A Disconcerting Supreme Court Decision

[Guest MikeSC]

5-4 Supreme Court Abolishes Juvenile Executions

 

By Charles Lane

Washington Post Staff Writer

Wednesday, March 2, 2005; Page A01

 

The Supreme Court abolished capital punishment for juvenile offenders yesterday, ruling 5 to 4 that it is unconstitutional to sentence anyone to death for a crime he or she committed while younger than 18.

 

In concluding that the death penalty for minors is cruel and unusual punishment, the court cited a "national consensus" against the practice, along with medical and social-science evidence that teenagers are too immature to be held accountable for their crimes to the same extent as adults.

 

The court said its judgment, which overturned a 1989 ruling that had upheld the death penalty for 16- and 17-year-old offenders, was also influenced by a desire to end the United States' international isolation on the issue.

 

As of yesterday, 20 states, including Virginia, permitted the death penalty for offenders younger than 18. That is five fewer than allowed the practice in 1989.

 

"From a moral standpoint, it would be misguided to equate the failings of a minor with those of an adult, for a greater possibility exists that a minor's character deficiencies will be reformed," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote in the opinion for the court.

 

"Our determination," Kennedy added, "finds confirmation in the stark reality that the United States is the only country in the world that continues to give official sanction to the juvenile death penalty."

 

The ruling was the second time in three years the court had carved out a new categorical exception to the death penalty, having banned capital punishment for the moderately mentally retarded in 2002.

 

It came after 59 people were executed in 2004, the fewest since the Supreme Court permitted states to resume the death penalty in 1976. That decline is the result in part of lower murder rates and in part of events such as the exoneration of some death row inmates by DNA evidence.

 

Thus, the ruling showed that society's reconsideration of capital punishment has penetrated the court, with the four liberal justices who joined Kennedy yesterday -- John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer -- pushing hardest to change capital punishment with the occasional help of either Kennedy or his fellow moderate conservative on the court, Sandra Day O'Connor.

 

O'Connor, who voted with the four death penalty skeptics and Kennedy in the 2002 case, dissented yesterday, along with the court's conservatives, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

 

By striking down yesterday the death sentence a Missouri jury had imposed on Christopher Simmons -- who was 17 on Sept. 8, 1993, when he broke into Shirley Crook's house, kidnapped her and threw her, bound and gagged, into a river -- the court also canceled the death sentences of 72 others for crimes they committed while younger than age 18.

 

One of those inmates, Shermaine A. Johnson, 26, had been awaiting execution in Virginia for a rape and murder he committed in 1994 at age 16. Virginia set a minimum death-penalty eligibility age at 16, but that is now unconstitutional. Maryland bars the death penalty for those younger than 18; there is no death penalty in the District.

 

By far the largest impact of yesterday's ruling will be felt in Texas, where there are 29 juvenile offenders awaiting execution, and Alabama, where there are 14. No other state has more than five.

 

There have been 22 executions of juveniles since 1976, 13 of them in Texas.

 

Kennedy's opinion rested in large part on the fact that 30 states, including the 12 states that have no capital punishment, forbid the death penalty for offenders younger than 18. That number represented an increase of five since the court upheld the juvenile death penalty in 1989.

 

The court weighs death penalty laws according to what a 1958 ruling called the "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society," and looks to state legislation and jury verdicts to decide whether a "national consensus" has developed against a previously accepted practice.

 

In 2002, the court voted 6 to 3 to strike down the death penalty for the moderately mentally retarded, which it had upheld 5 to 4 in 1989. In the 2002 case, Atkins v. Virginia, the court noted that the number of death penalty states banning that practice had grown from two in 1989 to 13 in 2002, while none had gone the other way.

 

The recent shift of states against the juvenile death penalty, though less dramatic than the evidence the court found sufficient in the mental-retardation case, was enough to carry the day, Kennedy concluded.

 

For the Supreme Court itself, perhaps the most significant effect of yesterday's decision is to reaffirm the role of international law in constitutional interpretation.

