Yesterday's Supreme Court Ruling

Kargyle · Post by **Kargyle** » March 2, 2005, 2:18 pm

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050301/D88I8CHG0.html

SCOTUS rules that the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishments for people that commited their crimes before the age of 18.

Since I'm personally against the Death Penalty, I support this decision. Going further though, I've never thought it was right that we tell people under the age of 18 you aren't old enough or mature enough to have the rights of an adult, but we're gonna burn your ass down like an adult if you mess up. It seems like every week you hear about some prosecutor wanting to try a 12 year old as an adult, and I just don't think that is acceptable.

Regardless, I have come to the conclusion that our country is doomed. I can come to no other conclusion after listening to the radio yesterday and this morning; hearing every other caller saying that something needs to be done about the Supreme Court, that we need to get rid of it altogether, or severly limit their power. I've always known there are some retards that feel that way about the Supreme Court, but that there was so many scares me.

Hesten · Post by **Hesten** » March 2, 2005, 2:44 pm

About time.

I wont say welcome to the club of countries that try to keep up on human rights yet, but its a step in the right direction.

Sirensa · Post by **Sirensa** » March 2, 2005, 2:48 pm

Kargyle wrote:Regardless, I have come to the conclusion that our country is doomed. I can come to no other conclusion after listening to the radio yesterday and this morning; hearing every other caller saying that something needs to be done about the Supreme Court, that we need to get rid of it altogether, or severly limit their power. I've always known there are some retards that feel that way about the Supreme Court, but that there was so many scares me.

At least you can rest assured that the opinion of said retards (regarding the Supreme Court) will never prevail. The United States would have to strike down the entire Constitution for that to ever happen, and that's not gonna happen.

I personally agreed with the decision. There has to be some line drawn, whether it is real or not, on when someone should be considered an adult. Seems to be 18, so the courts shouldn't be allowed to arbitrarily decide some kids under 18 are "adults" simply to inflict the death penalty.

I support the death penalty, but not for children. Despite the fact that it can be argued a 17-year old can have the same mindset as an 18-year old, the line needs to be strongly drawn somewhere. If a 17 year old cannot voluntarily risk their life for the country (military service), the country shouldn't be able to take the kids life for punishment (death penalty)

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » March 2, 2005, 2:49 pm

Can't drink but you can DIE! Didn't make sense to me either. A step in the right direction but those freaks you are talking about need to drink a little less coffee in the mornings.

Marb

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 2, 2005, 2:52 pm

they are the inverse of Mid's quote about freedom of speech and freedom of thought

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » March 2, 2005, 3:00 pm

A 12 year old kid in my area blew his grandmother and aunt away with a 12 gague shotgun, stole their wallets, got in a truck, didn't clean up, and was pulled over by the cops. He was arrested, tried, and found guilty of murder.

If you lack the ability to teach your kid the basics between right and wrong in and your CHILD sees no harm in actions such as MURDERING HIS FAMILY what kind of adult do you think he's going to turn out to be? This kid is going to live in juvie until he's 18... and that may be it. If they call him a 'serious youthful offender', he may serve another few years in the joint.

Assuming he gets out in 6 years - and he may just - he will have spent the development period of his life incarcerated in the public jail system. He will grow up around people whom have done things similar to his actions. He will be released into the populace with no clue how to function correctly and a great many clues on how to function poorly.

Then take the DC Sniper's pal. I don't want the cost of feeding, clothing and providing shelter comming out of my few hard earned dollars. They fucke dup, they killed, they should be punished. It's what our system of law is all about - the death penalty is a deterant. The people that are executed never kill again.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » March 2, 2005, 3:05 pm

Can't execute the mentally retarded, and now you can't execute kids anymore...what's this country coming to?

Yes this is my pathetic attempt at trolling today.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 2, 2005, 3:05 pm

the death penalty is a deterrent?

please back that up with statistics. have capital offenses decreased in states with active electric chairs?

i've never heard anybody back that claim up with evidence.

if you are so worried about the manner in which your tax dollars are spent you would favor life imprisonment over the death penalty. it is cheaper.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » March 2, 2005, 3:07 pm

It's cheaper, but it shouldn't be.

Voro: How many people that are executed by the state kill again vs the number of people that are released on parole for equally henious crimes?

