home

More Reaction to the Juvenile Death Penalty Ban

There's a lot of good reading on yesterday's Supreme Court decision to ban the death penalty for juvenile offenders. In addition to the editorials in our newsfeed on the left, there are these interesting reads:

[hat tip to Rev. Mr.George W. Brooks, J.D.,Director of Advocacy, Kolbe House, Chicago]

< On Death Row in Tripoli | Commission to Study U.S. Prison Conditions >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • How big of our political oligarchies and the great nobility in that so called court rooms of political lies. so its a great victory is it? how about some real laws, in this land of freedom? how about some real laws about the kids who are mentally ill, and will be doing time in our great system of prison for life?

    Why can't the Courts stay out of political decisions? How can they decide something that was perfectly acceptable legally 50 years ago all of a sudden is not? If times and attitudes have changed, as the Court suggests, isn't that the realm of the legislative process? When did the Supreme Court assume the role of sticking the finger up in the proverbial wind? I remember AZ changes their laws in this regard by Initiative petition- which is how these things should be done.

    Re: More Reaction to the Juvenile Death Penalty Ba (none / 0) (#3)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 10:57:32 AM EST
    Bush attempted to LOWER the age of eligability in Texas. Apparently while coloring in the Old Testament he got confused and thought Moloch was god - nobody ever corrected him.

    ?:"Why can't the Courts stay out of political decisions?" a: "The executions, the court said, were unconstitutionally cruel."

    Why can't the Courts stay out of political decisions?
    Because applying the law is often a politically controversial, and the Courts job is to resolve controversies of law.
    How can they decide something that was perfectly acceptable legally 50 years ago all of a sudden is not?
    Because the specific provision they apply is -- and always has been read as -- sensitive to the social context.
    If times and attitudes have changed, as the Court suggests, isn't that the realm of the legislative process?
    The express purpose of the "cruel and unusual" provision was to not give free reign to the legislative process to determine what punishments were appropriate.

    Why can't the Courts stay out of political decisions? How can they decide something that was perfectly acceptable legally 50 years ago all of a sudden is not? You mean like segregation? Here's a radical concept: maybe people's rights and basic humanity shouldn't be subject to popularity contests. There's things you shouldn't be able to do to even the worst criminals, not if you're a civilized society. Don't worry, there are plenty of countries in the world that fight crime very successfully without having to resort to the death penalty. Why shouldn't one of the greatest and most powerful countries in the world be able to do the same?

    "You mean like segregation?" In Brown v Board, the Court ended segregation of schools that was based off a "Seperate but Equal" standard established in a ruling over Train cars. It was easy to show that the Schools were not equal, hence, the Brown v Board decision, which was correct in showing that the standard was not being met (with ample data to show this). This situation is different. The Court is arbitrarily moving a standard based in part on their perception of public opinion (did they do polling?). The death penalty given to a person for commiting murder today is no more and probably less "cruel and unusual" than it was 50 years ago. This was a political decision that should have been left to the States and the legislative process. " Here's a radical concept: maybe people's rights and basic humanity shouldn't be subject to popularity contests." Court Decisions shouldn't either. I don't think the court should concern itself with the public view or what other nations may think. " There's things you shouldn't be able to do to even the worst criminals, not if you're a civilized society." A fair opinion I can agree with. But still an opinion.What the standard should be should be set by legislation, not arbitrary Court mood swings. "Why shouldn't one of the greatest and most powerful countries in the world be able to do the same?" The way to change things is through legislative process- not judicial fiat. 2 states recently eliminated the execution of minors of their own accord. Here in OK, it has only been used twice since the 70's- juries and DA's shy away from it, except in extreme cases (one of the two was a devil worshipper who killed a convience store clerk randomly and brutally slaughtered his parents).

    "The express purpose of the "cruel and unusual" provision was to not give free reign to the legislative process to determine what punishments were appropriate." Not so fast my friend. This isn't something new, Capital Punishment has existed here since the beginning when the Cruel and Unusual clause was written. You are correct in the purpose of the provision- much to the caning proponents chagrin (remember that one?)The Legislature are not imposing new standrds here- if anything, the Legislative process has been MODERATING and easing the application of Capital Punishment. The Court arbitrarily moved the standard in this case, and that is wrong. Political whims and pop cause celebs shouldn't be the basis for Court decisions. This was a matter the 19 states that employed this should have decided.

