Supreme Court: No death penalty for kids

[rickjump1 0]

Quote

i don't support the death penalty...it's too easy. i want hard labor day in and day out. i think a persons life in prison should consist of shelter, food/water, sleep, and labor; no tv, no visits, no weights, no games, etc.

http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/LWOP.htm This (slightly biased to some) website simply shows that there is no sure thing as life without parole. Sentences get commuted.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[tcnelson 1]

Quote

Curious breakdown between "red" and "blue" states, don't you think? "Red" states are far more likely to engage in cruel and unusual behavior.
Who'd a thunkit?

yeah, the blue states turn citizens into idiots and the red states put them out of our misery! it's a self-healing system!

"Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch
NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329

[jdhill 0]

What of what I listed is prisoner abuse? Life in Prison is punishment, not someone's happy place, and not rehab... how is making prison a better existance than a criminal whould otherwise have on the outside a deterent? Going to prison for life should be going to hell on earth for life... if that prospect makes a criminal "die trying" so beit, at least they won't be sucking on the public tit for very long.

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[tcnelson 1]

if you were making the point that my hard labor suggestion wouldn't be good due to the fact that assbags can get out of prison due to parole, let's remember, my system doesn't exist at all anymore. in my hypothetical system, parole wouldn't be used nearly as heavily as it is in the real world. imo, when a prisoner gets life in prison, he/she did something bad enough to warrant no parole at all.

"Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch
NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329

[juanesky 0]

The only problem with your theory Kallend, is that as you see cruel and unusual behavior from the authorities, I see them being originated in the actual criminals. If they are nuts, they have a chance to spend the rest of their lives in a nut palace, if not then let them pay for the crime they committed.

What is your real motivation trying to imply that red states engage in cruel and unusual punishment? I find that blue states are more inclined in killing innocent babies (please read abortion). I find that a very cruel, unusual and UNDESERVING punishment for NO CRIME commited, but hey, it must just be me....

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[tcnelson 1]

it's not just you by a long shot my friend...

"Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch
NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

The only problem with your theory Kallend, is that as you see cruel and unusual behavior from the authorities, I see them being originated in the actual criminals. If they are nuts, they have a chance to spend the rest of their lives in a nut palace, if not then let them pay for the crime they committed.

What is your real motivation trying to imply that red states engage in cruel and unusual punishment? I find that blue states are more inclined in killing innocent babies (please read abortion). I find that a very cruel, unusual and UNDESERVING punishment for NO CRIME commited, but hey, it must just be me....

"A majority of States have rejected the imposition of the death penalty on juvenile offenders under 18, and we now hold this is required by the Eighth Amendment.", Majority opinion, SCUS, 2005.

For your reference:

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

QED

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[juanesky 0]

I know that, but it is the superiority complex that these so called "blue" people think it is ok to give the criminal who gets red handed in CRIMINAL activities, try to escape, and expect the police to become X-men or justice league, and with their superpowers figure out if the criminal is a minor, if they are armed or not, and then RESPECT them as people, giving them the benefit of the doubt...yet when it comes to killing innocent babies it is all good....

I will never be able to figure that one out....

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[juanesky 0]

So you think that putting some convicted murdered to death, to repay what they did (MURDER), is cruel and unusual?

Funny is how you transformed Behavior to punishment, must be a physics miracle....and have nothing to say about killing babies....that by the way have commited no crime...None, zip, nada....

By your standards a smoking murderer, it will be very cruel to get him jailed for life without a cigarrette, as well as a rapist, or a pedophile, and many other cases....

Maybe we should just make sure all of them, including the claustrophobics get decent accomodations, and whatever they desire....

What do you think?

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[blueskybug 0]

In response to no one special...
So if i understand the people who are against the death penalty. Someone like Malvo who bragged about killing and laughed about just missing a child, death should not be an option ? How do you justify keeping someone like that alive ? If the killer is a minor does that make the victem any less dead ? i think there should be cases where evil is called for what it is and dealt with...period.

