US court bans juvenile executions

[Mac on a Mac]

Is this an issue for the Supreme court? To what extent does the Court go beyond its realm when it overrides state legislatures? No, this is a legislative issue and should not be decided by unelected judges.

I especially like this quote from Judge Kennedy:

"It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty, resting in large part on the understanding that the instability and emotional imbalance of young people may often be a factor in the crime."


International opinion? Our Court basing its decisions on " international opinion" ? Rediculous

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4308881.stm

[Powerdoc]

Originally posted by Mac on a Mac
Is this an issue for the Supreme court? To what extent does the Court go beyond its realm when it overrides state legislatures? No, this is a legislative issue and should not be decided by unelected judges.

I especially like this quote from Judge Kennedy:

"It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty, resting in large part on the understanding that the instability and emotional imbalance of young people may often be a factor in the crime."


International opinion? Our Court basing its decisions on " international opinion" ? Rediculous

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4308881.stm

This is a good decision, backed by more than 60 % of US people. So it's not just international opinion, it's US opinion

[Mac on a Mac]

This should be decided in individual states and, of course, each case should be judged on its own facts.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Mac on a Mac
This should be decided in individual states and, of course, each case should be judged on its own facts. Should we have no fundamental human rights? Should everything be decided on majority rule, no matter how wrong or immoral the decision of the majority?

Jeez, first the government can't kill retards (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=00-8452), now kids. What is this country coming to?

[Mac on a Mac]

Noone is "killing kids". Well, ah no I don't want to go there.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Mac on a Mac
Noone is "killing kids". And they for sure won't now.

I notice you're in Texas - not only does the entire world forbid executions for juvenile crimes, but it's basically Texas that does it within the US. Texas has by far more executions for juvenile crimes than the rest of the country put together - 60% of the entire country's executions.

Let me ask you this: Are all these executions working? Texas must by now be a really low crime state. Is it? Or does it have one of the highest crime rates in the country, despite (because of?) all that killing your government does?

[Mac on a Mac]

I am not as concerned with this issue as I am with what the Court is doing. This is an issue to be decided by the representative governments in the states involved. The Supreme Court is to interpret, not create laws. Elected representatives create and dissolve laws.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Mac on a Mac
I am not as concerned with this issue as I am with what the Court is doing. This is an issue to be decided by the representative governments in the states involved. The Supreme Court is to interpret, not create laws. Elected representatives create and dissolve laws. OK, then setting those other issues aside, how far would you take that principle? Courts should never overturn laws? Anything the majority says is OK? Wouldn't that mean that people have no fundamental rights "endowed by our creator," as our Declaration of Independence puts it? How should the Bill of Rights be enforced against a majority that wants to pass laws that contradict it? And how do you figure out whether a specific law does contradict the constitution?

[shetline]

Originally posted by Mac on a Mac
No, this is a legislative issue and should not be decided by unelected judges.

The US Constitution forbids "cruel and unusual punishment".
"Cruel and unusual" is an admittedly somewhat vague prohibition, but it is still nevertheless a real Constitutional prohibition.
In the US system of government, interpreting the constitution is the job of the judicial branch, not the legislative branch.
If the judicial branch decides that a form of punishment is "cruel and unusual" then for all legal intents and purposes that form of punishment is unconstitutional. The legislative branch has no say in this short of amending the Constitution.

International opinion? Our Court basing its decisions on " international opinion" ? Rediculous
One half of "cruel and unusual" is "unusual", is it not? Why shouldn't US judges look to international opinion and the practices of other countries in deciding what to consider "unusual"?

[Mac on a Mac]

If the court needs to go to "international opinion" to interpret our Constitution, then something is wrong. I think that the Court has outstepped its bounds. These laws should be challenged through legislation, not abolished by activist judges.

[shetline]

Originally posted by Mac on a Mac
If the court needs to go to "international opinion" to interpret our Constitution, then something is wrong. I think that the Court has outstepped its bounds. These laws should be challenged through legislation, not abolished by activist judges.
Think what you like, you don't have a Constitutional leg to stand on. Judges deciding on the constitutionality of a punishment are well within their proper role within the American system of government.

Perhaps you just don't love America enough and should leave. ;)

Besides, who said these judges needed to consider international opinion? Maybe the judges just wanted to look around the world for a broader perspective. It might be the case that you would prefer our judges to have narrow jingoistic perspectives, but fortunately for the rest of us that's not a Constitutionally-specified requirement for judges.

Why such disdain for "international opinion" anyway? Is it better for Americans to live in an isolated cultural vacuum, waving flags and chanting "U-S-A! U-S-A!"?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Mac on a Mac
The Supreme Court is to interpret, not create laws. Elected representatives create and dissolve laws. Just to be clear about the implications of what you're saying: You don't think American citizens should have any fundamental rights such as those in the Bill of Rights. You think all rights should be up for vote, and if a majority doesn't like those rights, they can take them away. You want people to have less individual rights, and you want government to be more powerful. That's what strict constructionism entails - the government is more powerful and individuals have less rights.

About "international opinion" - I happened to catch a debate between Scalia and Bryer on Cspan the other day on that issue. That's something you don't see very often.