They're dead.
Sorta just sucks the life out of them killing someone else, doesn't it?

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 2, 2005, 3:08 pm

deterrent means prevents people from committing the crime in the first place, not repeating the offense.

life imprisonment and death penalty are equally effective in keeping persons in the general population from being murdered by an individual.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 2, 2005, 3:11 pm

If they showed it on TV, I think it would deter. But, that will never happen.

If you are fucked up enough to take someones life, you deserve to die. I don't care how old you are. You have proven not to be a contributor to society, rather you have proven to be a danger to society. You should be shot dead and buried. You do not deserve to live the rest of your life in a penal system. The penal system needs to be cleaned out and revamped to house people who don't deserve to die. Of course, I am of the belief if you commit 3 felonies then you should be killed as well.

I am a reasonable man, but not when it comes to crime. I get physically upset when I see the things people do to eachother. We need to take a harder stance.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » March 2, 2005, 3:21 pm

1 : to turn aside, discourage, or prevent from acting
2 : INHIBIT

---
Main Entry: in·hib·it
Pronunciation: in-'hi-b&t
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin inhibitus, past participle of inhibEre, from in- 2in- + habEre to have -- more at HABIT
transitive senses
1 : to prohibit from doing something
2 a : to hold in check : RESTRAIN b : to discourage from free or spontaneous activity especially through the operation of inner psychological impediments or of social controls
intransitive senses : to cause inhibition

I'd say frying someone to a crisp turns them aside, discourages, prevents them from active, holds them in check and prohibits them from killing again.

I'm all for compassion, and I'm all for forgiveness. The penal system we have as a country doesn't offer either. We have laws that state if you kill, you go away. You go away to a bad place for a very long time. If we think you're bad enough to kill again, or that you killed in such a manner that the rest of our society is safer by making sure you never draw another breath, then you shouldn't draw another breath.

If we had a justice system that truly had astounding results in reforming the individuals that were sent there and had a way of making sure that anyone that poses an immedate risk to the people that make up our society would be removed as a factor in the lives of people in our society that DIDNT result in their death, then I'd praise it. I'd be the biggest anti-death person you ever saw.

But the reality is we have people in our towns shooting each other because the coffe pot was empty when they woke up. We have people in our towns that evade capture for 30 years after methodically murdering men women and children. We have a penal system that gives prisoners videogame consoles and workout chambers that most of us couldn't even afford to have a membership to. We have a system that lets convicted murderers out after 10 or 12 years of jail time to freely roam in the populace.

Until we are in some sort of magical wonder realm where shit like that doesn't occur, I will feel better about the safety of my family knowing that in some states, the people that go out and gun down five other people just because they got fired at work or their girlfriend left them or they just want to see what it feels like to kill someone may have to face the end of their lives on this earth instead of being locked up in massive cages to feed off of the anger, hate and brutality that our system breeds within its cavernous, underfunded bowels.

Just the same, I don't think the guy convicted of a weed possession charge should have to be caged up in the same place as the guy that gutted his mother and made his son eat it. Because the druggie may be guilty of a crime - but he isn't guilty enough to warrant being placed in a situation where harm may come to his body from someone who has nothing to lose.

edit: And bugger all, I have to agree with Midnyte.

Animale · Post by **Animale** » March 2, 2005, 3:31 pm

So you want the government to kill somebody for you, in order to make you feel better.

Way to go!

Animale

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » March 2, 2005, 3:32 pm

If the DP was used more widely IMO it would definently be a deterrent. As it is right now, there are conflicting reports but, admidettly, most say it's not. Without a doubt, if we want the DP to be effective in that regard it needs reform, same goes for cost.

I think one important aspect of our Justice system that is frequently passed over (with all this talk of deterrence, rehabilitation, etc), is the fact that sentencing is meant to PUNISH people. When someone is sentenced to life in prison, it's not because there's no chance of rehabilating that person into someone who won't commit a crime, it's to punish him. Hell, it could be possible in some cases to rehabilitate serial killers in a matter of months into someone who would be a contributing, law abiding member of society, but it would be absurd to do that. If someone rapes and kills a five year old girl they deserve to be executed, not to be given 3 warm meals, shelter, and clothing the rest of their lives courtesy of us.

