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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Oh, I thought we were talking about deferring to the legislatures. My bad.
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.
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, 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:
It was the court itself, in 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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 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.