posted on March 1, 2005 04:17:20 PM new
US court bans juvenile executions
The US Supreme Court has abolished the death penalty for those who commit murder when under the age of 18.
The court was divided on the issue, but voted 5-4 that the death penalty for criminals aged 16 and 17 should be declared unconstitutional.
The decision affects not only those convicted in future, but about 70 prisoners already on death row for offenses committed before they were 18.
Keep 'em in jail until they hit forty or fifty and know nothing of life outside the cell. That'll be sure to make them a well-adjusted and productive member of society!
Or keep them in jail their entire lives, adding absolutely nothing to society and draining thousands of dollars a year that could be helping poor people.
Or, spend three bucks on a new piece of rope, hang 'em and save money by re-using the rope!
--------------------------------------
Replay Media - The best source for board games, card games and miniatures on the web! http://www.replaymedia.com
posted on March 1, 2005 06:44:01 PM new
What about the children from parents who:
a/ have no money
b/ have no education
c/ are on drugs
d/ have no future plans
e/ no permanant address, etc.
Should the parents of these children hold ANY responsibility?
posted on March 1, 2005 07:14:34 PM new
"Should the parents of these children hold ANY responsibility?"
What do you want to do, throw them in jail or fine them? Neither solution is going to help the children.
Foster families? Do you KNOW how hard it is to take a child away from a parent, even if they deserve it, under U.S. law? And not many foster families really WANT to deal with "delinquent" children anyway- what do you do with completely unwanted children?
No. I really do think you should have to be licensed or something to have children. At least pass a test.
--------------------------------------
Replay Media - The best source for board games, card games and miniatures on the web! http://www.replaymedia.com
posted on March 1, 2005 07:36:28 PM new
Wrong, wrong, wrong. They were old enough to do the crime, they should "do the time" they were originally sentenced to.
Or, spend three bucks on a new piece of rope, hang 'em and save money by re-using the rope!
I vote to shooting them. I'll donate the ammo.
A word to the wise ain't necessary, it's the stupid ones that need the advice."
- Bill Cosby
[ edited by Bear1949 on Mar 1, 2005 07:38 PM ]
posted on March 1, 2005 07:58:12 PM new
No, I don't agree with this ruling. They know right from wrong at that age. They know they're taking a life.
I think in this instance the USSC made a VERY wrong decision. Juries found these underaged kids guilty of their crimes and knowingly decided to give them the death sentence. When the jury decides the crime was heinous enough to give them the most extreme sentence, then I trust there's reason to believe they deserved just that. And they still had the same appeals everyone else on death row does.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on March 1, 2005 08:20:46 PM new
Maybe they ought to execute their parents instead.
____________________________________________
Dick Cheney: "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11..."
posted on March 2, 2005 02:17:55 AM new
If you start executing the parents, teenagers will kill just to accomplish that. I can only imagine how many times Jazz would have thought about it...
Kids already have more rights than the parents. Parents have no control and government agencies have taken away our leverage....Can't smack a child on the ass or the back of the head when they desperately need it, can't "spy" on your kid when you think they have fallen in with the wrong crowd.....Kids aren't held responsible because they might feel bad.
posted on March 2, 2005 05:04:44 AM newCan't smack a child on the ass or the back of the head when they desperately need it, can't "spy" on your kid when you think they have fallen in with the wrong crowd.....Kids aren't held responsible because they might feel bad.
twig, don't get me wrong, I'm not accusing you of this, but your statement is an excuse I've heard way too many parents use. Instead of taking action when their kids need it, they want to blame society. Instead of proactively being involved in their kids' lives, they wait until something goes wrong, and then can't figure out what to do.
Kids have to be first, all the time. They have to come before work, personal pursuits and everything else. Anything less is asking for trouble. Anything less is poor parenting.
____________________________________________
Dick Cheney: "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11..."
posted on March 2, 2005 06:25:06 AM new
prof-you right they should come first,but in alot cases they dont.There are alot of two family incomes and neither parent is home to supervise them.In todays society its almost mandatory that both parents work to make ends meet.Is almost like you have to make a choice of weather to have kids or both parents work and have all things they want-its very difficult to have all the things you want or need and not have both parents working.
posted on March 2, 2005 07:41:27 AM new
I agree with you about parenting skills and child rearing. But at the same time we both know that in spite of having the best parents, some kids are destined to go "bad". You can't blame the parents in cases like this.
A word to the wise ain't necessary, it's the stupid ones that need the advice."
- Bill Cosby
posted on March 2, 2005 07:56:32 AM new
Horror over a 'vicious generation'
behind push to condemn teens
By MIKE TOLSON
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle
Juvenile offenders were infrequent arrivals to Texas' death row until the 1990s, when escalating juvenile violence and a new breed of young killer prompted a severe reaction from the criminal justice system.
Only four Texas juvenile offenders were executed for crimes committed in the 1970s. Ditto for the 1980s, though one inmate from that decade remains on death row.
The turbulent 1990s saw a different story.
An explosion of juvenile crime, including a huge increase in juvenile homicides, brought the gloves off. Most juvenile offenders currently on Texas' death row — 25 of 28 — committed their crimes in that decade. Half of the total occurred from 1994-99.
In this case, Texas mirrored a national trend. Across the country, 76 juveniles were given death sentences during the last half of the 1990s. That's almost as many as the previous 12 years.
Typically, getting a death sentence for a juvenile offender has been harder than for an adult, not only because of age but because of a more limited criminal record. That changed in the last decade.
Experts think the impact of publicity about juvenile crime made its way to the courthouse. Not only were there more cases to consider, but people had been shocked by news reports of gang violence, crack wars, drive-bys, school shootings and youths everywhere with guns.
"You had local news pounding on the issue, so presumably the jury came in sort of primed to accept the message that the juvenile crime rate is a problem," said Victor Streib, a law professor at Ohio Northern University and an expert on the juvenile death penalty. "The arguments in court were no different than they ever were, but the public awareness of juvenile violence was."
Researcher sees aberration
Robert Blecker, a New York law professor who researched the wave of juvenile killers firsthand, thinks they were a frightening aberration that had never been seen in society or the criminal justice system.
Blecker spent more than 2,000 hours interviewing young offenders in a Virginia prison that served Washington, D.C., one of the early venues in the outbreak of juvenile violence. He said the death sentences that ensued from their murders were understandable when details of the crimes are explored.
"It was an incomparably vicious generation, so it doesn't surprise me there were these death penalties," said Blecker, who teaches at New York Law School. "There was a depraved indifference to human life that I think has peaked. There reached a point where it got so out of control that even the older street criminals recognized themselves that they wanted something better for their younger brothers. The older kids were now reining in the younger kids."
Dianne Clements, head of the Houston-based victims rights group Justice for All, said she was disappointed that the court would treat juvenile offenders with a broad brush instead of letting their crimes be considered individually.
"I was hoping the majority of justices would give credence to the types of murders that these 16- and 17-year-olds commit," she said, "and understand how important it is to impose the type of penalties states permit and (let) juries decide, instead of turning their backs on innocent victims and families."
No state will be more affected by Tuesday's ruling than Texas, which leads the nation by far in sentencing juvenile offenders to death, even though state law permits only 17-year-olds to be considered.
Texas' 28 juvenile offenders on death row is double that of Alabama, the only other state in double digits. Alabama, which allows 16-year-olds to receive death sentences, has never executed any of its juvenile offenders. Texas has executed 13. No other state has more than five juveniles on death row.
No comfort for families
For those familiar with Texas' willingness to use capital punishment, such numbers are hardly surprising. Its 338 executions since the resumption of capital punishment in 1977 — more than a third of all those carried out in the United States — have earned it worldwide distinction.
Many are not sad to see that distinction end, at least with respect to juveniles.
"Up until today, I think there were six nations in the world that executed people for crimes they committed as children — including China, Saudi Arabia, Republic of Congo and Iran," said Jim Marcus, director of the Texas Defender Service, which handles the appeals of a number of Texas death row inmates. "So it's about time that the United States conformed to the criminal justice standards of the Western Hemisphere."
