USSC abolishes death penalty for juveniles

[P_B_J]

Justice Kennedy surprised me on this one. Executing kids is unconstitutionally cruel. 5-4 spilt with Kennedy as the "tie-breaker."

What thoughts have ye? If a 16- or 17-year-old can muster up the hatefulness to commit heinous crimes, shouldn't the states be free to rid their communities of him? Is he less culpable than a 18-year-old or a 40-year-old?

[1sgkelly]

Age discrimination!

:mad:

[retired]

I agree that persons under 18 years of age should be executed for a capital crime if it is shown that they were competent at the time of the crime, and were aware of what they were doing. However, I wouldn't agree to execute a 5 year old that killed someone.

[ArcticCat20]

Justice Kennedy surprised me on this one. Executing kids is unconstitutionally cruel. 5-4 spilt with Kennedy as the "tie-breaker."

What thoughts have ye? If a 16- or 17-year-old can muster up the hatefulness to commit heinous crimes, shouldn't the states be free to rid their communities of him? Is he less culpable than a 18-year-old or a 40-year-old?

I agree, if a juvie can brutally and viciously attack, beat, and kill another person they should get the death penalty. At 16 or 17 you are capable of knowing the consequences of your actions.

And retired, just a side note, states have a limit on the age a child can be held criminally responsible for their actions which is usually around 10 or 12 if I remember right. I don't think you have to worry about many 5 year olds going to court. :)

[Quopper]

I believe that most states do not consider a child under the age of ten as being able to commit a crime, therefore a five-year-old would not have this problem but a ten-year-old could.

Should we be able to fry a ten-year-old, good question? I still see a big difference bewtween a ten year old and a sixteen/seventeen year old. However, soem of the younger ones have committed the mose hanious crimes like:

January 27, 1997

[ArcticCat20]

Should we be able to fry a ten-year-old, good question? I still see a big difference bewtween a ten year old and a sixteen/seventeen year old. However, soem of the younger ones have committed the mose hanious crimes like:

I agree there are differences between a 10 year old and a 16 year old but I think it depends on the kid and the crime. There are some 10 year olds out there that are little craps. I can't remember the case very well but there was a kid out east that killed his 2 or 3 year old neighbor who was playing outside, I'm talking sliced and diced, just because he wanted to. He had no reason. I do believe they sent him to death row. Like I said, I can't remember all the details. I guess I'm not a very nice person...I figure if you do the crime then string em up.

[retired]

I agree, if a juvie can brutally and viciously attack, beat, and kill another person they should get the death penalty. At 16 or 17 you are capable of knowing the consequences of your actions.

And retired, just a side note, states have a limit on the age a child can be held criminally responsible for their actions which is usually around 10 or 12 if I remember right. I don't think you have to worry about many 5 year olds going to court. :)

Personally I don't know the law in all the states, I am only familiar with California law. And while California law states a person under 14 is not capable of commiting crime , it has its exceptions.


California Penal Code Section 26:

All persons are capable of committing crimes except those
belonging to the following classes:

One--Children under the age of 14, in the absence of clear proof
that at the time of committing the act charged against them, they
knew its wrongfulness.

But to put your mind at ease, I'm not really too concerned about a 5 year old committing a murder, that was just an example of how young can a person be to be executed?

[P_B_J]

I think the Supremes had already ruled that a kid 15 or under couldn't be executed. So this ruling affected only the 16 and 17 folks.

Seems to me that at 16 I knew right from wrong and was aware that there were consequences for my actions.

[Quopper]

I think the Supremes had already ruled that a kid 15 or under couldn't be executed. So this ruling affected only the 16 and 17 folks.

Seems to me that at 16 I knew right from wrong and was aware that there were consequences for my actions.

With that being said, I think 16/17 should be able to take the hit like an 18 year old. Not much difference in the ages.

[Netopalis]

I think the death penalty isn't used enough just in general. I don't know about other states, but in Oklahoma death can not be used without 1 or more aggravating circumstances. Found in 21 O.S. Section 701.12

Aggravating circumstances shall be:

1. The defendant was previously convicted of a felony involving the use or threat of violence to the person;

2. The defendant knowingly created a great risk of death to more than one person;

3. The person committed the murder for remuneration or the promise of remuneration or employed another to commit the murder for remuneration or the promise of remuneration;

4. The murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel;

5. The murder was committed for the purpose of avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest or prosecution;

6. The murder was committed by a person while serving a sentence of imprisonment on conviction of a felony;

7. The existence of a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society; or

8. The victim of the murder was a peace officer as defined by Section 99 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes, or guard of an institution under the control of the Department of Corrections, and such person was killed while in performance of official duty.

To me this is already too lenate. If this is what it takes to get a death sentence I think juveniles 16 years old should be eligible. Thats just my 2 cents.