Sirensa · Post by **Sirensa** » March 2, 2005, 3:43 pm

You guys give some nice pro-DP arguments, but can you argue why it should be applied to children?

Even before the Supreme Court ruling, only 19 states allowed the death penalty for 16 and 17 year olds, none lower because it was unconstiutional.

Only one 16 year old has ever been executed - and he still spent 13 years in prison before the execution came about. This really isn't saving much on resources either.

Any curious for some interesting stats on the issue, which was used by the Supreme Court in formulating part of their decision, see:

http://www.law.onu.edu/faculty/streib/d ... ec2004.pdf

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » March 2, 2005, 3:53 pm

Akaran_D wrote:I'd say frying someone to a crisp turns them aside, discourages, prevents them from active, holds them in check and prohibits them from killing again.

The consequences of a crime are only deterrents for "normal" people. For career criminals, sociopaths, etc.. the end result of being caught for something doesn't enter into their mind in the least at the time of the crime.

I'm not against the death penalty, to me it's the permenant removal of a problem from society. Not a deterrent or a punishment.

Since a life sentence is cheaper and serves the same purpose that works too.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » March 2, 2005, 3:57 pm

Sirensa wrote:You guys give some nice pro-DP arguments,

Off topic but, DP is generaly reserved for double penetration. Find your own acronym!

Sirensa · Post by **Sirensa** » March 2, 2005, 3:58 pm

Hey I wasn't the first to use DP for death penalty! dammit

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » March 2, 2005, 3:59 pm

My bad.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » March 2, 2005, 4:04 pm

Lynks wrote:Off topic but, DP is generaly reserved for double penetration.

I never would have known

That puts a new spin on Brotha's comment

If the DP was used more widely IMO it would definently be a deterrent.

Eep!

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 2, 2005, 4:05 pm

i'm already stopping all activity and huddling under my desk for fear of DP

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » March 2, 2005, 4:06 pm

Aabidano wrote: That puts a new spin on Brotha's comment
If the DP was used more widely IMO it would definently be a deterrent.
Eep!

LMAO

miir · Post by **miir** » March 2, 2005, 4:10 pm

You guys give some nice pro-DP arguments, but can you argue why it should be applied to children?

OH MY!
I wouldn't be so surprised if Atokal had said that, but Sirensa!

Sirensa · Post by **Sirensa** » March 2, 2005, 4:19 pm

miir wrote:
You guys give some nice pro-DP arguments, but can you argue why it should be applied to children?
OH MY!
I wouldn't be so surprised if Atokal had said that, but Sirensa!

hehe fu

Tenuvil · Post by **Tenuvil** » March 2, 2005, 4:25 pm

Here's my surprisingly non-liberal take on this:

The death penalty should apply to capital felons regardless of age. The cost of caring for these criminals, whose recidivism rate is higher than any other convicts, is absurd.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » March 2, 2005, 5:12 pm

Tenuvil wrote:Here's my surprisingly non-liberal take on this:

The death penalty should apply to capital felons regardless of age. The cost of caring for these criminals, whose recidivism rate is higher than any other convicts, is absurd.

Im for it as well if it meets every criteria as well as how severe the crime he/she committed was.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » March 2, 2005, 5:24 pm

For the death penalty to deter anyone... they would actually have to use it, use it quickly, and use it publicly.

How can you deter someone if the average DP trial takes years, plus years of appeals, and years of sitting around before the 30 seconds of death?

Age should not matter imho, as ending the 'oh so holy' life of another removes all right you have to a life of your own.

If you could be convicted and killed inside of a year after the crime, I bet it would finally be seen as a deterrant.. but who are we kidding here? they'll never do that.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » March 2, 2005, 6:00 pm

The people that claim that the death penalty would be a greater deterrent if it was applied more quickly: Why? Is wasting away in jail for two years before being executed really that much worse than wasting away in jail for ten years before being executed? I, personally, do not think that the difference is severe enough for the deterrent effect to be significantly upped. Do you have any sort of data that backs up the speculation that it would? Do you think that most murderers really view their pre-death years in jail as some sort of valid life with value before they even commit their crimes?

Akaran: I believe that the reasoning you employ in regards to the example you provided is seriously flawed. Let me explain:

Akaran wrote:A 12 year old kid in my area blew his grandmother and aunt away with a 12 gague shotgun, stole their wallets, got in a truck, didn't clean up, and was pulled over by the cops. He was arrested, tried, and found guilty of murder.

