High court strikes down death penalty for juveniles

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski
Would that mean that those kids that have already watched r rated movies and drank alcohol and ran around doing what they want to do and killed somebody get the same treatment as those kids who say have done none of the above and killed?

So are you saying that kids that have watched R-rated movies and drink have become emancipated and are now adults, with all the rights that entails? If they show they have drank alcohol, can they now vote?

[Mrs. Tuberski]

I have always thought that kids should be able to vote. Thats not what i was saying. I was saying that all kids are not angels and the punishment should suit the crime. Not all kids can be lumped into the same group but some can and if the child stands up to act like an adult and thinks he is then he should be treated as one.

[DinoDoc]

No I mean how they define it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
No I mean how they define it.

It's kind of a very subjective measure... cruel and unusual punishment. In '89 they said you can't kill kids under 16, but you can for 17 and 18. Now they are just moving the line up as international and domestic opinion has treated those under 18 as distinct than those over it.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

One method that was used not sure any more is that once a juvenile commits the crime is always seen in the courts at the age of 18 if the child then shows signs of rehab then the child might deserve a second chance.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Not if they don't have full mental capacity. Remember to prove murder, you don't merely have to prove the act, but also the guilty mind. That's the reason we don't execute retarded people anymore. Their lack of total mental capacity means the guilty mind prong is found wanting.

Also it would seem obvious that if you are old enough to be executed, you should be old enough to enjoy the other privileges of adulthood.

You're assuming that a jury would be unable to determine that any juvenile could have a mental state that would make him culpable for a capital crime. I think that that's ridiculous.

We have few capital crimes left, first degree murder being one of them. You don't think that a jury could be able to determine that a 17 year old had the requisite intent and planning to commit first degree murder? An average 17 year old isn't mentally handicapped to the degree that they can't manifest an intent to commit a crime. If a 17 year old can sufficiently satisfy the elements of a crime, then why can't they be punished just like an 18 year old would be in that situation?

I also disagree with your second proposition. There's a difference between being old enough to exercise the right to vote and being old enough to be punished for your crimes. An age requirement to vote for instance isplaced there because they assume that, among other things, a juvenile isn't free enough from their parents to be able to make an independent decision. Another reason is that they are assumed not to have enough life experience to be able to make an informed decision on political matters.

Criminal punishment is another thing altoghether. While its debateable whether a 17 year old would have enough experience to cast an informed vote as an 18 year old, its not debateable that a 17 year old should know that first degree murder is wrong. Who doesn't know by 17 that murder is unacceptable in our society?
That understanding is far more basic and less complicated than a political decision. Though a juvenile may be judged too immature to exercise some rights, its expected that they know the rules of our society well enough that they should be held fully accountable for commiting certain heinous crimes, crimes that don't take complex decision making to know that they are unacceptable and wrong.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It's kind of a very subjective measure...

And the "consensus" standard is a very piss-poor way of doing it. It's an extremely suspect standard to hold as Scalia himself showed. If there is a national consensus against the practice the people's representatives are the proper place to hash that out. Not a body that has taken it upon itself to over reach it's proper level of power and eclare itself the arbiter of the national moral standard.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
And the "consensus" standard is a very piss-poor way of doing it. It's an extremely suspect standard to hold as Scalia himself showed. If there is a national consensus against the practice the people's representatives are the proper place to hash that out. Not a body that has taken it upon itself to over reach it's proper level of power and eclare itself the arbiter of the national moral standard.

[OzzyKP]

My Response: http://www.oneandfour.org

[DinoDoc]

I'd be shocked when I finally read the opinion if they didn't throw in substantive due process for good measure and complete the joke.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Though a juvenile may be judged too immature to exercise some rights, its expected that they know the rules of our society well enough that they should be held fully accountable for commiting certain heinous crimes, crimes that don't take complex decision making to know that they are unacceptable and wrong.

If a child is expected to know the rules of society then why isn't he judged an adult? Isn't that what adulthood is? The age of majority is when the child is believed to be ready to accept the rules of society. And frankly, if a child knows the rules of society, there is no reason to prevent him from voting.