[tcnelson 1]

i know...i think much of this is born out of not being able to make decisions based on reality. for instance, many educators tend to be liberal dems because somewhere along the way, they jumped from the real world into a hypothetical world where money is limitless, there is no right or wrong, and consequences that actually inflict discomfort are not good for a "civilized society". some of them have no idea what it is like to be a soldier/policeperson/prison guard/etc yet, they sure can talk all day about how these people should do their jobs and monday-morning-quarterback their decisions that were made in heat of battle.

"Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch
NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329

[juanesky 0]

Yep, it is very cruel and UNUSUAL to do to them what they did (in a more efficient manner of course, and much less pain) to their victims.

In the other hand, it is ok to simply abort a child (considering most liberal politicians were OK with partial birth abortions), wait, let me correct it, MURDER an innocent baby is not cruel, nor unusual, nor punishment for CRIME NOT COMMITED....


Pretty much you got it!

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[juanesky 0]

Don't forget Ted, that you forgot to mention their vociferous desdain for anyone who takes on these jobs as well, and the ridicule they would like to excercise on these little people (according to them) because they can't understand that some people are simply wanting to do things for a common good, regardless of the real sacrifices they make with their choices.

Kind of like hmm, you only got an IQ of 120, and I have one of 190....Yet when the shit hits the fan....... they get an F for street smarts and most of their undergarments turn brown.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[rickjump1 0]

Quote

if you were making the point that my hard labor suggestion wouldn't be good due to the fact that assbags can get out of prison due to parole, let's remember, my system doesn't exist at all anymore. in my hypothetical system, parole wouldn't be used nearly as heavily as it is in the real world. imo, when a prisoner gets life in prison, he/she did something bad enough to warrant no parole at all.

Hey, I'm on your side. It just rekindles my dislike of the real world where Arkansas minister and republican Governor Mike Huckabee turns em loose for good behavior and a relationship with Jesus. Now, when one of these assbags come up for parole, the victims and families of victims are given airtime to remind the public that they should not be set free and to show our idiot governor that the public is watching his fat sanctimonious ass. Believe me, I would like your hypothetical system.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[tcnelson 1]

Quote

Hey, I'm on your side.

i know; i didn't mean to sound confrontational if i did.

Quote

It just rekindles my dislike of the real world where Arkansas minister and republican Governor Mike Huckabee turns em loose for good behavior and a relationship with Jesus.

yeah, truth is stranger than fiction sometimes. i'm all for people finding strength in religion but, it's no reason to have them not pay for their crimes.

"Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch
NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329

[billvon 2,990]

>yet when it comes to killing innocent babies it is all good....

As I recall, you were quite OK with killing innocent children as long as they were Iraqi and had the nerve to get in front of one of a US weapon.

"But that's different; it was a WAR!" Right. Well, if a US leader can decide to kill 1000 living, feeling children because it's all for the best, surely a mother can decide to kill one unaware fetus because it's all for the best.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Well I read the case. And there are a few problems with the reasoning. First off they make a big point that because of the switch of five states now a majority of states do not allow execution of juviniles. But in actuality 12 states do not have the death penalty. If the 38 states that do think capital punishment is acceptable, a thin majority 20 to 18 are inclined to execute 16, 17, and 18 year olds who have commited particularly henious crimes. But the change of five state laws is enough to change the meaning of the US Constitution. So Kennedy knows where he wants to go and will use any means to get there. He also mentions that since very few exicutions of juviniles take place this will not change tthings much. But isn't that an example of the law being properly applied it this exception is so rare that tells me it is being used only with the worst offenders.(There have been six in the last 15 years.) Then he goes on to mention that the United States has not signed treaties on this subject because if the way Congress fells about it but because the people of Europe think it's barberic we should definately get rid of it. Funny, but I don't think a Supreme Court justice should be basing his opinions based of what the governments of other countries are doing. We are the "City on a Hill" and Europe has had a lot of really bad ideas over the last 250 years. I'm not so sure we should be taking our cues from them.
And to quote from Justice Scalia's dissent:

"Unless the Court has added to its arsenal the power to join and ratify treaties on behalf of the United States, I cannot see how this evidence favors, rather than refutes, its position. That the Senate and the President “those actors our Constitution empowers to enter into treaties, see Art. II, §2–have declined to join and ratify treaties prohibiting execution of under-18 offenders can only suggest that our country has either not reached a national consensus on the question, or has reached a consensus contrary to what the Court announces."