If you lack the ability to teach your kid the basics between right and wrong in and your CHILD sees no harm in actions such as MURDERING HIS FAMILY what kind of adult do you think he's going to turn out to be? This kid is going to live in juvie until he's 18... and that may be it. If they call him a 'serious youthful offender', he may serve another few years in the joint.

This 12 year old kid was tried as a juvenile. I am almost positive that, even if you lived in a state which validated the death penalty for minors, he would not have been eligible for it. If he was tried as a juvenile, he would be dealt with in the manner you described, whether minors could be executed or not.

Alternately, if he was tried as an adult, even if minors could not be executed in his state, he could be sentenced to life in prison without parole, thus effectively removing him from society.

Your problem in this case should be that the killer was tried as a juvenile. In this example the legality of the death penalty is wholly irrelevant.

Toshira · Post by **Toshira** » March 3, 2005, 4:47 am

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
If you are fucked up enough to take someones life, you deserve to die. I don't care how old you are.

Unless, of course, it's an Iraqi.

Oh wait...gov't says that's ok.

My bad.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » March 3, 2005, 8:39 am

Its a worse punishment, its less expensive, and more humane all at the same time to give them life without parole in prison, also if evidence can come out in a few years proving your lack of guilt, and that not every black man walking down the street in mississippi that happens to be in a 5 mile radius of a dead white girl is guilty of murder...sounds like a much better alternative to me eh?

sure if we had a system that could proove guilt 100%, and a system where putting a man to death would be less expensive then life in prison to taxpayers then 10 life sentences then yes, i would support the death penalty

Fesuni Chopsui · Post by **Fesuni Chopsui** » March 3, 2005, 1:15 pm

I simply don't understand how people can argue for the Death Penalty as a punishment for someone "fucked up" enough to murder another person...in essence you are arguing for the murder of another person yourself, except you expect the government to actually do the dirty deed for you..

I bet you if most people arguing for the DP were put in the situation where THEY had to be the ones pulling the trigger/lever, they'd never do it...I find it ironic the conveniency the government provides people arguing for the DP

I have to go with Tosh here...if you argue that DP is a valid punishment for murderers and support the war in Iraq, then you are the one that deserves to be taken out back and shot up

Spang · Post by **Spang** » March 3, 2005, 1:17 pm

Fesuni Chopsui wrote:if you argue that DP is a valid punishment for murderers and support the war in Iraq, then you are the one that deserves to be taken out back and shot up

Drinsic Darkwood · Post by **Drinsic Darkwood** » March 3, 2005, 1:42 pm

Fesuni Chopsui wrote:I simply don't understand how people can argue for the Death Penalty as a punishment for someone "fucked up" enough to murder another person...in essence you are arguing for the murder of another person yourself, except you expect the government to actually do the dirty deed for you..

I'm not saying I'm in support of it, but for the sake of argument, saying arguing for the death penalty is the same as murdering someone (in the same regard as the original offender) isn't a fair analogy. This is fairly obvious logic - it's the eye for an eye scenario. The golden rule. They aren't arguing for the murder of someone, they're arguing for the punishment of someone who murdered someone else. You make it sound like DP supporters are murderers themselves... they just don't believe murderers should have the right to live.

Personally, I'd rather see murderers spend their entire lives in federal ass-pounding prison with no parole than the DP.

miir · Post by **miir** » March 3, 2005, 2:04 pm

Is there been any studies indicating a lower violent crime rate in states which have the death penalty compared to states that do not?

Here's a few sites I found but it's hard to draw any correlation between the death penalty and violent crime and/or murder.

Regardless, theres a lot of interesting info on both sites.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » March 3, 2005, 7:39 pm

Sueven wrote:The people that claim that the death penalty would be a greater deterrent if it was applied more quickly: Why? Is wasting away in jail for two years before being executed really that much worse than wasting away in jail for ten years before being executed? I, personally, do not think that the difference is severe enough for the deterrent effect to be significantly upped. Do you have any sort of data that backs up the speculation that it would? Do you think that most murderers really view their pre-death years in jail as some sort of valid life with value before they even commit their crimes?