 

The European Union, human right lawyers from the United Kingdom and a group of Nobel Peace laureates had urged the court in friend-of-the-court briefs to strike down the juvenile death penalty.

 

In saying that this strong expression of international sentiment "provide respected and significant confirmation for our own conclusions," Kennedy lengthened the recent string of decisions in which the court has incorporated foreign views -- and decisively rejected the arguments of those on the court, led by Scalia, who say it should consider U.S. law exclusively.

 

There were actually six votes in Kennedy's favor on that point yesterday, because in her dissenting opinion O'Connor agreed with Kennedy that international trends affect the meaning of "cruel and unusual punishment" in modern times.

 

O'Connor's opinion suggested she came fairly close to joining the majority entirely. If she were a legislator, O'Connor wrote, "I, too, would be inclined to support legislation setting a minimum age of 18 in this context."

 

But, O'Connor wrote, too few states had recently enacted such laws to convince her that the country generally had "set its face" against the juvenile death penalty.

 

Scalia, in a separate dissent joined by Rehnquist and Thomas, took the majority to task for "proclaim[ing] itself sole arbiter of our Nation's moral standards -- and in the course of discharging that awesome responsibility purport[ing] to take guidance from the views of foreign courts and legislatures."

 

Noting that most countries have more restrictive abortion laws than the United States, Scalia accused the court of "invok[ing] alien law when it agrees with one's own thinking, and ignor[ing] it otherwise." He read his opinion from the bench, a sign of strong disapproval for the court's decision.

 

Scalia also pointed out that the 18 death-penalty states that limit capital punishment to offenders 18 and older amount to 47 percent of the 38 death-penalty states.

 

"Words have no meaning if the views of less than 50 percent of death penalty States can constitute a national consensus," he wrote.

 

For Kennedy, yesterday's opinion appeared to represent a distance traveled since the 1989 case, in which he voted with Scalia to uphold the juvenile death penalty.

 

As recently as April 2003, the court -- with Kennedy's support -- granted Oklahoma's request to reinstate the death sentence of a 17-year-old offender after a federal appeals court had blocked it.

 

In 2002, the court refused to hear two appeals from younger-than-18 offenders asking it to reconsider their cases in light of Atkins. Again, Kennedy was in the majority.

 

Even at the Oct. 12 oral argument in the case decided yesterday, Kennedy said he was "very concerned" that gangs might use juveniles as "hit men" if there were no death penalty.

 

But yesterday's packet of opinions contained a brief writing by Stevens, co-signed by Ginsburg, that patted Kennedy on the back for coming around to their point of view.

 

If the "great lawyers" of the early republic were on the court today, Stevens wrote, "I would expect them to join Justice Kennedy's opinion for the court."

 

The case is Roper v. Simmons, No. 03-633.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...4-2005Mar1.html

The Supreme Court is utilizing international opinion to decide on the AMERICAN Constitution with increasing frequency.

 

And this is a MAJOR problem.

 

There has to be some way to override a Supreme Court decision that is, flat out, wrong. And basing any opinion on int'l law automatically makes it wrong, since the Court is supposed to rule on American law only.

 

And Scalia's dissent was beautiful. An absolute work of art.

-=Mike

[Ripper 0]

Its not absolutly flat out wrong, it differs from your opinon and I am going to go out on a limb and say international opinion was not the basis of the argument for this decision.

[Guest MikeSC]

Its not absolutly flat out wrong, it differs from your opinon and I am going to go out on a limb and say international opinion was not the basis of the argument for this decision.

They specifically cited int'l opinion. And they did it in 2002 as well.

 

Even MENTIONING int'l opinion when discussing the American Constitution is ridiculous and shows the Supreme Court is resorting to fishing expeditions to defend decisions that the Constitution does not defend.

-=Mike

[Ripper 0]

Its not absolutly flat out wrong, it differs from your opinon and I am going to go out on a limb and say international opinion was not the basis of the argument for this decision.

They specifically cited int'l opinion. And they did it in 2002 as well.

