Juvenile Executions

Remove all ads!

I can't even believe this was legal, even though it was practiced infrequently. Evidently, until a few years ago, we could also execute the metally handicapped.

See the whole story here

 

We recently had a case where a 17 year old young man raped a woman in her 80's and stabbed her ~50 times -- I think they said she was alive through at least half the stabbings. I certainly wouldn't have a problem executing that young man.

Or how about that case in Florida where one guy in his twenties and four (?) teenagers 16-18 went into a house and beat six people to death with baseball bats -- one 19 year old girl was beat so badly they needed DNA to verify her identy (nothing left above the neck). All this over a game console. Once again, these young men have my vote for the death penalty.

Many teenagers want to be treated as adults yet are outraged when they have to pay the full penalty for their actions -- if a person knows it's wrong then they should face the full consequences of their own actions.

 

Well I can't believe that executions at all are still legal in some parts of the western world.

 

That is disgusting. Lots of famous people have killed people and gotten away with it knowing damn well what they have done, yet a person with downs syndrome that should have been looked after could have been executed in my lifetime?

 

I personally am glad that the Supreme Court has made this decision.

Don't get me wrong, I am a strong proponent of the death penalty, and wish my state would get it also. However, our society has decided that 18 is the age of majority and we should stick with that decision.

Should we change the age of majority? That is a really good question. The issue is if someone can be subject to all the penalties of majority, they should be entitled to the priveleges also.

 

I say executing juveniles is fine. Get the little ****s out of society. Take all those gang bangers and shoot em in the ****ing head. We should execute people for rape and child molestation, too. As to executing the mentally impaired, absolutely not. My brother is autistic, and he will have to remain in a group home for the rest of his life. Recently, he has been fairly violent, hitting people mostly, but also breaking things and trying to hurt himself. No one knows why. He can't control himself, and he does not understand the morality of what he is doing, although I believe he may know it is wrong. That could be taken as contradicting myself, but let me explain. He tries to hide stuff when he breaks it so he knows he shouldn't, but I am certain he doesnt understand the pain physical or emotional, that he causes, and anyway, he can't help himself. Now, adolescents know the difference between right and wrong. I say, over 13, execute them. @ Cesard. You know what is really disgusting? Police can get mentally impaired people to admit to crimes they did not commit. Further, it wasnt' until just a few years ago that texas outlawed executing the mentally impaired.

 

If you read the article carefully, there already is a ban on execution of metally handicapped that applies to all minors and adults.

One thing to consider, for those who are proponents of the death penalty (it will make no sense anyway to those opposed to all forms of capital punishment), these juveniles in this case have already been through the lengthy process to be "tried as an adult". These are the most heinous of cases...such as the teen in Missouri

What concerns me about this is that a jury, who has heard all the evidence, have chosen to convict with the death penalty...and this ruling takes the power of the jury away. As Justice O'Connor stated

Oh well, another example at an attempt to define a person by the class he/she is assigned to.

 

I'm opposed to executing people in the first place (even in cases such as the Port Arthur Massacre), so I guess my opinion should be obvious. Yes, there are people who have been found guilty of horrendous crimes, and maybe in these rare cases, the question of execution should be raised. However, I find a fundamental contradiction in policy here. A minor cannot make a binding contract, cannot vote, cannot legally drink, but they could still be executed? The "age of majority" line is, in my opinion, another arbitrary distinction that we have made. It is necessary, but hardly accurate in a lot of cases - I know 13-year-olds who are more mature than plenty of people approaching 30. Accordingly, I agree with O'Connor in substance (judging mental capability on a case-by-case basis) but not in principle (execution).

Agreed. I just don't think execution is the answer. While it saves a lot of money to give people the needle, I can't support it. On the off-chance that you've made a mistake, incarceration is reversible (to a degree). T2, Hack, the people in your examples deserve to have all their freedoms stripped of them; no argument here. If we are to hold ourselve above them in judgement, though, we must be better than them. In many ways, life without release is as good as the needle, it just takes a lot longer and costs more.

I was under the impression that juries did not decide sentences... maybe that's just Australia. I don't believe that anyone should have that authority to end a person's life as punishment, but if someone does, I would have thought that decision would never be in the hands of the layman. Hell, I'd be surprised if the legal profession and apparatus ceded that to the citizenry, especially given the potential for jury bias.