If it was used more quickly and more widely I have no doubt that it would be more of a deterrent. It's a proven fact that people are afraid to die. As it is right now I know that, even being in Texas, if I commit murder(s) chances are I'd be able to get out of the death penalty, or at the very least live a very long time in a prison while I use appeal after appeal. When I think about murdering, the death penalty is certainly there in my mind, as a slight deterrent, but it's in the back of it somewhere.

Fesuni Chopsui wrote:I simply don't understand how people can argue for the Death Penalty as a punishment for someone "fucked up" enough to murder another person...in essence you are arguing for the murder of another person yourself, except you expect the government to actually do the dirty deed for you..

I bet you if most people arguing for the DP were put in the situation where THEY had to be the ones pulling the trigger/lever, they'd never do it...I find it ironic the conveniency the government provides people arguing for the DP

I have to go with Tosh here...if you argue that DP is a valid punishment for murderers and support the war in Iraq, then you are the one that deserves to be taken out back and shot up

So if someone kidnaps someone, and I'm for life in prison, in essense I'm arguing for someone to be stuck in a room for the rest of their lives?

If I'm for freeing Iraqis, how can I be for imprisoning people for life?

That's a pretty illogical argument Fes. Wanting a serial rapist and murderer put to death for what he did is hardly a "dirty deed" IMO. If it was lawful and I owned a gun (which I don't BTW) I'd gladly do it myself. The person he murdered could have lawfully killed him in self-defense (I doubt you'd be against that). I see this simply as an extension of that.

I find it just as unethical to allow said person shelter, clothing, food, and a chance to live out the rest of his life, after denying that to others and causing an immeasurable amount of pain to families, as you seem to think it is to put that person to death.

On the deterrent argument, here's a great quote I used last semester when I had to debate the death penalty:

"If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call."

John McAdams - Marquette University/Department of Political Science, on deterrence

Hesten · Post by **Hesten** » March 3, 2005, 8:22 pm

Well, looking at how many cases there have been with people on death row that turned out to be innocent after all, i think the death penalty is a VERY bad idea in most cases.

But note that this thread were not about the death penalty, but about death penalty for kids, which im no just agains, but count in my (and a load of Human Rights organizations) eyes as a violation of human rights. Do whatever you want with your criminals that are actually grown up, but executing kids = bad.

Personally i think that the death penalty should be voluntarily. If you got a criminal thats locked up for life (or how many X life, wierd system you guys got), and he feels regret over his crimes that bad that he want it to be over with, by all means, accomodate his wishes.
But if you got some hardcore violent rapist, isnt it more suffering for him to grow old in a jail, to see the world go by, knowing that he will never be a part of it again?

True, there CAN be extreme cases where i would not mind the death penalty (child rape/murder for example, where you CAN proof with 100% security that the guy did it, not like a load of the cases the recent years where it turned out the people on death row were innocent).

Lets say a guy kills his wife, and kids, chop them in pieces, put the pieces in a car, dont even bother covering it up, and drive to work like nothing happened, and get stopped by the police, while in the car, covered in blood and meat pieces, and admitting he did it. A clear case like that.

In a case like there, where there are NO way the person can be innocent, and the crime are that horrible, i would say the death penalty are ok. But ask yourself:
Would it not be preferable to let that bastard into a jail as normal, denied with NO way to get in isolation, and let the other inmates have their way with him? Hell, ill rather see a guy getting beaten up daily for years for a crime like that, than see him get a cute little injection and then its all over.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » March 3, 2005, 9:22 pm

If it was used more quickly and more widely I have no doubt that it would be more of a deterrent. It's a proven fact that people are afraid to die. As it is right now I know that, even being in Texas, if I commit murder(s) chances are I'd be able to get out of the death penalty, or at the very least live a very long time in a prison while I use appeal after appeal. When I think about murdering, the death penalty is certainly there in my mind, as a slight deterrent, but it's in the back of it somewhere.

I mean I guess that's possible. Personally I can't see it making any difference whatsoever in my decision making processes, and I'm relatively confident that insofar as use of the death penalty continued established precedent regarding "cruel and unusual," I would be totally undeterred by the change. I also think that most people would have a similar response. It does not appear that either of us have any evidence to support our view beyond the narrow literature that exists regarding use of the death penalty in the United States (which does not support a deterrent effect).