For the families of victims, however, the argument for standards pales beside their pain and outrage.
"They were certified as adults, they should be executed like adults," said Adolph Peña, whose daughter Elizabeth and her friend Jennifer Ertman were murdered in 1993 by a gang of teenagers that included three juveniles. "Let those guys up in D.C. worry about whether they knew what they were doing. I know my 16-year-old knew what they were doing."
The reasons behind the rise in juvenile homicides in the early '90s — the reaction to which may be indirectly responsible for Tuesday's court ruling — will be debated by social scientists for years.
Blecker said several factors played a role. The first was a widely observed phenomenon: the flight of the minority middle class from communities that had previously been segregated. When the merchants and dentists and postal workers left, the only people with money were those involved in crime.
Of greater influence, he said, was an epidemic of abuse of crack and marijuana soaked in PCP. The drug culture seized control of a sizable segment of youth.
Its assumptions — kill or be killed, no one makes it past 21, live entirely for the moment — went hand in hand with violence. The drugs themselves left the teens feeling both invulnerable and paranoid, a lethal combination.
As the epidemic waned, the killings dropped. And so did death sentences. There have been only 22 in the last five years and only two in Texas.
Sentencing rate declines
Streib, however, said only some of that decrease should be attributed to fewer killings. In recent years, he said, the practice of executing juvenile offenders has become less palatable for society. Death penalty opponents have campaigned steadily against it, increasing their effort after the Supreme Court banned execution of the mentally retarded in 2002.
"The (death) sentencing rate is much, much lower than the (juvenile) homicide rate," Streib said. "There has been a lot of campaigning against the juvenile death penalty. It's sort of out of favor politically now. And whether they face the death penalty depends on what the local prosecutor wants to do."
posted on March 2, 2005 08:29:37 AM new
This new change allows youths like Lee Malvo who shot and/or murdered 15 people, because he was three months short of his 18th birthday, to escape a death sentence - which imho, he sure deserved.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on March 2, 2005 10:06:29 AM new
Whats the difference if people are executed or not. The death penalty doesn't act a deterrent for those contemplating committing a crime.
I like how the bible thumpers are condemning the Supreme Courts ruling. I thought killing was a sin and against the teachings of the bible
It's wrong for people to kill, but it is OK for the government to kill the killers. Such hypocrites they are.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- Bush will fix Social Security just like he has fixed Osama Bin Laden and Iraq. Bush can't be trusted to run this country and you want to trust him with your retirement?
posted on March 2, 2005 10:24:49 AM new
Exactly Prof. If parents were actually responsible for whatever their children did while under the age of 18, I bet there would be a lot more parenting going on. It might even make people think twice before having children. Educating parents doesn't work so the children pay. How fair is that?
posted on March 2, 2005 10:46:00 AM new
There are over 118 people in 25 states that were on death row that have been released since the 1970's because they were found to be innocent of the crimes they were convicted of.
Personally, I think the people that commit crimes that warrant the death penalty are to chicken to kill themselves ie the DC Snipers.
I think being confined to a 10x12 foot cell with no contact to the outside world would be a greater punishment than death.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- Bush will fix Social Security just like he has fixed Osama Bin Laden and Iraq. Bush can't be trusted to run this country and you want to trust him with your retirement?
I think Bush is the biggest hypocrite of them all. He is against abortion but how many executions were carried out in Texas during his reign as governor - over 150 of them. He had the power to do something but instead did nothing.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- Bush will fix Social Security just like he has fixed Osama Bin Laden and Iraq. Bush can't be trusted to run this country and you want to trust him with your retirement?
posted on March 2, 2005 11:07:48 AM new
logan - So the difference between taking 'innocent' lives is the same to you as taking the life of those who have proven they can't remain free in our society because of their own actions against others. typical
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on March 2, 2005 11:22:07 AM newWhats the difference if people are executed or not. The death penalty doesn't act a deterrent for those contemplating committing a crime.