    Re: More Reaction to the Juvenile Death Penalty Ba (none / 0) (#9)
    by Sailor on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 02:38:47 PM EST
    GO - They didn't have to take a poll; many others have been doing that for years. It was also easy to access the legislative intent of the states that voted to stop state sanctioned killing of children. Most recently, in March 2004, South Dakota and Wyoming enacted legislation to prevent anyone from being sentenced to death for a crime committed before his 18th birthday. In August 2003, the Missouri Supreme Court held that the execution of juvenile offenders violated the U.S. Constitution ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Montana and Indiana enacted legislation banning the juvenile death penalty in 1999 and 2002, respectively. In 2003 and 2004, legislation to ban the juvenile death penalty was introduced in at least a dozen states, including Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, Texas and Virginia. Seems like a trend to me. Not to mention "A May 2002 Gallup Poll revealed that 69% of Americans prefer a sentence of life-without-parole for juvenile offenders, while only 26% favor a death sentence;" BTW, the main purpose of the Fed judicial system is to act as one of the checks and balances against the exec and leg braches. They are charged with deciding on 'political decisions.' As promised, here are some links to "evolving standards": Trop v. Dulles(1958): Excerpt: The basic concept underlying the Eighth Amendment is nothing less than the dignity of man. While the State has the power to punish, the Amendment stands to assure that this power be exercised within the limits of civilized standards.[snip]The Amendment must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society."

    The link to the LA Times article is messed up.

    Gerry, I have never heard more bullsh!t in my life. Read the constitution, Judges don't legislate, legislators do that. Legislators are supposed to do that and only legislators are supposed to do that. Again read the constitution. You see, you elect legislators. Judges are appointed. So, when you let judges legislate you no longer have a democracy. What the he!! am I saying, your all a bunch of communists anyway.

    Sorry Gerry, that wasn't meant for you. Your clearly the only other one here who has read the constitution.

    Re: More Reaction to the Juvenile Death Penalty Ba (none / 0) (#13)
    by Sailor on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 04:00:48 PM EST
    Judges don't legislate, but they do interpret and decide whether something is constitutional. Your ignorance of this fact is either willfull or encephaliticaly challenged. To wit Further more, if you would actually read the constitution you would see that those EXACT points are made in Articles 1 thru 3

    Re: More Reaction to the Juvenile Death Penalty Ba (none / 0) (#14)
    by jimcee on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 04:17:42 PM EST
    This is very simple. 1) Elected officials create the law. 2) The Supreme Court determines (upon request) the constitutionality of the laws passed by the Legislative Branch. In this case the SCOTUS is creating law using other sources besides the constitution and that is unconstitutional. If you don't like the law, change it through your elected representatives and not the courts. If you want the courts to create law then remember that the SCOTUS also ruled at one time that slavery was legal. Anyone want to go there again? Abolitionists changed the country and ended slavery by electing the first Republican president of the US, Abraham Lincoln. In other words by using the power of the ballot box not the SCOTUS. This is a constitutional abuse by the Supreme Court and sets a very bad precedent for the future and no matter what side of the argument you sit on you should be afraid of this extra-constitutional power that the Court feels they have. This is dangerous precedent.

    Re: More Reaction to the Juvenile Death Penalty Ba (none / 0) (#15)
    by Sailor on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 04:36:35 PM EST
    "a dangerous precedent" WTF!? Try actually following the links given. The 8th states "cruel & unusual", but they don't define it. It is up to the courts to interpret it. I don't like how they have interpreted 'right to counsel', 'secure in their persons and places', 'peaceably assemble' or 'probable cause'. but you live in the country you have, not the one you wish you had.

    . It was easy to show that the Schools were not equal, hence, the Brown v Board decision, which was correct in showing that the standard was not being met (with ample data to show this). This situation is different. The Court is arbitrarily moving a standard based in part on their perception of public opinion (did they do polling?). Actually, they used data this time too. We know a lot more about the human brain than we did 50 years ago, and now we know that adolescent brains aren't fully developed. The justices used this information to make their decision. It is "cruel and unusual" to execute persons who committed their crimes when they weren't fully reasoning adults, and that's what the Supreme Court thought too. From the point of view of someone who doesn't like the Court's ruling, and given that it changes the sentences of many people on death row, I can see that it would look like the Court just legislated. But they didn't. What they did do was say that existing law wasn't kosher under the Constitution. Checks and balances. It's all about checks and balances. (It's highly ironic to me, as someone who favors them, to be labeled a "communist" for this. I think we all know there weren't much in the way of checks and balances in the Soviet Union!)