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » March 4, 2005, 1:14 am

Where in the process of interpreting the US Constitution did they find anything to legitimize this ruling? Or is this just judges making law from the bench again.

I am undecided on the death penalty in general. This case irritates me on a libertarian basis though.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » March 4, 2005, 1:28 am

Rekaar. wrote:Where in the process of interpreting the US Constitution did they find anything to legitimize this ruling? Or is this just judges making law from the bench again.

I am undecided on the death penalty in general. This case irritates me on a libertarian basis though.

The constitution bans "cruel and unusual punishment". That leaves it to the supreme court to determine what is classed as cruel and unusual.

Where's the confusion?

nobody · Post by **nobody** » March 4, 2005, 3:15 am

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/03/lazar ... h.penalty/

Long read but imo a good one. There's a lot more to it than what I quoted but this was the most interesting part I thought.

Justice Scalia's rage
As Justice Antonin Scalia rages in his dissent, the majority's approach raises some vexing difficulties. Indeed, it's arguably anti-democratic, anti-states' rights, and anti-jury: By declaring the death penalty categorically unconstitutional as applied to juvenile offenders, the Court is depriving every state legislature of its right to have juries decide, on a case by case basis, whether an individual juvenile offender is sufficiently morally culpable to warrant the death penalty.

A power that once belonged to state legislatures and local juries, now rests in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court alone. And the Court has decided to adopt a blanket rule against even executions the legislatures and juries surely would have approved - for instance, in the event of a long series of premeditated rape-torture-murders by a seventeen-year-old.

The majority justifies this disempowerment of elected officials and juries largely based on scientific studies suggesting that juveniles are, generally speaking, decisively less responsible for their conduct. But, as Scalia points out, the weighing of such scientific evidence in the context of debating and making social policy is exactly what we expect legislatures to do - yet the Court has chosen to usurp that function.

For Justice Scalia, this usurpation captures everything that is wrong with a Court dominated by Justices O'Connor and Kennedy. Whether the issue is abortion or gay rights or the death penalty, these two justices believe in the idea of exercising independent judgment about what liberty means, or what punishments are fair and just. In all these areas, as in the death penalty area, Scalia finds their approach anti-democratic, anti-states' rights, and just plain infuriating.

The role of justices O'Connor and Kennedy
Justices O'Connor and Kennedy may not agree about how to apply this kind of judicial discretion in individual case. (In fact, in Roper itself, they disagreed). But they are united in their commitment to the principle behind it: That the judiciary can second-guess legislative judgments where inherently malleable constitutional limitations -- such as the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishments -- allow them do to so.

In this sense, the ghosts of Justices Earl Warren and William Brennan have come back to inhabit this Court with a vengeance. With remarkable frequency, given the innate conservatism of its membership, it is a Court eager to accept the challenge of moral governance -- and one that is relatively unconcerned with problems of doctrinal justification and democratic theory.

To a significant degree, this development is attributable to Justice Kennedy's emergence as a moralist judge. This evolution has been most apparent in recent years, but it is hardly new; it dates back more than a decade, to Kennedy's 1992 decision to vote against overruling Roe v. Wade in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Especially in the last few years, Justice Kennedy seems to have decided that, when it comes to the great social issues that come before the Court, he wants to be on the right side of history - and he wants the Court as an institution, to the extent he can control it, to be there with him.

Given Kennedy's conservatism, his sense of where history is headed will not always coincide with that of the liberal justices whose methodologies he increasingly adopts. But in many areas of law, he is now the Court's moral center - and as he goes, so goes the law.

So just as conservatives have found their death penalty bean-counting turned on its head, so too may liberals someday find their own, more subjective methods, turned toward results of which they disapprove. Justice Kennedy is certainly a moralist - but we should not forget he is also a conservative (albeit libertarian) moralist, too.

I believe it should be the state's decision not the supreme court's to decide this. my biggest problem is gangs. a young kid in a gang is more likely to brush of killing someone b/c he knows that becasue he is under 18 he won't have to pay for his decision. i DO believe there should be an age limit but 18 is not it. that said i think the drinking age should be lowered as well to 18 to counter that arguement. it would give kids an earlier start at proving themselves reponsible instead of having to hide doing something that is perfectly acceptable for someone their age.

i don't think it's such a wrong decision though that i can't live with it though. as long as they don't get off in 5 to 10 years.