 

Even MENTIONING int'l opinion when discussing the American Constitution is ridiculous and shows the Supreme Court is resorting to fishing expeditions to defend decisions that the Constitution does not defend.

-=Mike

The constitution defends execution before the age of 18? Where?

[Guest MikeSC]

Its not absolutly flat out wrong, it differs from your opinon and I am going to go out on a limb and say international opinion was not the basis of the argument for this decision.

They specifically cited int'l opinion. And they did it in 2002 as well.

 

Even MENTIONING int'l opinion when discussing the American Constitution is ridiculous and shows the Supreme Court is resorting to fishing expeditions to defend decisions that the Constitution does not defend.

-=Mike

The constitution defends execution before the age of 18? Where?

The Constitution forbids it where?

-=Mike

...If they had precedent or legitimate reasoning to go on --- they wouldn't have used int'l opinion at all...

[CanadianChris 0]

Its not absolutly flat out wrong, it differs from your opinon and I am going to go out on a limb and say international opinion was not the basis of the argument for this decision.

They specifically cited int'l opinion. And they did it in 2002 as well.

The dissenters did. The majority did not, from what the story says.

[SuperJerk 0]

I remember reading this last week.

 

The Supreme Court's choice of rationale is questionable, but the conclusion was not.

 

Please note that the remark about international opinion was only ONE thing cited, and not the entirety of the argument.

 

"From a moral standpoint, it would be misguided to equate the failings of a minor with those of an adult, for a greater possibility exists that a minor's character deficiencies will be reformed," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote in the opinion for the court.

 

The recent shift of states against the juvenile death penalty, though less dramatic than the evidence the court found sufficient in the mental-retardation case, was enough to carry the day, Kennedy concluded.

 

SEE?

[Ripper 0]

Its not absolutly flat out wrong, it differs from your opinon and I am going to go out on a limb and say international opinion was not the basis of the argument for this decision.

They specifically cited int'l opinion. And they did it in 2002 as well.

 

Even MENTIONING int'l opinion when discussing the American Constitution is ridiculous and shows the Supreme Court is resorting to fishing expeditions to defend decisions that the Constitution does not defend.

-=Mike

The constitution defends execution before the age of 18? Where?

The Constitution forbids it where?

-=Mike

...If they had precedent or legitimate reasoning to go on --- they wouldn't have used int'l opinion at all...

It doesn't which renders the constitution null and void in this arguement. It doesn't speak to either side, so it can't be used as a determining factor. All that is left is who can make a more conviencing argument.

[Special K 0]

I hate to say it, but that's an opinion. It's not the court's job to express their opinion or play the moral philosopher role. It's to determine if laws made by the legislature are constitutional.

[SuperJerk 0]

The Constitutional basis for the decision was the 8th Amendment, guys.

[Guest MikeSC]

Its not absolutly flat out wrong, it differs from your opinon and I am going to go out on a limb and say international opinion was not the basis of the argument for this decision.

They specifically cited int'l opinion. And they did it in 2002 as well.

The dissenters did. The majority did not, from what the story says.

 

Plus, where did it say the Court was discussing the Constitution? There's no mention of it in the article. The Constitution doesn't comprise the totality of American law.

Um, Chris, actually --- the Constitution DOES compromise the totality of American law. The Supreme Court ONLY has the power to "interpret" the Constitution, not to add new things not spelled out at all. Int'l law has no impact, whatsoever, on American law. And it never should have any impact on American law.

 

And the majority mentioned int'l opinion in their justification for outlawing it --- Scalia simply mentioned that they seem to be cherry-picking what int'l opinion they care about. And this is not the first time they did it.

I remember reading this last week.

 

The Supreme Court's choice of rationale is questionable, but the conclusion was not.

I heavily doubt the conclusion. A 16-year old is vastly different than an 18-year old how? Why did Kennedy suddenly change his mind 180 degrees?

 

And the Court knows the Constitution does not defend the decision --- which is why they had to go elsewhere for some semblance of justification.

 

The Court also mentioned that a "majority" of Americans support this decision --- which is both irrelevant and untrue.