[retired]

[QUOTE=P_B_J]I think the Supremes had already ruled that a kid 15 or under couldn't be executed. So this ruling affected only the 16 and 17 folks.
QUOTE]

Correct you are. :)

In Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815 (1988), the United States Supreme Court held that executions of offenders age 15 and younger at the time of their crimes are prohibited by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

[Quopper]

Netopalis I agree with you that is way too lenient, and if those are the standards then they should apply to EVERYONE. However, I am one to talk, I live in a state that has only used in once since 1976, and only have 3 sitting on death row! LOL - I wish it was the wild west still!

[1sgkelly]

17 years old you can join the military and kill for your country, what the hell's the difference?
:confused:

And get shot if you don't.
:eek:

[Titan67]

Those two kids that dropped the younger kid from a highrise balcony at the Robert Taylor homes in chicago a few years back "just for the hell of it" are reason enough to sway that vote the other way.

[Mraughh]

I support the death penalty for juves. If its determined that they understand right from wrong, then their age dosent matter. fry them.
I also dont think they should keep crooks on death row for so long either.

[ArcticCat20]

The reasoning was ridiculous - 'we should be like the rest of the world'... freaking idiots (the 5)...

LOL, am I the only one who thinks that quote is funny. Be like the rest of the world where you get whipped in Singapore for a minor misdeamenor or getting mutiliated for stealing something in the middle east. I say if we want to be like the rest of the world then we have a long way to go and it seems that the death penalty would be a pretty humane punishment as opposed to some of the torture we could be dishing out. :rolleyes:

[Mraughh]

hot off the presses.


CUMBERLAND CITY, Tenn. -- A 14-year-old boy was charged with shooting a school bus driver to death as she drove her morning route Wednesday. A relative of the driver said she had reported the boy a day earlier for using smokeless tobacco on the bus.
None of the 24 students on the bus, ranging from kindergarten to the 12th grade, was hurt, even though the bus crashed into a utility pole after driver Joyce Gregory was shot.

Authorities declined to comment on a motive for the shooting or identify the high school freshman accused of killing Gregory, but neighbors said his name is Jason Clinard.

Public defender Jack Lockert, who met with the suspect for about 45 minutes, said he was in shock.

"We obviously feel like he has severe mental issues," Lockert said. "He's an A and B student and had never been in trouble before."

Two weeks ago, Gregory told family members she was having trouble with students chewing tobacco on the bus, according to her cousin Jacqueline Reed. After several warnings, she reported them to school administrators Tuesday, Reed said, adding that the 14-year-old was one of the students Gregory reported.

The shooting happened about 6:15 a.m. on an unpaved rural road just outside Cumberland City, about 50 miles northwest of Nashville.

Tennessee Bureau of Investigation spokeswoman Jennifer Johnson said the suspect had not yet boarded the bus when the driver was shot. Police said the weapon used was a .45-caliber handgun, but they would not say where the boy got it.

"We've heard stories that there was an argument, that he may have been disciplined by the bus driver, but right now we're trying to sort through those stories to see exactly what happened," Johnson said.

District Attorney Dan Alsobrooks said the suspect has been charged with first-degree murder in Juvenile Court and was being held without bond. He said the boy could face adult charges as the investigation continues.

Gregory was a teacher's assistant for four or five years and had been a bus driver for the past two years, said Phillip Wallace, director of Stewart County Schools.

"I lost a good friend this morning, so I'm hurt," said Bill Austin, a schools supervisor. "We're trying to do our level best to get our kids through this. That's what we've got to do right now."

An informal school safety survey released yesterday by the National Association of School Resource Officers says more than one in three school-based police officers say violent incidents on school buses are on the rise.

Almost eight in 10 of the school-based officers took a weapon away from a student on school property during the last year, according to the survey of more than 750 officers.

[keith758]

Could this be the first step towards total abolishment of the death penalty?

[Quopper]

Could this be the first step towards total abolishment of the death penalty?

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=8&did=186

Check out the above web-site, sorta seems like with the exception to Texas (always knew there would come a reason why I liked Texans! ;) ) The US has damn near abolished it anyway.

I live in Colorado (AZ previoulsy) - CO has only done 1 execution since 1976, and we only have 3 sitting on death row right now. AZ has at least hit 22 since 1976, but the death row population is HUGE! I understand the right to appeals if your life is on the line, however 10 years - and stays - that's BS!

[keith758]

I personally feel that the reason that the death penalty has little effect is because it takes so long to execute a deserving criminal. All too often, the general public have no remembrance of the horrendous crimes that the executed person committed. There is a special scum who now calls himself "Mumia Abul Jamal" that murdered Officer Daniel Faulkner in the late 70s. He's still on death row and is the darling of the liberals like Mike Farrell, Bruce Springsteen and Ed Asner who are trying to get him released. Perhaps if Mumia, AKA Wesley Cook, had been executed in a timely manner, true justice would have been served. You can bet that if they ever do execute this waste of skin, there will be all kinds of stories on him, with little mention of his victim.

