Comments on: Supreme Court Overrules Death Penalty for Minors

By: Tiffany

Tiffany — Tue, 15 Mar 2005 21:41:19 +0000

I am totally against minors being sentanced to death. its wrong. Why should minors who have been influenced by the people around him be put to death? I know they should have known it was wrong but who could blam them? I also know that they have a mind of their own and a self conscience so they made the dicision to do the crime but they still have a life to life even if it means spending some of it in jail.

By: Blind Mind's Eye

Blind Mind's Eye — Sat, 12 Mar 2005 07:04:48 +0000

A challenge to social conservatives who are upset by the Supreme Court ruling on executing minors
A lot of conservatives seem to be upset by the Supreme Court's ruling that minors cannot be executed, and so it has me wondering about something. Most conservatives agree with Robert Locke's diseased rant about libertarians when he makes this...

By: Joel Thomas

Joel Thomas — Thu, 03 Mar 2005 22:30:58 +0000

Jack,

I think there is a good possibility (I admit I'm not sure) that Christ would oppose executing juveniles. Jesus is a lot of things, perhaps, but not a bleeding heart crybaby.

By: Jack Tanner

Jack Tanner — Thu, 03 Mar 2005 14:19:25 +0000

Sorry bleeding heart crybabies but explain how it's cruel, unusual or immoral to execute John Lee Malvo. How many people did he execute in cold blood like they were targets at the carnival? Your perverse sanctimony about executing murderous sociopaths like Malvo or Kleibold just insults their victims.

By: Signifying Nothing

Signifying Nothing — Thu, 03 Mar 2005 01:26:03 +0000

Roper (not the guy who replaced Siskel)
Unlike my co-blogger, I tend to think that the Supreme Court's decision in Roper v. Simmons was the morally correct one--in general, I am suspicious of the death penalty not for legal or practical reasons, but philosophical ones; namely, that...

By: Katherine

Katherine — Wed, 02 Mar 2005 20:15:16 +0000

" donât argue that we have to be bound forever by the status quo 1791. My argument is that, absent a Constitutional amendment, that which isnât precluded by the Constitution of 1791 isnât unconstitutional." Anderson: Beware this argument. It is a rhetorical trick mainly used to pretty up an ugly argument. Antonin Scalia used it in Romer v. Evans: Colorado isn't excluding gays from the protection of the Constitution, it's just requiring them to seek a different remedy. Right. In exactly that Dredd Scott merely forced opponents of slavery to seek another remedy. In exactly the sensee that laws banning miscegenation don't exclude interracial couples from the equal protection of the law, it just makes them seek another remedy. This is also the exact same argument that John Yoo uses to justify telling the President that it's legal to torture people. He explained in the New Yorker that the only "constitutional remedy is impeachment." That's much prettier than saying that "Unless and until he is impeached and removed from office, the President can violate the law at will." But it's the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT.

By: Elrod

Elrod — Wed, 02 Mar 2005 19:44:54 +0000

Thank God for this Court. The juvenile death penalty is an abomination. It's not just a question of how many states have changed their laws, but how rarely juries wish to apply it because, well, it's patently "cruel and unusal" and the citizenry already know it. So why haven't more legislatures passed laws to reflect this fact? Because until very recently nobody could get elected to office unless they promised to streamline the road to the chair. Americans rediscovered their conscience over the last several years and, beginning with Illinois, have started to change the political climate such that legislatures can begin to restrict this grossly immoral practice. The Supreme Court recognized this and did humanity and America a great service.

By: Jack Tanner

Jack Tanner — Wed, 02 Mar 2005 16:29:00 +0000

Just a question but how would it be justified to try a 16 or 17 year old as an adult but not sentence them as an adult? If they are deemed culpable to stand trial why would they receive a sentencing exception?

By: JackLewis.net

JackLewis.net — Wed, 02 Mar 2005 16:00:45 +0000

Supreme stupidity
In a 5 to 4 display of incredible stupidity, the Supreme Court yesterday outlawed executions of murders who committed their...

By: Just some guy

Just some guy — Wed, 02 Mar 2005 14:31:27 +0000

Heh. So the Left just saved one of the Beltway Snipers from the death penalty! That's right, Lee Boyd Malvo was 17 when he murdered all those people and terrorized the nation's capitol on behalf of Al Qaeda in the aftermath of September 11. And now, he has been saved from the death penalty. See Director Mitch's comment above. How long until an unelected liberal Federal judge lets this poor dear out of prison because long sentences for murderers under the age of 18 are "cruel and unusual"? Five years? Ten? I'm sure he will come out a well-adjusted and patriotic American.

By: Diggers Realm

Diggers Realm — Wed, 02 Mar 2005 12:45:53 +0000

The Case For The Juvenile Death Penalty
People under the legal age of 18 should be executed for their crimes. A lot of people think that kids under 18 should not face the death penalty. I beg to differ. People get the death penalty for premeditated murder....

By: Joel Thomas

Joel Thomas — Wed, 02 Mar 2005 06:32:06 +0000

If the standard has to be what constituted cruel and unusal punishment in 1789, then it seems to me that under the second amendment, one only has the right to bear arms that were manufactured then, not what can be manufactured now. Or freedom of speech should only apply to words that were in existence when the Constitution was written.

By: Miller's Time

Miller's Time — Wed, 02 Mar 2005 05:01:11 +0000

Roper Roundup...
Today the Supreme Court made one of the most asinine decisions regarding the death penalty.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Wed, 02 Mar 2005 01:42:12 +0000

Joel: Sure, "cruel and unusual" is an evolving standard. But it has evolved quite nicely through the democratic process.

Capital punishment is hardly unusual in our society. One imagines, though, that relatively few minors will warrant a death sentence given that their age will be considered a mitigating factor in sentencing. One presumes, therefore, that those actually sentenced to death were the ones deemed to be especially despicable and culpable.

By: Director Mitch

Director Mitch — Wed, 02 Mar 2005 01:34:13 +0000

So everyone cheering about this ruling, think about this: As a result of this, the "jail without possibility of parole" will take effect or pass in most states.

Now, you think executing someone is cruel, but putting someone who is 17 in jail until they die of old age is okay? With life expectencies increasing, you're talking about someone doing 60 years, maybe 70, behind bars.

And they will have no hope of EVER getting out. Well, maybe they'll get lucky like Dahmer and get knifed in the showers some time over their half century plus in there.