Don't get me wrong, though - I'm no apologist for the little bastards. They should pay for their crimes, but not through execution. A cold-blooded killer should never be released from custody, should have nothing more than their basic needs met and buried in an unmarked grave. The whole "life for life" argument misses the point, IMO; incarceration without release is as good as a death sentence.

 

Just correcting a misconception -- it cost more to execute someone than keeping them in prison for life. I think the latest study put it at $12,000,000 to execute someone in America (it may be slightly less in Texas).

Juries in America decide on whether or not someone gets the death penalty (I believe a recent Supreme Court ruling required that). A lot of really heinous murderers have a life sentence because some member's of the jury would not be responsible for killing anyone -- no matter how offensive the person was.

 

I seriously doubt it costs 12 million dollars to execute someone anywhere on earth. You could build a small prison, have it fully stocked and staffed for less.

 

It does with all the appeals and the immense legal machinery that follows and the fact that the executee usually spends 10-30 years on death row before the fact.

 

It doesn't really matter where you stand on this issue IMO, the Supreme Court is wrong in their decision. Not because execution is wrong or right, but because it is none of their business. The Supreme Court has no authority over this issue; it is completely up the states, unless someone can show me where in the US Constitution the execution of minors is covered. The 8th Amd does not cover this. It must be interpreted to state either a punishment is or isn’t cruel and unusual, not to base whether a punishment is cruel and unusual in a particular circumstance, so either the Supreme must ban the death penalty or they must step our of it and leave it to the states (except in crimes that are tried in Federal Court) to determine eligibility for the death penalty. The maturity, i.e. mental capacity of the person to be executed can be a mitigating factor, but it is up to the States to set these guidelines.

By the way, for those of you who support the death penalty, but oppose the execution of minors, what difference does one day make? I ask this because if a person commits an offense that is deserving of the death penalty, but they do when they are 17 years, 364 days old, they don't get the death penalty, but 24 hours later, they do. How does that make sense? If we are to have a death penalty I think it should be left up to juries/judges to determine the competence and maturity of the individual, and pass down an appropriate sentence.

 

I beg to differ about the costs of executing someone. IMO that is using creative accounting. When figuring out what something should cost the only costs that should be factored in are incremental costs. In every explanation I've seen the "fixed" costs are also being included. The only incremental costs are if the government has to pay for the defense, then it is whatever bills the lawyers submit. To the best of my knowledge there aren't any public defenders who have been collecting 12 million dollar checks. That number is being grossly inflated by including the district attorney's expenses (do we fire them all if we do away with the death penalty), the cost of maintaining and running the courts (same as before), and who knows what else.

I have the same feeling about the cost of the Iraq war. We already built the aircraft carrier, why does a war get charged with the cost, when if their wasn't a war it would just be sailing around?

 

I was surprised to see Justice O'Connor's comments -- I always thought she was more liberal. I certainly like her comments though.

Going off-topic.... I've been looking at the costs of capital punishment in several states. California believes it can save almost $90 million per year by abolishing the death penalty (of course, this was from a group that wants to end the death penalty). I apologize for the $12M amount I listed earlier.

A more accurate amount is about $2.5 million. This can be two to three times the cost for a life imprisonment conviction (cost of trial and imprisonment). Capital cases are much more expensive than non-capital cases. These values from Florida ($3.2M), California($2.1M), and Texas($2.3M) -- California used an average cost for prisoners (I would expect the cost for death row to be a little higher than maximum security).

By the way, Snook, the cost of operating a deployed aircraft carrier (i.e., not in US waters) is many times higher than having it sit in homeport. The aircraft need to fly constantly when in a 'hostile' environment burning thousands of pounds of fuel each hour. There also needs to be supporting ships -- cruisers and destroyers to screen the CV from threats; and the support ships that deliver fuel, food, and ammunition. When paying for the use of an CV you pay for the entire battle group. I served on a refueling ship and it alone costed $3000-5000 PER HOUR in fuel when at sea -- the wear and tear of a six month deployment is another $10-15 million. Also, those sailors who are forward deployed got an additional $115 per month for being away from their families for six months (wow, what a deal).

 

Thank you, Darkwolf...I was going to come back and mention the "States Rights" issue...but there is even more wrong with this Supreme Court decision.

If you read the actual majority opinion by Justice Kennedy, he predicates it on two fundamental grounds. The first, compliance with the 8th ammendment is flawed for the reason that Darkwolf has already stated.