[retired]

Could this be the first step towards total abolishment of the death penalty?

I certainly hope not!

[usafcop64528]

I totally agree with the person who said that we do not use the death penalty enough. Its practically a joke now... If you intentionally kill some one, you should get the death penalty. If anyone is familiar with the Uniform Code of Military Justice, many things carry the death penalty, to include rape, principals(an accessory to a crime, even if they are for instance the getaway driver, and an unplanned murder is committed, they are just as liable,) even disrespect to an officer can, in wartime, carry the death penalty. The civilan side should be the same.

[Mraughh]

Could this be the first step towards total abolishment of the death penalty?

Yep, I'm betting we'll see it happen. Saddens me to think they will. But I know it's going to happen. It infuriates me that the SC overrode the decisions of 19 states to execute juves like they did. And all so that we can be more like the rest of the world. Just another prime example of how corrupted our courts are. The amount of time it takes to actually kill one of these dirtbags is cruel and unusual punishment in itself. It should be that, after conviction they're taken out back of the courthouse and shot in the head.

[Monty Ealerman]

There are young men on death row who at age 18 killed someone in the heat of anger. I'm sure that death penalty foes and advocates alike will agree that such a murder is an extremely bad thing to do.

But then there's death penalty poster boy Lee Boyd Malvo, whom the Supremes have just 5-4'd into ineligibility for it. If we're going to inflict death on all these other lesser criminals, why not on this monstrosity?

In my opinion, it's ludicrous. The Bushmaster rifle was full grown, wasn't it? Malvo was grown enough to know how to use it. Can't the State Courts decide whether his defense has any merit? This kid is ice-hearted enough to kill multiple persons none of whom did anything more instigatory to him than merely crossing the view of his reticle.

One problem with eliminating the State's option to inflict the death penalty is that it can lead reasonable persons to stop trusting the criminal justice to inflict appropriate consequences on the persons who commit the worst crimes.

That can incent some such persons toward the taking of private revenge, and could tempt some police officers encountering such persons to inflict the penalty on the scene, and then write it up as a necessity.

It probably wouldn't be easy to catch someone who from 8 blocks away put a .50 round through Malvo on one of his perp walks. And if such a person did happen to get caught, I'll bet the jury would be more than reluctant to convict him for it.

Regards,

Monty

[retired]

I even disrespect to an officer can, in wartime, carry the death penalty. The civilan side should be the same.


You mean that I should be put to death if I show disrespect toward an officer? ;) ;)

On a serious note I don't think that civilian law should at all be like military.

[usafcop64528]

You mean that I should be put to death if I show disrespect toward an officer? ;) ;)

On a serious note I don't think that civilian law should at all be like military.
Good point. I should rephrase...I think that the civilian law should be more strict, having a more meaningful sentence, and in that aspect, leaning more towards the militarys current law system. However it should in no way immediatly parallel military law. It wouldn't work, unless all civilians are to be treated to a militaristic life style. No, I don't think you should be put to death for disrespect to an officer, that was just an example, I really don't think that would ever happen. However, maybe there should somewhat of a harsher penalty for disrespect to a peace officer.

[retired]

However, maybe there should somewhat of a harsher penalty for disrespect to a peace officer.


You would have to give me a definition of what "disrespect" is toward a civilian peace officer. Since this isn't the military, the 1st amendment applies.

As far as harsher penalties, in my opinion the penalties in California are sufficient, it depends on what the DA files, and what the court imposes.

[usafcop64528]

You would have to give me a definition of what "disrespect" is toward a civilian peace officer. Since this isn't the military, the 1st amendment applies.


True...I think that that would be more along the lines of non-compliance/disobedience (sp?)

[retired]

True...I think that that would be more along the lines of non-compliance/disobedience (sp?)

Depending on the state involved, it could be construed as interfering or obstructing. In california there is a section of the CVC, 2800 that allows for an arrest if the directions of an officers are not followed. :eek:

[Mraughh]

Depending on the state involved, it could be construed as interfering or obstructing. In california there is a section of the CVC, 2800 that allows for an arrest if the directions of an officers are not followed. :eek:

misdeamenor I'd bet? Obstruction of an officer is an M in GA. Unless they are actually fighting, trying to harm one, then its upgraded to felony obstruction 1-10yrs sentance if i recall correctly.

[retired]

misdeamenor I'd bet? Obstruction of an officer is an M in GA. Unless they are actually fighting, trying to harm one, then its upgraded to felony obstruction 1-10yrs sentance if i recall correctly.