    Re: More Reaction to the Juvenile Death Penalty Ba (none / 0) (#17)
    by Johnny on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 04:57:19 PM EST
    "(one of the two was a devil worshipper who killed a convience store clerk randomly and brutally slaughtered his parents)" I don't know if it's the reference to satanism or the "brutally slaughtered his parents" that made me LOL more. If being of a certain religion influences the weight of the punishment, then we have other issues. Is there a humane way to slaughter your parents? Or is it his religion? Because God knows no mainstream spirit worshipers brutally murder their parents... Despite the blood thirsty crowds denials, the "deterrent" argument is wrong, and that leaves bloodthirst as the other motive. Sorry, killing kids to quench the thirst for blood is wrong.

    This is very simple. 1) Elected officials create the law. 2) The Supreme Court determines (upon request) the constitutionality of the laws passed by the Legislative Branch. In this case the SCOTUS is creating law using other sources besides the constitution and that is unconstitutional.
    No, its not. Its applying the 8th Amendment's "cruel and unusual" clause to a controversy arising under it, analyzing whether the punishment at issue is "cruel and unusual" using the established method of doing so -- looking at the social context -- and deciding. The facts of the context are outside of the Constitution, but relevant facts are important to the application of the law, and it is not unconstitutional to consider relevant facts.
    If you don't like the law, change it through your elected representatives and not the courts.
    Agreed. If you don't like that the law bans "cruel and unusual" punishments -- a contextually relative class of acts -- then you should change the law through your elected representatives, not whine when the Courts properly apply that law.
    If you want the courts to create law then remember that the SCOTUS also ruled at one time that slavery was legal.
    Considering that the Constitution of the United States expressly said that slavery was legal at the time, that was pretty much a no-brainer. Are you now complaining because the Courts are capable of applying the plain language of the Constitution?
    Anyone want to go there again?
    No, I think it was quite right that the Constitution was changed to deal with that. If you don't like the "cruel and unusual" clause, I suggest you work to get it changed into something less contextually relative.
    Abolitionists changed the country and ended slavery by electing the first Republican president of the US, Abraham Lincoln. In other words by using the power of the ballot box not the SCOTUS.
    Actually, they changed the law by denying a substantial portion of the country the franchise and subjecting it to military occupation, and conditioning their readmission to the franchise to their accepting the amendments changing the Constitution. IOW, the "power of the ballot box" used was the power to put a gun to people's head, and tell them how they must vote. While I certainly support the changes that were made in the law, its very hard to claim much was noble about the means used to change the law.
    This is a constitutional abuse by the Supreme Court and sets a very bad precedent for the future and no matter what side of the argument you sit on you should be afraid of this extra-constitutional power that the Court feels they have.
    Actually, the Court applied the same kind of reasoning that they did in Scalia's own opinion on the issue in the past. The Court asserts no new power in Roper that it did not assert previously in Stanford and a myriad of other 8th Amendment cases. While the conclusion reached is different than in Stanford, the general concept of the courts role is not. This is dangerous precedent.

    All this talk about the Supreme Court "changing their minds" in "just 15 years." Of course this same crowd doesnt mention Supreme Court precedent, such as Payne v. Tennessee that overturned a 4 year old precedent Booth v. Maryland, when thtey talk about this court's lack of deference for stare decisis. Payne, of course was a pro-government decision that "law and order" types love. I should also note that two of three dissenters, Thomas and Scalia, are on record as wanting to throw out over 100 years of supreme court Eighth Amendment precedent. They would like to overturn landmark decisions like Lockett & Skipper that have been the cornerstone of modern capital jurisprudence and as recently as last term appeared to have no problem with lawyers who failed to do even the most cursory investigations in death cases. - k

    Dagma- no offense taken. Sailor- you proved my point to an extent. "in March 2004, South Dakota and Wyoming enacted legislation to prevent anyone from being sentenced to death for a crime committed before his 18th birthday." Accomplished by the legislative process, as it should be. "Montana and Indiana enacted legislation banning the juvenile death penalty in 1999 and 2002, respectively." Same as above! "In 2003 and 2004, legislation to ban the juvenile death penalty was introduced in at least a dozen states, including Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, Texas and Virginia." WHICH IS ALL HOW THINGS OF THIS NATURE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE DONE! We are a democracy- Judges are not there to legislate! I apreciate the links on other rulings that concern themselves with Pop culture trends as a font of legal thought- I will have to check them out for the context.

