was outlined. Implicitly answered in the negative by suggesting, “Who but” etc. So let’s just put it to rest. OT anyway. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/69 "2005-03-03T19:54:17Z")
**Mr. Moto** , the states you mention haven’t actually changed a damn thing. They merely affirmed their stati quo. The actual \*changes \*, the things that would indicate a trend, have all been \*against \* your asserted “emergence”. > [@](#): > > And if state-by-state trends are to be the new yardstick, guess who falls short? That would be you. ---
**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, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/70 "2005-03-03T19:54:51Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > **Moto** : While I share your disagreement about the consensus claimed in this SC majority opinion, I don’t think your gay marriage analogy stands up to scrutiny. The court is talking about a consensus of opinion wrt the 8th amendment (cruel and unusual punishment). While there seems to be a growing consesus to legislate against SSM, the constitution is completely silent on the matter of marriage, either straight or gay. Therefore, the court would have no constitutional issue on which to rule about a consensus. I’m happy you have such faith. I think if they so chose, the necessary penumbras and emanations would be found. 😃 ---
**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, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/71 "2005-03-03T19:57:03Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Oh, and **AQA**? The SC found foreign laws to be persuasive to them in this case, not “binding” in every or even any case. Don’t undercut yourself any more than necessary if you want to be convincing. I never said that the Supreme Court found foreign laws to be “binding.” I said that the Supreme Court relied on foreign sources of law and unratified treaties in creating law that’s binding on the US. Read the posts to which you’re responding more carefully if you want to be convincing. ---
**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, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/72 "2005-03-03T20:14:46Z")
> [@plnnr](#): > > Certainly the Court is free to set new precedents, though. > > \ > > Precedent ain’t what it used to be, apparently. What’s changed? I don’t deny that the Supreme Court is free to overrule precedent or set new precedents. My point was this decision was not – as suggested by **laigle** – mandated by precedent. In response to your point, there is an inherent value in precedent that I doubt I need to explain to you. So there are reasons for following prior decisions even when the justices themselves disagree with those decisions. However, if the Supreme Court thinks they just got it wrong, then they are (of course) free to overrule their prior decision. But this Court didn’t say they got it wrong. They referred to evolving standards of what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. I find it hard to believe that people’s opinions have changed so drastically in the last 16 years. It appears that they haven’t; the Supreme Court has merely changed whose opinions it considers vital to determining what “shocks the conscience and offends fundamental notions of human dignity.” Americans are simply less important than (for example) the French and Canadians in determining what rules Americans live by. And I find that inherently undemocratic. ---
**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, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/73 "2005-03-03T20:38:41Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > That would be you. Just because there are sides to this issue doesn’t mean you know for certain what side I’m on, now do you? And something did change in those states. A retrenchment of the status quo to make it harder to overturn is a change, which is why those amendments were resisted by a good many people. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/74 "2005-03-03T20:53:58Z")
> [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > I never said that the Supreme Court found foreign laws to be “binding.” Better find out who borrowed your screenname to say this, then: > [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > 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.** and this: > [@Age Quo Agis](#): > > 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, It’s silly to pretend you didn’t say things that are right there in this same thread, but if it makes you feel better anyway, go right ahead. Now: > [@](#): > > I said that the Supreme Court relied on foreign sources of law and unratified treaties in creating law that’s binding on the US. Assuming that’s what you mean _now_, still, so what? The Court can be persuaded by anything it finds persuasive. Anything at all. From \*any \* source. So what? > [@](#): > > Read the posts to which you’re responding more carefully if you want to be convincing. Read your \*own \* posts more carefully before you try to change positions while pretending you haven’t. ---