2800CVC is a misd, and only used in traffic situations. While section 69PC is a felony, 148 PC is a misd. :)

[Mraughh]

2800CVC is a misd, and only used in traffic situations. While section 69PC is a felony, 148 PC is a misd. :)

Learned something new today also :)

[NCHawk56]

Awe the death penalty, what a fun topic. I love the blind faith in the death penalty that so many people show. There is NO proof that the death penalty deters, or incapacitates criminals. Now let me clarify. If you want retribution, then this is your tool. If you are out for vengance, here you go get you some blood on your hands. These cold blooded murders have a very low recidivism rate, lower than any other crime. So if your aim is to take criminals off the street, kill someone who is more likely to repeat their crime, child molesters. But incapacitation is in a sense punishment beyond the crime commited, and thus not really constitutional.

But if you want to reduce violent crime, well your betting on the wrong horse. Actually, one study found that murders increased after an execution. No offense intended, but the Criminal Justice system is a reaction system, you can't really do anything to prevent crime, well except for the deterant effect just having a CJ system produces. To prevent crime you have to get deeper, improve communities, get the public involved with their neighorhoods. People are the problem and they are the solution, well the best hope for a solution we have come up with yet.

And more specific to children. It's a sad day when you start punishing someone like an adult without giving them the rights of an adult. You want to hang them, let them do the things adults do, no more status offenses.

I have no problem with killing a child, of any age, to protect self or others. Well not morally. Just to clarify.

Stay Safe!!!

NCHawk56

[Mraughh]

NCHawk, can you give me some examples of what you would like to see in your system of reform? We could both throw around numerous examples of for and against the DP. If you were king for a day, how would you change the CJ system to handle criminals, both under and over 18? Just trying to understand your viewpoint, which is decidedly alien to me. :D

Here would be mine. Any conviction for a violent felony gets the death penalty. No appeals process. Non violent felonies would get 5 years in prison. No parole or probation. No amenities in prison, from first to last day, you would spend it entirely inside the cell. No TVs or books or anything. Misdeanors would be handled at the county jails, probation/parole allowed for good behavior, but 50% of the sentance would have to be served. Sounds pretty draconian I'd bet. But my theory is that if you eliminate the offenders then people will re-learn to fear going to prison and not commit crimes. All of the crimes codes would be majorly overhauled also.

[retired]

Here would be mine. Any conviction for a violent felony gets the death penalty. No appeals process. Non violent felonies would get 5 years in prison. .


You obviously don't subscribe to the BOR's and "due process", or the 8th amendment. :) I believe that your proposal would generate more murders for non-capital offenses. Think about it! If a violent felon is going to get the DP for "ANY" violent felony, why not just kill the victim since the punishment is the same? And at the same time eliminate the 5th amendment. :rolleyes:

[Mraughh]

You obviously don't subscribe to the BOR's and "due process", or the 8th amendment. :) I believe that your proposal would generate more murders for non-capital offenses. Think about it! If a violent felon is going to get the DP for "ANY" violent felony, why not just kill the victim since the punishment is the same? And at the same time eliminate the 5th amendment. :rolleyes:

due process would be handled during the trial itself. Why do you think there would be more murders for non-capital offenses? Prison would not be as it is today, it would be more along the lines of a 15th century prison. A complete and utter hell-hole to go to. As it stands now, criminals are much better off than their victims are. A child gets raped and is messed up for the rest of their lives whereas the perp gets an extremely light sentance and then gets out and can continue commiting the same crimes.

[retired]

due process would be handled during the trial itself. Why do you think there would be more murders for non-capital offenses? Prison would not be as it is today, it would be more along the lines of a 15th century prison. A complete and utter hell-hole to go to. As it stands now, criminals are much better off than their victims are. A child gets raped and is messed up for the rest of their lives whereas the perp gets an extremely light sentance and then gets out and can continue commiting the same crimes.

You said, "Any conviction for a violent felony gets the death penalty". I say that if that were the case, what is the deterrent for a perpatrator of lets say a rape, to not kill his victim if the punishment is the same for the rape as it is for the murder. Why not eliminate the rape witness? What has he got to lose by killing his rape victim? He won't suffer any greater punishment.

Now don't misunderstand me, I spent a lifetime arresting and putting *********s in jail, and I don't have any sympathy for them. But I do recognize that a punishment should fit the crime, or it becomes ineffective. What if we incarcerated petty thieves for 50 years? Then what would be the incentive to stop at petty thievery? Same for battery, why not just proceed to felonious assault if the penalty is the same?

[Bighead]

If you advocate changing the law, then support, elect, and petition members of the Congress who agree with your position. Or, make a move for a ballot initiative.

Unless there is something expressed in the Constitution (there is not in this case) or some prevailing tradition in our history, then change of the law should be reserved for the lawmakers (thats the legislature for those of the you in Rio Linda).