    Webmacher- "Actually, they used data this time too. We know a lot more about the human brain than we did 50 years ago, and now we know that adolescent brains aren't fully developed. The justices used this information to make their decision." There isn't that much in the way of conclusive evidence- People develop at different rates, and some brains develop faster than others. "It is "cruel and unusual" to execute persons who committed their crimes when they weren't fully reasoning adults, and that's what the Supreme Court thought too." Hopped up on drugs gets the death penalty off the table? What about a few drinks? A crime is a crime regardless of capacity- these are judgement calls to be made at the trial by the Judge & Jury. Johnny- The Sellers case is a bit personal for me- his locker was close to mine at our High School. He was a freak who brought guns to school all the time and kept a list of people he wanted to kill. He had an amazing talent to write in mirror image. The clerk he killed was a really cool guy (although he always refused to sell us beer). I don't think you will find to many who knew the partculars of that case who were opposed to the sentence, except for those opposed to the death penalty as a whole.

    Re: More Reaction to the Juvenile Death Penalty Ba (none / 0) (#22)
    by soccerdad on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 07:55:20 PM EST
    The decision brings the US into line with the rest of the world. The execution of juveniles is explicitly banned in the UN convention on the rights of the child, which has been ratified by every country except the US and Somalia, which has no recognised government. Of the 39 executions of child offenders recorded by Amnesty International since 1990, 19 took place in the US. The other countries include Iran, China, Congo, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Yemen, but the US was the last government to condone and defend the practice officially. Iran has formulated a law banning such executions, but it has not yet been put into practice.
    LINK

    in dallas, watching the local news report the story, there was so much reneck metal head klan ralley blood running, i was thinking i'd see a croud with torches. sometimes a thing resonates in people so much..one see's how far we have yet to go..my but texans do love to kill thier blacks & hispanics..lots of em, anyway.shame on us.

    Hey look on the bright side. It wasn't my mother the animal bound and gagged and threw off a bridge to her death after telling her that he intended to do exactly that. I guess he wanted to illicit the maximum fear. Bet it worked. Oh...I hope it wasn't any of your moms either. Mark W......still the PRESIDENT Filibuster proof/06

    Mark: How would you feel if a juvie killer killed a relative? I don't know, you don't know, but this guy does and so does she. He is the president of the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty. She is the former chair of Murder Victim Family Members for Reconsideration. If you'd like to talk about this more, I would be glad to. - k

    Dearest No Name - We know what the court said. But Gerry Owens makes a point. Why can't they stay out of the process of law making? i.e. If it wasn't unlawful 20 years ago, it isn't today. That's law making by anyone's standard. And, as a result, the Repubs are most likely going to change the rules, get rid of the fillibuster, and change the court. I happen to think that isn't a real good thing to do, but it is constitutional, and the court, and the Left, have brought it on themselves. "God save the United States and his honorable court." karl - Frankly, I don't care how people who have had family members killed by juveniles, or anyone, feel. The issue here is a runaway court in which one member, Kennedy, wants to look outside the US constitution for guidance, which is absolutely oiutrageous. dentecx - No, you didn't think you'd see a crowd with torches. You can't be that dumb. On the other hand... SD - "Millions of us don't care what the rest of the world thinks." Write that down and keep it handy to read. BTW - 74% of the US thinks it okay to display the 10 commandments, etc. Millions of moslems would have no problem with this principle. Guess we know what the court should do.

    Soccerdad- "The decision brings the US into line with the rest of the world. The execution of juveniles is explicitly banned in the UN convention on the rights of the child, which has been ratified by every country except the US and Somalia, which has no recognised government." The Supreme Court is not in the business of "bringing us into line" with treaties that we have not ratified for WHATEVER reason. That is the job of the Executive and Legislative branches.

