KD in CA Posted March 1, 2005 Share Posted March 1, 2005 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7051296/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 1, 2005 Share Posted March 1, 2005 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7051296/ 257064[/snapback] I heard that this morning. Brilliant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted March 1, 2005 Share Posted March 1, 2005 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7051296/ 257064[/snapback] O’Connor filed a separate dissent, arguing that a blanket rule against juvenile executions was misguided. Case-by-case determinations of a young offenders’ maturity is the better approach. she said Why bring common sense into this Sandy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 1, 2005 Author Share Posted March 1, 2005 Why bring common sense into this Sandy? 257097[/snapback] She's way off base. Don't you know that at 17 years and 11 months you don't know right from wrong but on your 18th birthday you suddenly attain all the wisdom of adulthood? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 1, 2005 Share Posted March 1, 2005 One of the things Justices always complain about is having their hands tied. The Supreme Court's answer to that is apparently "cinch that thing a bit tighter. Use your teeth." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted March 2, 2005 Share Posted March 2, 2005 Why bring common sense into this Sandy? 257097[/snapback] I agree that a person doesn't suddently know right from wrong on a certain date. However, I do not think that type of ruling would work with our legal system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 2, 2005 Author Share Posted March 2, 2005 I agree that a person doesn't suddently know right from wrong on a certain date. However, I do not think that type of ruling would work with our legal system. 258083[/snapback] It seemed to be working fine as it was before this ruling. Lee Malvo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted March 2, 2005 Share Posted March 2, 2005 This is a tough question. There's definitely a time when it would be wrong to execute a child for committing a murder. At the same time, plenty of murderers under age 18 deserve to die. The American people refuse to trust judge's judgement in sentencing criminals (see minimum sentencing guidelines). To me, this is another step along that line of thought. Apparently, judges can't be trusted to figure out what "kids" deserve to die, so we have to draw an arbitrary line. I found it interesting that the opinion was so influenced by world standards. The Court gives a lot of weight to international law on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted March 2, 2005 Share Posted March 2, 2005 Why bring common sense into this Sandy? 257097[/snapback] I have to agree with Sandy on this one. It is up to a jury to determine competence on an individual basis. Also, trying to invoke International Law is not something we should be using as a basis. How many other laws would we now need to overturn? Drinking age comes to mind. What about the decency laws regarding nudity on broadcast TV? Is the American public ready for these changes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 2, 2005 Share Posted March 2, 2005 I have to agree with Sandy on this one. It is up to a jury to determine competence on an individual basis. Also, trying to invoke International Law is not something we should be using as a basis. How many other laws would we now need to overturn? Drinking age comes to mind. What about the decency laws regarding nudity on broadcast TV? Is the American public ready for these changes? 258255[/snapback] Someone wrote an article on that very topic in US News a few months ago. I don't want mamby-pamby Euro limpwrists determining how OUR law is interpreted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted March 2, 2005 Share Posted March 2, 2005 I have to agree with Sandy on this one. It is up to a jury to determine competence on an individual basis. Also, trying to invoke International Law is not something we should be using as a basis. How many other laws would we now need to overturn? Drinking age comes to mind. What about the decency laws regarding nudity on broadcast TV? Is the American public ready for these changes? 258255[/snapback] There are 72 Juveies on death row right now. I"ve read about three of them this morning here in Florida. All three were 17 when they brutely killed their victims. I feel bad for the victims families. One of them even boasted about how he'd get off because he was only 17. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted March 2, 2005 Share Posted March 2, 2005 This is Ef'd up. James Bonifay, 31 Age at time of crime: 17 Crime: In Pensacola in 1991, Bonifay meant to kill a clerk at an auto parks store whom Bonifay's cousin blamed for getting him fired. But the clerk called in sick and was replaced by Billy Wayne Coker, whom Bonifay shot and killed. What ruling means: Bonifay could be eligible for parole in about 10 years, but he also was sentenced to life in prison for robbery. He will not be eligible for parole if the sentences are consecutive. If they aren't, he will be. Cleo LeCroy, 41 Age at time of crime: 17 Crime: In January 1981, LeCroy fatally shot a newlywed couple from Miami-Dade who were camping in rural Palm Beach County south of Lake Okeechobee. The bodies of John and Gail Hardeman were found about a week after they didn't return home. John Hardeman had been shot in the head; Gail Hardeman had been shot in the head, neck and chest. What ruling means: LeCroy will be eligible for parole in a few years. Nathan Ramirez, 27 Age at time of crime: 17 Crime: He killed Mildred Boroski, a 71-year-old widow, in 1995. She was in bed at her Pasco County home when Ramirez and a friend broke in. They tied her up, killed her dog and looted the house. Ramirez shot Boroski twice in the head. What ruling means: Ramirez will never be eligible for parole because his crime occurred after a 1994 law that denies parole eligibility for people convicted of first-degree murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted March 2, 2005 Share Posted March 2, 2005 Death penalty for juveniles banned You must be over the age of 18 to vote, join the military, enter into a binding contract, operate heavy machinery, drive at night, buy cigarettes, buy firearms, buy pornography, or have an abortion without parental consent. Rightly-so or otherwise, people under the age of 18 aren't responsible for their actions in the eyes of the law, and you can't have it both ways... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 2, 2005 Share Posted March 2, 2005 You must be over the age of 18 to vote, join the military, enter into a binding contract, operate heavy machinery, drive at night, buy cigarettes, buy firearms, buy pornography, or have an abortion without parental consent. Rightly-so or otherwise, people under the age of 18 aren't responsible for their actions in the eyes of the law, and you can't have it both ways... 258839[/snapback] Can't say I agree with you on that. Especially considering the number of times I have heard teenagers talk about doing something illegal now while the consequences are less severe. There are few instances the punishment shouldn't fit the crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted March 2, 2005 Share Posted March 2, 2005 You must be over the age of 18 to vote, join the military, enter into a binding contract, operate heavy machinery, drive at night, buy cigarettes, buy firearms, buy pornography, or have an abortion without parental consent. Rightly-so or otherwise, people under the age of 18 aren't responsible for their actions in the eyes of the law, and you can't have it both ways... 258839[/snapback] Do we take it to the extreme, and say that anyone under 18 cannot be convicted of ANY crime? Anything from traffic tickets to murder must be eliminated because they are not competent enough to understand what they are doing. It is obvious from the Simmons case that people under the age of 18 can fully understand what they are doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted March 2, 2005 Share Posted March 2, 2005 people under the age of 18 can fully understand what they are doing. 258861[/snapback] I don't disagree with that. But the law is the law. As Justice Kennedy said, "All juvenile offenders under 18 should be exempt from execution due to 'lack of maturity and an underdeveloped sense of responsibility.' Some under 18 have already attained a level of maturity some adults will never reach, but a line must be drawn... The age of 18 is the point where society draws the line for many purposes between childhood and adulthood. It is, we conclude, the age at which the line for death eligibility ought to rest." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted March 2, 2005 Share Posted March 2, 2005 I don't disagree with that. But the law is the law. As Justice Kennedy said, "All juvenile offenders under 18 should be exempt from execution due to 'lack of maturity and an underdeveloped sense of responsibility.' Some under 18 have already attained a level of maturity some adults will never reach, but a line must be drawn... The age of 18 is the point where society draws the line for many purposes between childhood and adulthood. It is, we conclude, the age at which the line for death eligibility ought to rest." 258904[/snapback] So, getting back to my other argument, should anyone under the age of 18 be exempt from prosecution of ANY crime since they "lack maturity and have an underdeveloped sense of responsibility?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted March 2, 2005 Share Posted March 2, 2005 So, getting back to my other argument, should anyone under the age of 18 be exempt from prosecution of ANY crime since they "lack maturity and have an underdeveloped sense of responsibility?" 258909[/snapback] I don't think anyone is arguing whether a minor should be exempt from prosecution if charged with a crime. As someone who believes that 98.9% of Psychology is BS, I believe the only objective method to guage a person's maturity is chronologically. IMO, minors should be treated differently than adult criminals. I don't think many here would condone doing away with juvenile centers in favor of putting minors in a general population prison, but it seems that's what some are advocating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IUBillsFan Posted March 2, 2005 Share Posted March 2, 2005 So, getting back to my other argument, should anyone under the age of 18 be exempt from prosecution of ANY crime since they "lack maturity and have an underdeveloped sense of responsibility?" 258909[/snapback] I was thinking the same thing when I read the ruling...Or even to a lesser extent will they be only tried as juveniles and never be allowed to be tried as adults? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted March 2, 2005 Share Posted March 2, 2005 It seemed to be working fine as it was before this ruling. Lee Malvo? 258101[/snapback] From the AP Article: Justice Anthony Kennedy (news - web sites), writing for the majority, said many juveniles lack maturity and intellectual development to understand the ramifications of their actions. The main argument here is whether or not people juveniles lack the maturity to understand the ramifications of their actions AND whether the court could determine if they did. I'm not a lawyer. However, from my understanding of the legal system the basis for determining whether a juvenile should get the death penalty was grossly inadaquate. The differences between states in this was alarming, and in some instinces the state didn't care whether the minor understood the ramifications of his actions or not. For example, in North Carolina, all 17 year olds are tried as adults, no matter what. The minimum age in North Carolina for the Death Penalty was 16. Lots and lots of 17 year olds don't understand the ramifications of their actions, albeit I agree that some do. Look at all the people who are 16/17 and feel that they are invulnerable to the law. It continues on into college too for a lot of kids, but our society defines 18 as legal age to accept responsibility, so I'm not going to touch above the age of 17 at all. Anyway my point for bringing this up is the court system didn't even bother to determine if the minor understood his actions or not - it just executed him. This is important because he still is a minor, automatically tried as an adult, but not considered an adult in any sense of the word. As Chris Rock said in Head of State, "That Aint Right". The example you brought up, Lee Malvo, is a good example of the system working correctly. However, don't think that because it worked correctly that one time that it worked correctly all of the time. I wish this problem could have been solved in a better way. Congress has the power and authority to draft a decent set of laws that would allow for all minors to be mentally evaluated, have this evidence presented at a the sentencing hearings, and then determine if he will be subjected to the death penalty or not. However, our congress wouldn't touch this with a 10 foot pole. For them its a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario. If they did pass it, they would get slammed by democrats and civil rights activists for allowing minors to still get the death penalty. They would be slammed by very conservative republicans (which I think is all the republican party has recently) for not having a policy of an eye for an eye. Either way congress is !@#$ed. While its sad that our supreme court had to do this, it is in my opinion the best solution currently to the problem of a defunct system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts