I disagree with the Supreme Court's decision about the non-application of the death penalty to juveniles.
Perhaps 40 years ago, 15-17 year-olds did not possess the requisite information to discern right from wrong (arguable), but today a 13-year-old may have the equivalent information than did an 18-year-old of 40 years ago.
I think that an adjustment in the "age of responsibility" should be reduced from 18 to 15.
Thus, I, strongly, believe that the Court made a grievous error in judgment.
QWAK,fe4o3,You are READING in to what I said what YOU want to THINK or believe I said. I believe you do want to understand WHAT it IS I am saying but can not get beyond your own preconcieved notions.
Actualy I believe that the system has become SO corrupted that it can NOT be fixed or repared,only REPLACED by somthing NEWER and DIFEENT from what has come befor. More LAWS can NOT change what the USA and the WORLD has EVOLVED in to,the POWER system is SO riged at this point, that IT IS GOING to CRASH and BURN and relitively SOON and it is going to be a HELL of a MESS, but out of that will come a NEW BEGINING. It is NESSARY and if one looks at both history and nature it is the way realy BIG changes happen.
Laws and regulations are only limitedly effective and do not change perceptions or beliefs at the basic level and it is at the BASIC level that things will have to change or it will be, just more of the same as what WAS befor.
We learn a lot more from our mistakes and from HARD TIMES than we do from our succeses and good times, that is the way humanity is, and at this point with global over population and weapons of mass distruction, I honistly believe mankind is going to confront the very REAL posability of TOTAL self DISTRUCTION!
Facing that REALITY and SURVIVING it WILL change how we see and relate to ALL other SURVIVORS and it will ALTER our perception of WHO we are and that "IF" mankind is to continue to survive, ALL must be seen as VALUABLE to our own indivigual survival.
I realise this sounds VERY EXTREAM and for most is UNTHINKABLE, but until we in mass confront our MORTALITY and the very REAL posability that only DEATH on a GRAND SCALE can can demonstrate, will we change our BASIC perceptions and beliefs.
LAWS can NOT do it,armies and WARS can not do it,IF they COULD it would have been done already!
The SUPREME COURT must have hearings and debates befor it decides to change its UNDERWARE,it is stacked and loaded by political groups that fight change of any kind that does not make more MONEY for some one, some ware, that is well conected. Basicly it does NOT work very well and at best it is a DAMPER or SHOCK absorber that limits change from from the established NORM,their main purpose is to maintain STATUS QUO and only allow slow gradgual change so that the public can adjust over time and I am talking GENERATIONS.
Not sure I disagree for the same reasons as you; but the problem I have is that the court is setting itself up on pretty shaky ground, as it moves to following the courses of other countries, I prefer the approach of the right way, and if other countries have a different approach, find out why they do. Are they correct or not? Consensus and the majority is not the basis for what is correct in and of itself.
It seems to think that it must now reconcile itself to the international community. Germany, Britain, France. Countries that have such a guilt complex for their history of human rights abuses, that they feel they must swing the 180 degrees extreme. The court should look to what is RIGHT, not just politically correct. We have Congress to make laws. The court needs to look at the bigger constitutional basis of the laws. This cruel and unusual punishment clause was in regards to floggings to the point of death, torture and other gross abuses. It certainly didn't include capital punishment. Now the court is moving this way because the UN is. Is the U.S. a soveigrn country? I would hope so.
Sometimes I think this country is following the life of Hamlet, A prince whose
Own Magnificence Led To His Demise
1) The court had decided once that 15 years was the age of accountability.
2) Capital punishment had been left to the states.
Here is an example of this courts high reasoning. It appears to be on a par with these Yahoo boards.
"The stark reality is that the United States is the only country in the world that continues to give official sanction to the juvenile death penalty," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, an appointee of President Reagan, wrote for the majority.
"It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty," he said. "While not controlling our outcome, [it] does provide respected and significant confirmation for our own conclusions."
That comment drew a strong rebuke from Justice Antonin Scalia � another Reagan appointee � whose dissent accused the majority of changing the Constitution to fit its own shifting views of what was proper. He said international opinion should play no role in interpreting the U.S. Constitution.
