Supreme Court Debates Juvenile Executions

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court is considering whether the United States is out of step with the rest of the world, and with national and global standards of decency, by allowing teenage killers to be put to death.

Nineteen states allow capital punishment for 16- and 17-year-olds, and more than 70 juvenile murderers are on death row.

Justices were hearing arguments Wednesday in a case that will determine whether those executions are unconstitutionally cruel, the latest step in the Supreme Court's reexamination of capital punishment in America.

The high court already has barred the death penalty for the mentally retarded and for people under age 16.

At issue for the court is whether people under 18 should be treated as adults.

Juvenile offenders are executed in just a few other countries, including Iran, Pakistan, China and Saudi Arabia. International leaders contend the practice leaves the United States diplomatically isolated and vulnerable to charges of hypocrisy on human rights issues.

The Supreme Court has looked increasingly at international opinion, and its four most liberal members have gone on record against a practice they said was "a relic of the past and is inconsistent with evolving standards of decency in a civilized society."

Justices are considering a case involving the kidnapping and killing of a Missouri woman. Two teens forced the victim, wearing only underwear and cowboy boots, into a van and later threw her off a bridge to drown.

A 17-year-old, Christopher Simmons, was sentenced to die for the 1993 murder, but Missouri's highest court overturned the death sentence last year. A younger teen was sentenced to life in prison.

Supporters of the death penalty, including families of victims, traveled to Washington for the landmark case.

"The death penalty is reserved for the worst of the worst. It is not just for adults," said Dianne Clements, president of the victims' rights group Justice For All. "It doesn't matter how old the killer is. What matters is that your loved one is gone."

Simmons, meanwhile, has big name supporters.

Former President Carter said the Supreme Court should recognize that "basic principles of American justice require rejection of child offender executions once and for all."

And C. Everett Koop, a former surgeon general, said scientific research shows that "juveniles are underdeveloped and immature, particularly in the areas of the brain that dictate reason, impulse control and decision-making."

Moderate Justices Sandra Day O'Connor (news - web sites) and Anthony M. Kennedy probably will cast the crucial swing votes, as they did two years ago when justices barred executions of the mentally retarded on a 6-3 vote.

That ruling drew fierce dissents from the court's three most conservative members, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia (news - web sites) and Clarence Thomas (news - web sites).

Justice John Paul Stevens (news - web sites), David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg (news - web sites) and Stephen Breyer (news - web sites) have said that it is shameful to execute juvenile killers.

The case is Roper v. Simmons, 03-633.

Oh jeez, Jma!
When I read the title to your thread, I assumed that they might be debating the implimentation of the DP for teens. But, no! They are debating the ban of it.
Aren't we Americans a fine bunch?
But, at least we can talk about it, in public. I suppose that is a good sign. :-)

__________________
Live simply, love generously, care deeply, speak kindly.

Cowards are cruel, but the brave love mercy.

I think that when they try a kid as an adult, it relieves a real adult from being held accountable. If you have a 15 year old out there with a gun and he kills someone, before I statutorily deem him as an adult, I'd want to know where the 15 year old got that gun. I think there is an irresponsible gun owner out there who should be held accountable. Some might say that the kid may have stolen the gun, then I say to that, well, the gun owner should have properly secured that gun. In Maryland, the State Police will give you a gun lock if you cannot afford to go buy one. So, I say rather than try a juvenile as an adult, use it as a negotiation tool to find out where the gun came from and then properly adjudicate the original gun owner.

But I know how kids do dumb things and make mistakes when they are 15. I do not see the death penalty as an appropriate punishment for them. Well, I don't support the death penalty for ANYBODY really. I'd rather see prisons use people to clean graffiti off buildings, or pick up trash and litter from the roadways rather than pay a state employee with the Highway Administration to do it.

Anyhow, whether or not to execute a juvenile is a can of worms that I think needs to remained closed.

Will

I am against the death penalty let alone a teen, I agree w/will charging them as adults just takes the resposibilty off the adults around them. The death penalty to me is get even and hate and murder same as the crime done by the one charged, which makes us no better. What is wrong with a life sentence no chance of parole, protects the public, is the intention?? Not another murder in the name of murder???

__________________

I heard an interesting debate on the radio on this topic today. One point that chilled me was this; when juveniles are no longer in danger of execution for murder, guess who the gangs, etc, will recruit to do their dirty work? I'm not sure which I find more disturbing.