As they say in law school, "A sympathetic case makes for bad law."

First off they make a big point that because of the switch of five states now a majority of states do not allow execution of juviniles. But in actuality 12 states do not have the death penalty. If the 38 states that do think capital punishment is acceptable, a thin majority 20 to 18 are inclined to execute 16, 17, and 18 year olds who have commited particularly henious crimes.

1) ...12 states do not have the death penalty. If the 38 states that do ...

- Illinois has a moratorium on CP. Other states might as well.

2) ...a thin majority 20 to 18 are inclined to execute 16, 17, and 18 year olds...

- 18 YO's are irrelevant, the 16 and 17 are relevant.

3) ...who have commited particularly henious crimes....

- All that is required is 1st degree murder - you don't have to dismember bodies to qual for DP.

But the change of five state laws is enough to change the meaning of the US Constitution.

No, state law or policy doesn't drive the US Sup Ct, works the other way around. The US Sup Ct might mention what the states are doing, but the US Sup Ct has no duty to even recognoze Stare Decisis.

So Kennedy knows where he wants to go and will use any means to get there.

Can you show me any US Sup Ct decisions that aren't pre-decided? The cases are certified via Writ of Certiorari; it's not a democratic process..... well, the justices do vote as to whether they hear cases....

.(There have been six in the last 15 years.)

What's 6 dead teens amongst friends. What I wonder is how people can tout the Constitution, bith in text and spirit, and forget that the notion behind the US is supposed to be away from utilitarianism and toward the rights of the individual weighing equally with the rights of the whole.

Then he goes on to mention that the United States has not signed treaties on this subject because if the way Congress fells about it but because the people of Europe think it's barberic we should definately get rid of it.

Do you mean to say virtually the rest of the world? Alienation - the best thing not to do.

Funny, but I don't think a Supreme Court justice should be basing his opinions based of what the governments of other countries are doing.

I think global perspectives are important.

We are the "City on a Hill" and Europe has had a lot of really bad ideas over the last 250 years.

2 different ideas here. The former is viewed as blatant arrogance by most of the world, the latter could be said of many countires. Considering we are one of the few if not the only country that doesn't have socialized medicine, that hill is viewed as yucky by many around the world.

As for Scalia's dissent, why is he woried about a national consensus?

As they say in law school, "A sympathetic case makes for bad law."

Written by (Scalia) a true conservative......what's compassion????

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

The only problem with your theory Kallend, is that as you see cruel and unusual behavior from the authorities, I see them being originated in the actual criminals. If they are nuts, they have a chance to spend the rest of their lives in a nut palace, if not then let them pay for the crime they committed.

What is your real motivation trying to imply that red states engage in cruel and unusual punishment? I find that blue states are more inclined in killing innocent babies (please read abortion). I find that a very cruel, unusual and UNDESERVING punishment for NO CRIME commited, but hey, it must just be me....

..I see them being originated in the actual criminals.

But enough about cops..... different thread.

If they are nuts, they have a chance to spend the rest of their lives in a nut palace, if not then let them pay for the crime they committed.


You're going back 20-30 years. The nut farms are all but gone as far as criminal insanity goes - they just throw em in jail now.

I find that blue states are more inclined in killing innocent babies (please read abortion).

As a metaphor maybe, but fetuses have no Const, civil or even human rts.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

So you think that putting some convicted murdered to death, to repay what they did (MURDER), is cruel and unusual?

Funny is how you transformed Behavior to punishment, must be a physics miracle....and have nothing to say about killing babies....that by the way have commited no crime...None, zip, nada....

By your standards a smoking murderer, it will be very cruel to get him jailed for life without a cigarrette, as well as a rapist, or a pedophile, and many other cases....

Maybe we should just make sure all of them, including the claustrophobics get decent accomodations, and whatever they desire....

What do you think?

So you think that putting some convicted murdered to death, to repay what they did (MURDER), is cruel and unusual?