"The court proclaims itself the sole arbiter of our nation's moral standards � and in the course of discharging that awesome responsibility purports to take guidance from the views of foreign courts and legislatures," Scalia said. "I do not believe that the meaning of our [Constitution] should be determined by the subjective views of five members of this court and like-minded foreigners."
Scalia said the court should have allowed juries to continue to decide whether young killers deserved to die.
Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen G. Breyer joined Kennedy's opinion setting 18 as the minimum age for capital punishment. They noted that in nearly every state, 18 is the minimum age for voting, serving on juries and obtaining marriage licenses without parental permission.
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomasjoined Scalia's dissent.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor , the court's usual swing vote, dissented separately. She said she agreed with Kennedy that the court should look to "evolving standards of decency," but she disagreed that there was a "national consensus" against executing young killers.
have a good day,
I think Kennedy, Stevens and Bryer hit it right on the head. While interantional consensus ought not be controlling, it should be respected and considered. Western civilization neither started with nor ends with the USA.
QWAK,williamjenning_bryan, Your post has one HUGH FLAW and that is an understanding of HISTORY and LAW!
If one goes back to when the foundations of our modern laws were set in place they would find that because there were NO prisons as we know them today and little or no money to feed and house prisnors, MOST offences were punishable by DEATH!
I dbout that TODAY many would concider THAT a reasonable and viable alternitive, especialy with what we have learned, having had the passed to learn from-----THAT is WHY we have changed!
It is NEGLECT of the BASE that FOSTERS CRIME, it was TRUE then and it is TRUE NOW!
The only REAL solution is to fortify in very real ways the people who make up the base of society----NOT in GIFTS and HAND outs, but rather CREATING meaningfull ways that they can CONTRIBUTE!
Killing more of them and younger ones, is NOT going to DO IT,nor is WAREHOUSING them in compounds that only foster and reinforce negitive antisocial behaviour!
When we CHANGE our peceptions, we change our world and IF we want LESS VIOLENCE in our world then it is NESSARY to confront and CHANGE the CAUSE of problems, not just deal with the problem once it can no longer be ignored!
It is the ignoring of the the ones who become the problems that IS the real problem and NOT addresing THAT problem,causes that problem to AMPLIFY it self until it MUST be delt with because it gets IN YOUR FACE and will not just GO AWAY!
Michael While I have not read the decision, it would seem the consequence is that some juveniles, perhaps 8 or less a year will get life in prison instead of death peanlty sentences.
But perhaps it is time to examine if the age of criminal majority ought to be lowered. The exact age should be the result of a consensus by modern experts.
REGARDING: But perhaps it is time to examine if the age of criminal majority ought to be lowered. The exact age should be the result of a consensus by modern experts.
They can, also, review the age regarding statutory rape.
QWAK,mikiesmoky,Reguardless of what YOU think (??)or DON'T THINK, the HUMAN BRAIN continues to develop in to the 30s and even at age 20+ the part of the brain involved with making judgments and evaluations is NOT fully "COOKED" shall we say! :)
It is for THAT reason teen agers get in more auto accidents and also why the MILITARY wants YOUNG SOLDIERS because they (the military) can EXPLOIT younger soldiers! Even in the 20s there is an absence of a sence of indivigual MORTALITY and perception of CAUSE and EFFECT both for self and society.
Newer MRI results have CONFERMED this well known reality sientificly.
YES younger kids are more VIOLENT today but that is due to exposure in the inviroment to more violence, NOT faster mind or brain development!
ONE has to WONDER what an MRI of YOUR BRAIN would indicate, about the part of your brain involved in making JUDGMENTS and EVALUATIONS!
Have YOU ever concidered DONATING your BRAIN to SCIENCE? It would likely both CONFUSE sientists and give them somthing to wright MANY papers, on the UNDER DEVELOPED, ADULT BRAIN!
LOL,HE HE HE YOU SOooooooooooooo FUN! :)
REGARDING: Have YOU ever concidered DONATING your BRAIN to SCIENCE? It would likely both CONFUSE sientists and give them somthing to wright MANY papers, on the UNDER DEVELOPED, ADULT BRAIN!
RESPONSE: Have you ever considered seeking medical assistance to mitigate your idiocy?