Thess · Post by **Thess** » March 4, 2005, 4:19 am

The only reason I am against the death penalty is because it isn't cost effective. Keeping someone in prison for life is cheaper than keeping someone on death row.

However - Anyone that would say.. shoot a bus driver because she turned them in for chewing tabacco on the bus - isn't someone I want in society *ever*

Drinsic Darkwood · Post by **Drinsic Darkwood** » March 4, 2005, 4:27 am

Thess wrote:However - Anyone that would say.. shoot a bus driver because she turned them in for chewing tabacco on the bus - isn't someone I want in society *ever*

Any chance you're talking about an incident in Stewart County / Dover, TN? I haven't looked it up myself, but my family lives in Clarksville, a 40 minute drive away, and heard about something along those lines.

Thess · Post by **Thess** » March 4, 2005, 4:34 am

Most likely, honestly I was watching O'reilly (my typical 1x-2x a week thing) and he brought the case up

Seebs · Post by **Seebs** » March 4, 2005, 3:36 pm

Obviously the police now need to shoot any murder suspect under the age of 18. Will unclutter the courts, keep the prison population down and everyone wins.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » March 5, 2005, 1:30 pm

Rekaar. wrote:Where in the process of interpreting the US Constitution did they find anything to legitimize this ruling? Or is this just judges making law from the bench again.

I am undecided on the death penalty in general. This case irritates me on a libertarian basis though.

If the electric chair or gas chamber is NOT cruel and unusual punishment, i dont know what the fuck is...

then again i have not heard anyone argue how life in "federal pound me in the ass prison" without parole is less of a punishment then an execution...which one would you rather have?

about speeding up the rate of execution...people have sat on death row for 10 years and THEN there INNOCENSE was PROVEN, the system does not work if we murder 1 innocent person for every 200 guilty ones....REMEMBER JESUS?

...you conservatives truly have to have a perverted sense of religion and a really fucked up ideology if you think Jesus would support the death penalty...

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 5, 2005, 2:07 pm

Xzion wrote: ...you conservatives truly have to have a perverted sense of religion and a really fucked up ideology if you think Jesus would support the death penalty...

When you subscribe to my ideology of Realism, you don't have to worry about what make-believe Gods would think about anything. You do things because they are right and just. If some asshole takes a life, he or she is no longer a worthy contributor to society and therefore has forsaken his/her right to exist in this world.

Animale · Post by **Animale** » March 5, 2005, 3:02 pm

As Martin Luther King Jr. said...

That old law about "an eye for an eye" leaves everybody blind. The time is always right to do the right thing.

The main difference here is that I don't think that the government killing people in my name is a "right or just" thing to condone but is a wrong and unjust action. Particularly in the case where is it not directly in the governments interest (particularly in defense of the nation in wartime).

That's my realism. Normal people don't want to kill other people, why should the government do it for us? Just a question for death penalty supporters... would you participate directly in the slaying of a murderer, say as part of a lynch mob? If not - how is insulating yourself from the act through a government representative any different?

The death penalty is a barbaric relic of times long past. I know that my sense of justice can be served without an executioner's hood.

Animale

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » March 5, 2005, 3:19 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote: When you subscribe to my ideology of Realism, you don't have to worry about what make-believe Gods would think about anything. You do things because they are right and just. If some asshole takes a life, he or she is no longer a worthy contributor to society and therefore has forsaken his/her right to exist in this world.

I agree, and I think so does Xzion. But the problem is I have at least that executing innocents is not acceptable.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 5, 2005, 3:39 pm

Lohrno wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote: When you subscribe to my ideology of Realism, you don't have to worry about what make-believe Gods would think about anything. You do things because they are right and just. If some asshole takes a life, he or she is no longer a worthy contributor to society and therefore has forsaken his/her right to exist in this world.
I agree, and I think so does Xzion. But the problem is I have at least that executing innocents is not acceptable.

Nothing is perfect Lohrno. Nothing.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » March 5, 2005, 3:42 pm

Yes, that is why we must do all in our power to protect innocent lives.

VeeshanVault

Yesterday's Supreme Court Ruling

Yesterday's Supreme Court Ruling

Re: Yesterday's Supreme Court Ruling