**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, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/75 "2005-03-03T20:55:04Z")
> [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > It appears that they haven’t; the Supreme Court has merely changed whose opinions it considers vital to determining what “shocks the conscience and offends fundamental notions of human dignity.” Americans are simply less important than (for example) the French and Canadians in determining what rules Americans live by. And I find that inherently undemocratic. Despite the expressed opinion of the Court that “[T]he overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty is **not** [emphasis added] controlling here, but provides repsected and significant confirmation for the Court’s determination that the penalty is disproportionate punishment for offenders under 18[?]” That doesn’t sound as if the French and Candians opinions are vital to determing what shocks the conscience. And in trying to follow a strict constructionist argument I have to assume that the Court’s words mean expressly what they say, without any interpretation needed. ---
**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, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/76 "2005-03-03T21:15:25Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Better find out who borrowed your screenname to say this, then:and this: Despite your desperate attempts to read what I said in some sort of sinister light, neither of those quotes say that the foreign laws were binding on the US _without the Supreme Court’s intervention_. From your first quote of me: > [@](#): > > Suddenly, **the US Supreme Court** is de facto forcing the US to comply with treaties that the People (through their legislature) rejected. And the second quote, only I’ve included the part which you cut off (innocently, I’m sure): > [@](#): > > 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. The acting force in both of those quotes is the Supreme Court, not the foreign law. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Assuming that’s what you mean _now_, still, so what? The Court can be persuaded by anything it finds persuasive. Anything at all. From \*any \* source. So what? That its interpretation should not be guided by _anything_ or _any source_. I’ve been over this above. ---
**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, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/77 "2005-03-03T21:38:25Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Those 13 states that have explicitly banned same sex marriage through constitutional amendment, and the even greater number that have done so through legislation. Not to mention the federal Defense of Marriage Act. > > And if state-by-state trends are to be the new yardstick, guess who falls short? Bad analogy. A small minority of states allowing SSM doesn’t subject any of their citizens to cruel or unusual punishment. ---
**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, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/78 "2005-03-03T22:10:25Z")
**plnnr** , you’ve caught me using hyperbole. I appreciate you pointing it out, and I withdraw it. ---
**Author:** ![laigle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ce7236/32.png) [@laigle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/laigle)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2005, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/79 "2005-03-04T00:34:03Z")
> [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > Yes, the Constitution must be applied equally everywhere. But that doesn’t mean that it has to be applied in the manner you argue. Nobody says it does.\* The issue is whether the ban was a legitimate legal decision or not, and as you’ve now admitted it is. \*Except, of course, the US Supreme Court, which has binding say in the matter. > [@](#): > > 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. And now the SC has reversed itself. They’re allowed to do that. Did you have some other point you were trying to make, or was this just more obfuscation? > [@](#): > > 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. No, it requires that the court be required to ignore the question of whether a given execution policy violates the “cruel and unusual” clause. Which, of course, is bollocks. > [@](#): > > 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. Unless the SC decides that executions of those under 18 violate the “cruel and unusual” clause. > [@](#): > > I’m guessing the OJ trial is the only one you’ve watched. No, unlike you I don’t get my legal news from Rush. That’s why I’m able to argue the matter. > [@](#): > > 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. As someone who’s gotten called for jury duty several times… well, you’re so wrong it’s actually hilarious. The best way to get kicked off a jury is to have education above a high school diploma. Oh, and I’m not even going to dignify the DNA jibberish with a response. “Generally confirms almost all?” Why didn’t you just slip in “weapons of mass destruction related program activities?” DNA tests have overturned dozens of death row cases. How many innocent people have to be executed by the state to make you lose faith? For someone who whines so much about central authority you sure do seem cozy to it when it’s killing someone. > [@](#): > > But if you think there’s a better method for criminal justice, I’d love to hear your suggestion. You’re wrong on just about everything here. Right, that’s why I have an argument and you’ve got nothing but hot air. But, since you asked: 1. High school literacy test for all potential jurors. 