Please note that the remark about international opinion was only ONE thing cited, and not the entirety of the argument.

 

QUOTE

"From a moral standpoint, it would be misguided to equate the failings of a minor with those of an adult, for a greater possibility exists that a minor's character deficiencies will be reformed," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote in the opinion for the court.

 

 

SEE?

And THAT, ALSO, is not based on Constitutional law. It's simply *gasp* justices forcing their morality upon others.

 

I thought we opposed that.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

Its not absolutly flat out wrong, it differs from your opinon and I am going to go out on a limb and say international opinion was not the basis of the argument for this decision.

They specifically cited int'l opinion. And they did it in 2002 as well.

 

Even MENTIONING int'l opinion when discussing the American Constitution is ridiculous and shows the Supreme Court is resorting to fishing expeditions to defend decisions that the Constitution does not defend.

-=Mike

The constitution defends execution before the age of 18? Where?

The Constitution forbids it where?

-=Mike

...If they had precedent or legitimate reasoning to go on --- they wouldn't have used int'l opinion at all...

It doesn't which renders the constitution null and void in this arguement. It doesn't speak to either side, so it can't be used as a determining factor. All that is left is who can make a more conviencing argument.

No. If the Constitution doesn't forbid it --- then the Supreme Court can't forbid it.

 

The states can choose to do so --- the Supreme Court cannot.

The Constitutional basis for the decision was the 8th Amendment, guys.

There is no justification based on the 8th Amendment. They, as they did with abortion, are INVENTING new laws.

-=Mike

[CanadianChris 0]

Its not absolutly flat out wrong, it differs from your opinon and I am going to go out on a limb and say international opinion was not the basis of the argument for this decision.

They specifically cited int'l opinion. And they did it in 2002 as well.

 

Even MENTIONING int'l opinion when discussing the American Constitution is ridiculous and shows the Supreme Court is resorting to fishing expeditions to defend decisions that the Constitution does not defend.

-=Mike

The constitution defends execution before the age of 18? Where?

The Constitution forbids it where?

-=Mike

...If they had precedent or legitimate reasoning to go on --- they wouldn't have used int'l opinion at all...

It doesn't which renders the constitution null and void in this arguement. It doesn't speak to either side, so it can't be used as a determining factor. All that is left is who can make a more conviencing argument.

No. If the Constitution doesn't forbid it --- then the Supreme Court can't forbid it.

 

The states can choose to do so --- the Supreme Court cannot.

The Constitutional basis for the decision was the 8th Amendment, guys.

There is no justification based on the 8th Amendment. They, as they did with abortion, are INVENTING new laws.

-=Mike

Let's see...

 

Article [VIII.]

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

 

Looks applicable to me.

[Guest MikeSC]

Let's see...

 

Article [VIII.]

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

 

Looks applicable to me.

Considering that the death penalty is legal --- then, no, it is not valid. They are making laws, rather than reviewing them.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

A 16-year old is vastly different than an 18-year old how?

 

1) An 18 year old is legally an adult.

 

2) There are also psychological differences.

 

They are making laws, rather than reviewing them.

 

Banning something is not the same thing as making a law.

[Guest MikeSC]

A 16-year old is vastly different than an 18-year old how?

 

1) An 18 year old is legally an adult.

 

2) There are also psychological differences.

And you can point them out, right?

 

I was not appreciably different psychologically at 18 than I was at 16.

 

What this story shows is this:

 

If you're going to kill somebody, make sure you do it the day before you turn 18.

-=Mike

[Vyce 0]

The Supreme Court is utilizing international opinion to decide on the AMERICAN Constitution with increasing frequency.

 

And this is a MAJOR problem.

 

You're surprised?

 

It's not the first time this has been done. By the justices of the majority's politcal persuasion.

 

And Scalia's dissent was beautiful. An absolute work of art.

 

People dislike Scalia because of his political leanings.

 

And people will disagree with my statement now BECAUSE they fall on that side of the aisle that dislike Scalia because of his political leanings.