It sure as hell prevents them from killing again
While Governor of Texas, Bush was legally bound by recommendations of the Texas Board of Pardons and Parole's recommendation as to commuting death row sentences.
Wonder how many of you would change you mind if a personal aquaintance of yours had been murdered by one of those now on death row.
A word to the wise ain't necessary, it's the stupid ones that need the advice."
- Bill Cosby
posted on March 2, 2005 12:02:58 PM new"I believe they ( the killers) should be given the same choice that they gave their victims."
That sounds like revenge to me. Nothing will undo a death or kill the pain but killing another person because they're sick, especially a child, isn't right either. Why isn't rehab an option? Why is it either death or life in another sick invironment?
posted on March 2, 2005 12:13:12 PM new
Why do you presume the killers are "sick"?
I don't believe that for a minute. They are sane.. they knew the difference between right and wrong.. they knew that murder would extinguish the life of another.. They simply made that choice. Regardless of the reason for the act.. the bottom line is that they knew what they were doing was wrong..
They took a life.. why should we pay to rehabilitate them? Why should they be given another chance? They shouldn't. If they were proved mentally ill, then give them life.
IMHO
posted on March 2, 2005 12:55:17 PM newWonder how many of you would change you mind if a personal aquaintance of yours had been murdered by one of those now on death row.
How many of you would change your mind if you had a personal aquaintance that was sitting on death row or actually given the death penalty for a crime he did not commit.
Bear, there have been times where family members of those that have lost people to murder have asked the judge to spare the life of the killer because of there own personal beliefs regarding the death penalty.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
----------------------------------
Bush will fix Social Security just like he has fixed Osama Bin Laden and Iraq. Bush can't be trusted to run this country and you want to trust him with your retirement?
[ edited by logansdad on Mar 2, 2005 01:05 PM ]
posted on March 2, 2005 01:03:03 PM newSo the difference between taking 'innocent' lives is the same to you as taking the life of those who have proven they can't remain free in our society because of their own actions against others. typical
What is typical Linda is people like you that want to interpret the bible to fit your own agenda. You keep saying: God and religion should be more prevalant in society. Well what part of "Thou shall not kill" do you not understand. I am sure you would be in favor of having the ten commandments posted everywhere. Would you want to have the ten commandments changed to nine and not have "Thou Shall not kill" listed? As I said before, you think it is wrong for people to other people, but not for the governemnt to execute the killers (or those that might be innocent).
I personally believe all life is sacred. All killing is wrong in my opinion whether it is a fetus, child, or adult. Whether you kill someone or the government kills the killer, it is wrong. The government can sentence to a criminal to life in prison if the crime is severe enough. I don't think the government should have the right to end a person's life regardless of how horrible the crime was. The criminal should only have to face judgment by one person - God.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
----------------------------------
Bush will fix Social Security just like he has fixed Osama Bin Laden and Iraq. Bush can't be trusted to run this country and you want to trust him with your retirement?
[ edited by logansdad on Mar 2, 2005 01:40 PM ]
posted on March 2, 2005 01:38:36 PM new
Problem is logan - You WEREN'T talking about your OWN morals/values....you were talking about the President's. I pointed out that those who are so suportive of having absolutely NO restrictions on abortions [or object to them being made illegal] are often the ones who are against the death penalty....so it works the same with many...just in the reverse.
I know what the Bible says....and it's all in how one interprets it. My belief system believes the 10 commandment 'thou shall not kill'....is his warning to the murders you lives you choose to defend. I believe a lot of people take only those few words of the Bible passage and don't read any further. God is warning the ones you protect not to murder, not the 'state' not to take their lives for the crimes they commit.
What is typical Linda is people like you that want to interpret the bible to fit your own agenda.
But it's somehow different when YOUR AGENDA is discussed. yea...right.
I don't expect you to agree....just like we don't agree on how the Bible refers to your chosen lifestyle. No different, imo, it's all how we indivdually choose to interpret the words.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Mar 2, 2005 01:42 PM ]