2. Short comprehension test on any technical evidence to be presented. 3. Attorneys are only allowed to dismiss jurors based on certain (very) limited criteria such as evidence of bias. There, I’ve improved the system already. Wasn’t even hard, I didn’t have to mute the TV or anything. > [@](#): > > 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. Yes. They considered the guidance of other courts in other lands, considered it as relevant to US law, and saw that certain principles shared in both sets of law applied. If they’d quoted Plato, would you be accusing them of trying to force Socratism on us? > [@](#): > > 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. They didn’t, and I see you’ve since tucked your tail between your legs and run away on this one so there’s not much point debating it further. > [@](#): > > 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. The USSC can reverse precedent. Or didn’t you know that? Oh, and nice strawman, but I never said the decision was mandated by the Constitution. I said they made a valid decision based on their interpretation of the Constitution and the weight they gave to various issues in Constitutional jurisprudence. > [@](#): > > So you can see that my issues are anything but nitpicks. Not only are they nitpicks, you’ve since pretended you didn’t raise them and dismissed them as hyperbole. > [@](#): > > They go to the fundamental role of the US Supreme Court, separation of powers, federalism, and _stare decisis_. No they don’t. It’s just obfuscation, hot air, and bile in an attempt to cover up the fact that there isn’t a sound legal reason to deny the Court’s role in making these decisions or in the Constitutional groundwork for their decision. > [@](#): > > This is just odd. You cut the last sentence of one of my statements and pasted it with another post, I’m going to cut you off there. I did no such thing. Two of your paragraphs ran together because the backend dropped the quotation between them. I meant to seperate them out and respond seperately, but I forgot to break out the second point. They were both sections of post #11, not seperate posts as you say. My apologies for not inserting a line break, but this is a bit over the top, even for you. > [@](#): > > and then your response doesn’t address the issues raised in either post. Sure it did. You said we should weigh the issues each time. I’ve already pointed out that when the question is whether a given penalty is cruel and unusual in a given set of circumstances, individual discretion is not generally seen as the highest good. As I said, I forgot to include a response to your second point, so here it is: Irrelevant. You’re responding to the ramifications of denying the question to begin with. The current jurisprudence doesn’t do so, and with good reason. There, feel better now? ---
**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 4, 2005, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484/80 "2005-03-04T01:53:38Z")
I’ll let the logic of your response stand on its own, but in the interests of combatting ignorance, I should respond to a few of the more outlandish, factually inaccurate statements you’ve made. > [@laigle](#): > > NAs someone who’s gotten called for jury duty several times… well, you’re so wrong it’s actually hilarious. The best way to get kicked off a jury is to have education above a high school diploma. Cite please? Because I’ve participated in a few dozen jury trials, and there have been more individuals on those juries with _college_ diplomas than without. > [@laigle](#): > > How many innocent people have to be executed by the state to make you lose faith? You can start with one. Please provide me with a cite of one individual who was executed and later proven innocent. > [@laigle](#): > > But, since you asked: > > 1. High school literacy test for all potential jurors. You’ll be happy to know that jurors can be struck for cause if they can’t read and the case will involve documentary or other written evidence. > [@laigle](#): > > 1. Short comprehension test on any technical evidence to be presented. There is currently no comprehension test on technical evidence because that would predispose individuals to the evidence in the case. But you’ll be happy to know that the attorneys are responsible for explaining such evidence to the jurors, and jurors can be struck for cause if it can be demonstrated that they will not be able to comprehend the evidence presented. > [@laigle](#): > > 1. Attorneys are only allowed to dismiss jurors based on certain (very) limited criteria such as evidence of bias. Currently, each attorney gets a few peremptory strikes, but you’ll be happy to know that such strikes are typically very limited both in number and in reason. And anyway, how exactly does getting rid of peremptories avoid the problem of “put[ting] twelve people too dumb to avoid jury duty in a room together”? > [@laigle](#): > > There, I’ve improved the system already. Wasn’t even hard, I didn’t have to mute the TV or anything. Ahhh, now the logic of your response makes more sense. Maybe you should concentrate a bit more on the task at hand while posting. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-finds-death-penalty-for-those-under-18-unconstitutional/292484.md?page=5)