    The myth of the "liberal judiciary" -- There are 877 total positions in the federal judiciary of those, 42 are vacant. 456 active judges were appointed by Republican presidents: 203 by Bush Jr. 131 by Bush Sr. 113 by Reagn 4 by Ford 5 by Nixon 379 were appointed by Democratic presidents: 348 by Clinton 30 by Carter 1 by Johnson Source: http://www.afj.org/judicial/judicial_selection_resources/selection_database/byCourtAndAppPres.asp

    Re: More Reaction to the Juvenile Death Penalty Ba (none / 0) (#29)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 08:31:42 AM EST
    PPj - "Millions of us ..blah blah" Real forward thinking - bet you cared on 9/11 didnt you?

    Re: More Reaction to the Juvenile Death Penalty Ba (none / 0) (#30)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 08:36:27 AM EST
    PPJ - "Millions of us dont care.." Hubristic and just plain dumb - have all the answers do we? Bet you cared on 9/11.

    the supreams play god, it's pretty much thier job description. thats the truth of it, r or d. I was commenting on the nasty part of human nature this descision opened up in people aroud here, dallas. the law being a part of larger society we that is landscape we traverse, like water flowing to the sea. This little tumble of a boulder, raising the age from 17 to 18, unearthed a current we would prefer remain subteranian- the people are basically jerks part of the equation. the law is supposed to be reason tempered with experience. what i saw on my local news was plain, simple, hate. emotion without reason.

    Dentex says:
    the law is supposed to be reason tempered with experience. what i saw on my local news was plain, simple, hate. emotion without reason.
    That's pretty much what you'll see from the wingnuts in here, tex. If the kid threw an illegal Mexican hooker off the bridge, you all wouldn't give a f**k about whether this kid did 100 days or 100 years. You wingnuts are so gullible that you fall for every half-assed line of propaganda that Bush, Cheney, DeLay and McLellan spew at you. This time, it's the "Activist" Judges. Judge people, you tell them not the government. Boy have you got it mixed up. Judicial temperment means that the current "popular" hang 'em high culture isn't going to vent their bloodlust on criminals. You all are just pissed that your ACTIVIST PARTISAN LEGISLATURES can't change the constitution. GO writes, in response to:
    maybe people's rights and basic humanity shouldn't be subject to popularity contests.
    that:
    Court Decisions shouldn't either. I don't think the court should concern itself with the public view or what other nations may think.
    I can't help thinking that Terri Shiavo's husband might have a few words to say to Jeb Bush re: the fact that "rights and basic humanity shouldn't be subject to popularity contests" Get over it, fools. You can't hijack the executive and legislative branches and then whine whenever the judges make a decision they don't like, usually because that pesky constitution got in the way. Same with filibustering Democrats. Haha. You can't tell a judge you're either with us or against us. The consequences of your vilification of the judicial process are to endanger the lives of these good people as well as our basic constitutional rights and freedom. You don't like the constitution, seceed. Maybe if all you really whacked out right-wingers move to one state you can legislate secession and kill anyone you want, any way, any time. Make sure you convict mothers who have abortions with pre-meditated murder and kill them. Eugenics could make a legislative comeback. Dr. Kevorkian could live there and kill all the old, unproductive people. You can have them run around naked in circles and pick out those who can't keep up, just like at Auchwitz.

    BTW, All of you whining even further about "what do judges care about other countries" are intentionally missing the point. Go eat some Freedom Fries. We set an example of democracy, an enlightenment idea (some of you haven't gotten there yet, we know)arising directly from a progressive view of representative government by the people, etc. You all sound like my five year old telling me he "doesn't care what I know" about the issue under discussion. He thinks the sliver of knowledge lodged in his five-year old brain plus his (extensive, to him) world knowledge should suffice. That is, if you don't get it, that it's a stupid, immature, uninformed, propagandized version of the truth that is tolerated in the world only by countries where the people have no say in their government's prosecution of criminals. Shame on you. You disgrace the names of all those who dreamed of and died for something better.

    Stephen - The determination of judges politics by who nomnated/appointed them would be woefully inaccuarte. mfox - Based on your record of what you don't know, a reasonable person might not be saying, "get over it fools." And when you bring "fillibuster" and constitution into the same paragraph as if one was in the other, you demonstate your expertise again. Watch my lips. The right to fillibuster is not in the constitution. As for getting over.... You'll have to as Bush appoints who he wants. Justice Kennedy's actions has sealed the deal.