The second is very disturbing. There is a strong statement in the opinion that this decision is intended to "move the United States into communion with the majority of the civilized world" (not an actual quote, I'm paraphrasing). There is nothing wrong with holding this opinion, as I'm sure many members of this board would feel the same way. It is wrong, however, to base a judicial decision on a desire to make us conform to the rest of the world...that form of action is called "Legislation"...not "Judiciation".

The Supreme Court has just made a decision based on motives that should have been used to draft legislation...not interpret the Constitution. Last time I checked, legislation was handled by Congress. Whether you believe the action was right or wrong in essence, it was performed for the wrong reasons.

Does anyone else get this?

*tap-tap-tap*

Is this thing on?

Gee, I miss Grey Magistrate.

 

Criminals (competent criminals, who know what they are doing) who commit such heinous crimes should not have ANY rights. That little ****er Christopher Simmons should be publicly flogged and slowly disembowelled, all on live television. Rehabilitating criminals does not work. Look how many repeat offenders there are. If you are forced to watch someone being slowly torn apart after being found guilty of such horrible crimes as rape, child molesting or murder, you would probably think twice before you committed the same crimes. Also, I think that having cameras in all public places, as well as fingerprinting and retinal scans if you want to go that far, would limit if not completely do away with violent crimes.

 

Hack,

You are a braver man than I. I thought about mentioning Kennedy's opinion, but I didn't want to open that can of worms.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Ravynn

Ah, no, actually I am not willing to go that far. I am actually not willing to go that far with most of your post.

We have a duty to be better than those that we are punishing for their crimes. The barbaric methods that you mention lower us to their level, and it is only a short step from there to becoming as bad as the worst of the brutal regimes in the armpits of the world. Additionally, people who commit those types of crimes are often not rational, so what would deter a rational person will not deter them. Rehabilitation has a better track record than you give it credit for. We in America just aren't very good at it, and we often choose the wrong criminals to try it on.

As far as giving video, fingerprinting, and retinal scanning...I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who said something to the effect of "those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither." Again, once you give up your rights, you are only one step away from oppression.

I personally would not be willing to make that trade.

 

The cameras are already there. Corporate America is way ahead of you on that one. As for the rest...please don't give them any ideas...

 

@ Hack,

I see your point, but I am of the belief that in this case, the ends justify the Constitutionally-questionable means. Yes, things need to be done by the rules, and I can see the concern that this raises very clearly; an unaccountable "rogue judiciary" overstepping its bounds would be a problem. If the US system is anything like the Australian one, Congress should be able to overrule the court's authority by passing legislation to the extent of the discrepancy.

However, I think Kennedy's concern is a valid one: no other industrialised and/or Western nation I can think of executes children. If someone does not have the legal ability to make an informed decision (contracts, voting, etc.), it seems inconsistent with the principles of justice to be able to execute them for acts they have committed.

Besides (and I'm not directing this at you, Hack), is it really appropriate to stick to forms and procedure over principles on matters as serious as this?

@ Ravynn,

I think you'll find a couple of problems with this idea of total surveillance and brutal punishment:

1. People don't tend to think about the consequences of a crime; they just do it. This is one of the reasons why the key principles of justice in most Western adversarial systems are majesty, justice and mercy; not everyone is a cold-blooded SOB who plans everything. People will still get stabbed or bashed in barfights, abusive husbands will beat their wives, and teenagers will still blow up your letterbox because these are acts of instinct and emotion, not rationality.

2. You'd be living in a police state - very few people would submit to such measures, although I'm sure some of us would contend that with the right propaganda, it can/has been done. Almost nobody would agree to this, since it would mean a complete loss of privacy.

3. Criminal adaptation/displacement. Unless you have everyone being watched, every second of every day, people will find a way around things. Sure, you may dissuade some people, but the ones who are dead-set on offending (ie: the most dangerous and skilled) will figure out a way through whatever safeguards are there. After all, there is no such thing as absolute security.

[ March 03, 2005, 01:49: Message edited by: NonSequitur ]

 

I would agree with those who do not favor execution for anyone under 18 - the legal age is supposed to mean that it is then that one is considered fully aware of his/her actions and what implications they may have. Well, some are not mature by the age of 20 (some, it may be argued, are no more mature by the age of 60), but we need to have a border somewhere, at least for legal purposes.
At any rate, I can't really say that a life imprisonment sentence is that much better than a death sentence from the point of view of the prisoner. Especially if the other inmates also have the view that he did something remarkably vicious by their standards - they can make his/her life decidedly unpleasant - and it's not as if death won't come anyway.