And the "consensus" standard is a very piss-poor way of doing it. It's an extremely suspect standard to hold as Scalia himself showed. If there is a national consensus against the practice the people's representatives are the proper place to hash that out. Not a body that has taken it upon itself to over reach it's proper level of power and eclare itself the arbiter of the national moral standard.

The Supreme Court is interpreter of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights says there shall be no cruel and unusual punishment. It is absolutely riduculous to have the legislature decide what that means. They are not entrusted with interpreting the Constitution. The Supreme Court has done its Constitutional duty. If it was up to the legislature to decide what cruel and unusual meant then why have it be a right? Hell, why can't the legislature then decide what free speech really means?

[Whaleboy]

Would you be saying that if the word 'juveniles' were replaced by 'chavs' in the thread title.

Of course, though if they should accidentally find hardcore liberal democrats flicking lit matches at their absurdly flammable tracksuits... well... it's their fault for looking ridiculous, and I maintain my God given right to flick lit matches at people I want to kill

/Zombie Voltaire

It's even more priceless with his current avatar

Ooo?? I haven't seen it yet!

I have to say though that the logic to distinguish "killable" from "unkillable" is reasonable but shaky, and subject to the same criticisms as the likes of the age of consent. One wouldn't dream of executing a 9 year old, or allowing them to have sex, but what of someone aged 17 years 11 months, or 15 years 11 months respectively? Nonetheless, on balance the less people being executed the better and it's a step in the right direction that certainly should have been taken. The most consistent thing for them to do is now consign the death penalty in its entirety to the history books and the dictatorships.

Also, and going off at a bit of a tangent, but any move toward understanding the narrative behind people's lives, expecially criminals, and away from emotive hysteria and subjective revenge/vigilantism, is a good move for the state to make . Punishment always has to be a means, not an end. Whether the ends justify the means (punishment) is debatable, hence the whole DP argument... in my experience the strongest argument by far is anti-DP. Consider yourselves baited!

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
If a child is expected to know the rules of society then why isn't he judged an adult? Isn't that what adulthood is? The age of majority is when the child is believed to be ready to accept the rules of society. And frankly, if a child knows the rules of society, there is no reason to prevent him from voting.

There's a minimum age in every jurisdiction under which no child may be found criminally liable, just as there is a minimum age under which no child can be found negligent or civilly liable. That's called many things, "tender age doctrine" being one of them.

However, I'm not talking about children, I'm talking about juveniles/adolescents/teens. The age of majority is not the age in which a person is supposed to accept the rules of society; they're always supposed to accept the rules of society (such as you can't kill, you can't steal, etc.) Age is used as an affirmative defense (when young enough) or a mitigating factor, but its accepted that minors are always under the rules of society. Not only can juveniles be held criminally liable, they can also be held to be civilly liable.

This notion of majority rights I think relates to sophistication. The age of majority means that you have reached an age when you are supposedly sophisticated enough to be able to make sound decisions on complex things. Its the age in which you are first able to enter into contracts on your own. Its the age in which you are first allowed to vote, to join the military, etc. (I find the no drinking at 18 arbitrary and hypocritical)

Commiting certain crimes does not require the same level of supposed sophistication as does, say, entering a commercial contract. An average 15 year old knows that its wrong to kill someone. Its a social norm that everyone is expected to follow. Not being able to vote on that issue is a moot point, as we cannot vote to legalize first degree murder. Therefore, if you can prove the elements of first degree murder for a 15 year old, then he should be punished accordingly.

On the other hand the average 15 year old has not gained enough life experience to fully appreciate the consequences of entering into a contract, and is probably not in the financial position to be able to fairly be expected to negotiate a contract.

What makes 18 years the age of majority rather than 17 or 19? I suspect that it has alot to do with the fact that 18 is the age at which most people graduate from compulsory education.

[Dinner]

We deny children the right to vote because we believe they are not mature enough to responsibly consider the issues. Some states deny the privilage to drive because it is believed children are not capable of safely driving. If we consider children to be so much less capable then adults then surely we can follow those convictions to there logical end.

Minors who commit capital crimes will still be punished and will likely spend the rest of their lives in jail cells. Justice will still be served.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Wycoff
You're assuming that a jury would be unable to determine that any juvenile could have a mental state that would make him culpable for a capital crime. I think that that's ridiculous.

Then you haven't been paying attention to American juries.