As for juveniles, yes. It's the old rights vs responsibilities thing; how can we expect kids to be constrained by laws governing their freedom, since they aren't mature enough to understand consequence, yet hold them accountable to the Nth?

By your standards a smoking murderer, it will be very cruel to get him jailed for life without a cigarrette, as well as a rapist, or a pedophile, and many other cases....

HArdly - not executing kids is akin to pampering?

What do you think?


I think you are drawing extremes to make your point.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

. . . fetuses have no Const, civil or even human rts.

Scott Peterson might beg to differ with you.

. . =(_8^(1)

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

. . . fetuses have no Const, civil or even human rts.

Scott Peterson might beg to differ with you.

Good point, but the difference is that if the mother aborts - no rts

if another person kills a mother wanting to take the fetus to term, then the fetus has rts. - kind of a contradiction

For the record, the fetus only warranted a 2nd degree conviction, but that has only to do with mens rea.


Moral is: the mother calls all the shots with rights and birth, etc...

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

So you think that putting some convicted murdered to death, to repay what they did (MURDER), is cruel and unusual?

Funny is how you transformed Behavior to punishment, must be a physics miracle....and have nothing to say about killing babies....that by the way have commited no crime...None, zip, nada....

By your standards a smoking murderer, it will be very cruel to get him jailed for life without a cigarrette, as well as a rapist, or a pedophile, and many other cases....

Maybe we should just make sure all of them, including the claustrophobics get decent accomodations, and whatever they desire....

What do you think?

What I think, and what you think, and what tc nelson thinks, are totally irrelevant. The decision of the SCUS is binding, and defines the meaning of the Constitution. The SCUS has decided that executing juveniles is cruel and unusual.


And that's all there is to it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jdhill 0]

Quote

- 18 YO's are irrelevant, the 16 and 17 are relevant.

So, since 16 and 17 year olds are not mature enough to be as responsible for their actions as 18 year olds, what else should they not be able to do? How loud will the cries be when states stop allowing these immature youngsters to have driver's licenses, or work, or to be out after dark... since the court has implied that they are not fully responsible for what they do...

And, since 18 year olds are responsible enough to face the death penalty, why not get rid of the ridiculous 21 drinking age...

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[Ron 10]

Quote

Curious breakdown between "red" and "blue" states, don't you think? "Red" states are far more likely to engage in cruel and unusual behavior.
Who'd a thunkit?

Blue states are more likley to allow criminals to go free and prey on others...Who would have thought?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[crwtom 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Homicides in IL went down dramatically after the moratorium on CP went into effect.

Huh? Are you saying that once murderers saw that they couldn't be executed, that they no longer wanted to kill anyone any more?
Basically there is no correlation and the concept of deterrence is a smokescreen for retribution...... revenge.

I sometimes wonder what is going on in the heads of death
penalty supporter who use the deterrece arguement - how they
imagine someone becomes a murderer . Apparently they
envision some sort of prior decisions process whose outcome
depends on what penalty to expect.

So Joe thinks it's an interesting idea to kill X because there
might be some benefit involved for him. He sits down one evening
and states on a piece of paper his overarching goals for this
project, makes a list of the undisputable facts and circumstances,
and explores the general feasability of a plan of execution.

After that, on another piece of paper, he makes two columns.
In the left he jots down the Pros of carrying out the murder and
on the right the he enteres all the Cons. Then he attributes
between one and five asterisques to each of the entered items
depending how grave and impactful each of the point is in
correlation with his previously stated goals.

Additionally Joe will make an approximate risk assessment -
that is, he assigns his best etimates of probabilities for best and
worst case scenarios.

In a final analysis he weighs all factors together and distills
from this a decision whether or not to murder X.

Now, if the expected penalty was death rather than life this
could well have an impact on the outcome. Particularly, if Joe
assigned a high priority to staying alive in his initially stated goals,
this would presumably cause in the afore mentioned Con-column
a jump of the number of asterisques at the penalty item . In a
borderline situation this is quite likely to tilt the final analysis
towards a negative decision.


Quite a comedy I'd say.


Cheers, T

*******************************************************************
Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

• Quote