    Is that you PPJ??? Whazza matter, couldn't come up with answers to my real comments so had to make up what I said (you're really good at suspending disbelief). *sigh* ...wondering why I bother...
    mfox - Based on your record of what you don't know, a reasonable person might not be saying, "get over it fools."
    Huh?? Could you define "what I don't know" (less than what you don't know, in your not so humble opinion), "reasonable" (just like you) and why knowing more and applying reason would change my comment to something more palatable for you? You then (very intelligently, hah!) state:
    And when you bring "fillibuster" and constitution into the same paragraph
    Here is the offending paragraph: You can't hijack the executive and legislative branches and then whine whenever the judges make a decision they don't like, usually because that pesky constitution got in the way. Same with filibustering Democrats. as if one was in the other, you demonstate your expertise again. You say:
    Watch my lips. The right to fillibuster is not in the constitution.
    Huh again???? First I don't really want to imagine your lips, given the hate and predjudice that spews out of your mouth it's an ugly thought. Second, how the f**k do you get from what I wrote that I said the right to filibuster is in the constitution. In case I wasn't LONGWINDED enough to explain myself, the right to filibuster and the U.S. Constitution are currently both considered impediments to the right wing legislative agenda, and judges who oppose this agenda are labeled "liberal activists". Nice try. A little harder next time, Jim. Bump me up to Level 2.

    mfox- "If the kid threw an illegal Mexican hooker off the bridge, you all wouldn't give a f**k about whether this kid did 100 days or 100 years." I would. "Get over it, fools. You can't hijack the executive and legislative branches and then whine whenever the judges make a decision they don't like, usually because that pesky constitution got in the way." My question is why the Constitution is suddenly "in the way" when it hasn't been deemed to be so since the founding of the republic in this matter. Those "Activist and Partisan Legislatures" you mentioned seemed to be uniformly moving in the direction the Court arbitrarily forced them. This is a horrible abuse of Judicial Power- whether you agree with the outcome or not. As for Teri Schiavo, I do not think it is prudent to give the life or death decision power to her husband without clear direction on this matter from Mrs Schiavo herself, particularly since a dead Teri is now more beneficial to him than a live one. "You don't like the constitution, seceed." Why? Conservatives run everything. "Eugenics could make a legislative comeback." That isn't a conservative Ideal I have heard discussed, and a philosophy everyone I know and know of on the right would find repugnant. "Dr. Kevorkian could live there and kill all the old, unproductive people." Kervorkian and his freak attorney come from and drew support from the Left, not the right. He wouldn't be welcome! "We set an example of democracy, an enlightenment idea (some of you haven't gotten there yet, we know)arising directly from a progressive view of representative government by the people, etc" You are right. We do. But how representative is it to have lifetime appointed judges putting their fingers up in the political winds making political decisions that should have been left for that pesky representative democracy to decide? They are Judges, not monarchs.

    The American Psychological Association tells us that people of the age in question cannot make informed decisions, not being sufficiently developed. That's when it comes to murder. However, when it's a matter of abortion, the APA tells us that kids of that age and even younger are fully mature and capable of appreciating the consequences of their decisions. I guess this is an example of expert testimony. Question: Presume a sixteen-year-old commits and excessively heinous murder of the kind which would ordinarily bring the death penalty had he been a bit older. But he does not get the death penalty. What does he get? Tried as an adult or as a juvenile? Life without parole, or have you got your "WAREHOUSING CHILDREN FOR THEIR WHOLE LIVES!!!!!!!!!!SOB, SOB" argument drafted up already? What, actually, would you think appropriate?

    mfox - Oh, I seem to remember someone blasting away about journalists, reporters, etc., who didn't even know who Helen Thomas was. How quickly you do forget. And then someone always commenting on culture and trends who didn't know who HST was. And I think you don't know very much about who Paula Jones was, or else you wouldn't have brought her up in a previous thread. And calling people "fools" and then complainig about their retorts is hypocritical to the max. So, you didn't know that the fillibuster wasn't in the constitution. How in the what??? Potty mouth defines you. And yes, that was me.

    So, from the case, the murderer told his younger accomplices that they should participate in this premeditated murder because, in his words, they wouldn't be executed. And now, with the ruling, we will have more juveniles who are more open to murdering others because they know that they themselves won't be executed in response. So now more innocent people will be murdered. Great. Not.