 

But Scalia is the smartest man on that entire Court. Which is saying something, given that you don't make it to the S.C. without being a brilliant legal mind, but Scalia is the sharpest of them all. His dissents, in particular, are always amazing.

 

You may think he uses his talents for evil, but you can't deny his intelligence.

[CanadianChris 0]

Let's see...

 

Article [VIII.]

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

 

Looks applicable to me.

Considering that the death penalty is legal --- then, no, it is not valid. They are making laws, rather than reviewing them.

-=Mike

How is reviewing the definition of "cruel and unusual punishment" making new law? This definition is reviewed constantly. It's why there aren't any more hangings.

 

Um, Chris, actually --- the Constitution DOES compromise the totality of American law. The Supreme Court ONLY has the power to "interpret" the Constitution, not to add new things not spelled out at all. Int'l law has no impact, whatsoever, on American law. And it never should have any impact on American law.

Completely right, and stupid of me to mention. That's why I deleted it from my post.

[Special K 0]

Indeed. They did not express any evidence that executing a 16 or 17 year old is cruel or unusual, without throwing out the death penalty altogether. There was no evidence given that I can see that a 16 or 17 yo is constitutionally (in the literal sense of the word, not the document) incapable of understanding right and wrong, cause and effect. A state can vote to uphold modify or reject death penalty statutes based on the citizens' wishes. States often do.

[SuperJerk 0]

A 16-year old is vastly different than an 18-year old how?

 

1) An 18 year old is legally an adult.

 

2) There are also psychological differences.

And you can point them out, right?

Yes.

 

I've had years of work experience dealing specifically with 14-18 year old teens, in addition to taking numerous child psychology courses both for my teaching certification and for my master's degree.

 

There's no question that 18 year olds are further developed mentally than 16 year old.

 

I was not appreciably different psychologically at 18 than I was at 16.

 

Assuming you were, which I doubt, you are not everyone else. Therefore, what you say is true about yourself is not automatically true about the average person.

[Guest MikeSC]

Let's see...

 

Article [VIII.]

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

 

Looks applicable to me.

Considering that the death penalty is legal --- then, no, it is not valid. They are making laws, rather than reviewing them.

-=Mike

How is reviewing the definition of "cruel and unusual punishment" making new law? This definition is reviewed constantly.

Because they weren't reviewing the law. They ruled on morality and int'l opinion. They seldom even mentioned Constitutional law or precedent. Again, if they HAD the Constitution on their side, they wouldn't have fished elsewhere. This is a Pandora's Box we cannot open here.

 

NEITHER have any bearing on American law.

It's why there aren't any more hangings.

And that should have been left to the states, not the Supreme Court, to deal with.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

A 16-year old is vastly different than an 18-year old how?

1) An 18 year old is legally an adult.

 

2) There are also psychological differences.

And you can point them out, right?

Yes.

 

I've had years of work experience dealing specifically with 14-18 year old teens, in addition to taking numerous child psychology courses both for my teaching certification and for my master's degree.

 

There's no question that 18 year olds are further developed mentally than 16 year old.

And I do not remotely believe that a 16 year old does not know right from wrong --- which was the long-standing standard.

 

The difference mentally between a 16- and 18-year old is minimal, at best.

I was not appreciably different psychologically at 18 than I was at 16.

Assuming you were, which I doubt, you are not everyone else. Therefore, what you say is true about yourself is not automatically true about the average person.

And there is zero reason to believe that any 16-year old who doesn't know right from wrong could possibly be redeemed.

-=Mike

[Special K 0]

Addendum:

A new interpretation of a vague clause should have a more concrete basis than the Supreme Court's general feelings.

[Guest MikeSC]

Addendum:

A new interpretation of a vague clause should have a more concrete basis than the Supreme Court's general feelings.

Indeed. It seems like the Supreme Court is fishing for stuff to justify their opinions, rather than shaping ther opinions based on the Constitution.

 

I say Senators need to spend more time questioning if they'll use foreign law in their decisions far more than whether they support abortion.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

A 16-year old is vastly different than an 18-year old how?

1) An 18 year old is legally an adult.

 

2) There are also psychological differences.

And you can point them out, right?

Yes.

 

I've had years of work experience dealing specifically with 14-18 year old teens, in addition to taking numerous child psychology courses both for my teaching certification and for my master's degree.

 

There's no question that 18 year olds are further developed mentally than 16 year old.

And I do not remotely believe that a 16 year old does not know right from wrong --- which was the long-standing standard.

 

The difference mentally between a 16- and 18-year old is minimal, at best.

I was not appreciably different psychologically at 18 than I was at 16.

Assuming you were, which I doubt, you are not everyone else. Therefore, what you say is true about yourself is not automatically true about the average person.

And there is zero reason to believe that any 16-year old who doesn't know right from wrong could possibly be redeemed.

-=Mike

Knowing "right from wrong" isn't the basis of the psychological differences. A 7 year old knows right from wrong, but we wouldn't presume to execute them.

[Ripper 0]

Mike, here is the thing that puzzles me. When state supreme courts rule in favor of gay marraige, they are activist judges and a constitutional amendment is the ONLY way to prevent this, but THIS is different somehow and how DARE the supreme court issue a decision on something that isn't specifically delt with in the Constitution.

 

If we only delt with things specifically mentioned in the constitution, then there are plenty of laws and advancements in this country that would not have happend.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I was wondering when we would start a thread about this.

 

All this tells me is that if ANYONE enters my home with intent of harm then I should kill them outright. None of this "Oh he's just a child, how could he know that boom-boom stick would cause boo-boos?" [credit: Anglesault].

 

Oh, and the same day this ruling was announced, some kid in TN shot and killed his school bus driver because the driver had the nerve to discipline him earlier.

 

Poor wittle baby...

[Special K 0]

Ripper: Well, they're both sort of cases of the judges overstepping their bounds. The judges are supposed to evalutate the constitutionality of certain laws. That's pretty much it.

If there was ever concrete evidence that being gay was something you're born into (probably won't be long) then I think they could definitively approve gay marriage going with the 'all men are created equal' statement.

Even though I think common sense dictate people are born gay, that's not really going to cut it.

I think judges should be careful to override the will of the people. Yes, the will of the people has been wrong in the past (segregation), but they should have a VERY strong case to overturn that will.

[Guest MikeSC]

Knowing "right from wrong" isn't the basis of the psychological differences. A 7 year old knows right from wrong, but we wouldn't presume to execute them.

That's actually the standard to be executed. Hence the insane aren't executed.

Mike, here is the thing that puzzles me. When state supreme courts rule in favor of gay marraige, they are activist judges and a constitutional amendment is the ONLY way to prevent this, but THIS is different somehow and how DARE the supreme court issue a decision on something that isn't specifically delt with in the Constitution.

No, the beef is that due to precedent, other states have to recognize gay marriages if one state allows them, whether they wish to or not.

 

Thus, the only way to permit states to make their OWN decision is to officially define marriage as between a man and a woman.

If we only delt with things specifically mentioned in the constitution, then there are plenty of laws and advancements in this country that would not have happend.

And plenty of things SHOULDN'T have been done. Abortion should have never been legalized nationally (and if that ME Senator's bill to forbid abortion on gay babies ever passes, there might be a HUGE problem).

 

School busing should have never been forced by law.

 

The good decisions, such as Brown v Bd. of Education, at least uses the Constitution as the central basis of their decision. They didn't use int'l opinion.

-=Mike

[Ripper 0]

The thing is, the "but it your stance isn't in the constitution" argument is really weak to me when neither is the other end. I mean you can't say "These judges are wrong for disagreeing with me without constitutional precedent" when the entire issue has no constitutional precedent.

 

Or when its like Mikes case where there is a abortion thread and he will go on and on about how its making up a law and that was wrong, but supports making up a law in the gay marrige thread.

 

I don't see how you can be on both sides of the argument. Either you are against creating law to support opinion or you aren't.