Here are the cspan links to the videos. (http://www.c-span.org/Search/basic.asp?ResultStart=1&ResultCount=10&BasicQueryText=scalia+breyer)

[Powerdoc]

Originally posted by BRussell
Just to be clear about the implications of what you're saying: You don't think American citizens should have any fundamental rights such as those in the Bill of Rights. You think all rights should be up for vote, and if a majority doesn't like those rights, they can take them away. You want people to have less individual rights, and you want government to be more powerful. That's what strict constructionism entails - the government is more powerful and individuals have less rights.

About "international opinion" - I happened to catch a debate between Scalia and Bryer on Cspan the other day on that issue. That's something you don't see very often.

Here are the cspan links to the videos. (http://www.c-span.org/Search/basic.asp?ResultStart=1&ResultCount=10&BasicQueryText=scalia+breyer)

Yes without a constitution that warrant individual rights, there is no real democracy.
If a majority vote, that we kill al people weigthing more than 300 pounds (to say an idiocy), some laws, have to restrict such things. In this case, if such stupid thing was voted, the supreme court would say that it's unconstitutional.
Nearly all modern democratias work that way.

[Mac on a Mac]

These laws are not made by "majority vote". They are written and debated by an elected legislature, voted on by two legislative bodies and sent to a governor for signature. In the case of execution, there is also a judicial process usually including trial before a jury of peers. This process is followed by multiple court appeals. This is not a hasty process.

[shetline]

Originally posted by Mac on a Mac
These laws are not made by "majority vote". They are written and debated by an elected legislature, voted on by two legislative bodies and sent to a governor for signature.
You seem to have some understanding of the legislative process. Try studying something about "separation of powers" and "checks and balances" next.
In the case of execution, there is also a judicial process usually including trial before a jury of peers. This process is followed by multiple court appeals. This is not a hasty process.
It's not hasty therefore... therefore what?

Part of what happens in the appeals process that you mention is that judges -- in doing what they are constitutionally obligated to do -- consider the constitutionality of both the laws under which people have been convicted and the punishments doled out for the violation of those laws.

So what part of judges doing their jobs do you have a problem with?

If your problem is that you think a judge in a particular case has simply made a bad decision -- say that. I certainly have unfavorable opinions of some judicial decisions. But you, at least so far, aren't attacking the opinions themselves, your railing against the very power the judges have to make those decisions, and doing so with apparently no understanding of the role of the judiciary in a constitutional democracy.

If you don't like that judicial role, then say so. But don't confuse your dislike how certain constitutional powers are exercised with whether or not those powers currently exist and are being properly excercised.

News flash: Whether a law (and any related punishment) derives directly from the citizenry via majority vote, or indirectly from the legislative process, the US Constitution protects certain individual rights as being above and beyond the reach of direct or indirect majority political opinion. It is a DELIBERATE part of the design of the US Constitution that the judicial branch protects minorities from majorities, the unpopular from the popular, the weak from the powerful.

[Mac on a Mac]

I'm concerned with the Court using foreign opinion and foreign law and what the Court sees as public opinion to make decisions about our laws. Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion says it way better than I could hope to. It is a long, but interesting read.

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display.html?terms=roper%20simmons&url=/supct/html/03-633.ZD1.html

[talksense101]

Would you rather have them rot in prison for the rest of their natural lives?

Kill em and get it over with. Less expensive and less painful.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by talksense101
Would you rather have them rot in prison for the rest of their natural lives?

Kill em and get it over with. Less expensive and less painful.
I'm confused. The same people who want less government, who dislike paying taxes and social security, and generally want the state to stay out of their lives, are the same people who don't mind it when the state actually takes the lives of its citizens. :) Weird.

[dmz]

I can't imagine condemming someone who is 16 to a life in prison. I don't see how that isn't the most perverse sort of torture.

The entire concept of revenge/justice needs to be revisited, and incarceration as torture and revenge as the dirty little secret, is something that people all across the world need to begin to admit to themselves.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Mac on a Mac
I'm concerned with the Court using foreign opinion and foreign law and what the Court sees as public opinion to make decisions about our laws. Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion says it way better than I could hope to. It is a long, but interesting read.

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display.html?terms=roper%20simmons&url=/supct/html/03-633.ZD1.html I reccomend uh recomend uh how the fuck do you spell that recommend those cspan video debates between Breyer and Scalia. Both sides are presented pretty well, but you'd like Scalia I'm sure, he's a compelling speaker.

[tonton]

Guys... knowing talksense... he's being sarcastic. Just thought you should know.

[Placebo]

Originally posted by Mac on a Mac
This should be decided in individual states

This is much too much of a volital and important issue for it not to be a federal decision.

[Relic]

Originally posted by Placebo
This is much too much of a volital and important issue for it not to be a federal decision.

Abortion and and putting children to death should be on the same ballet. It would make it easier for me to decide on both issues. Hmmmm Yes or No, kill kids, don't kill kids?

[rageous]

That only works if you believe that at the instant conception takes place, there is a "kid" in there. Some people don't think a lump of cells equates to to the same thing as a 16 year old.

[tonton]

Originally posted by Relic
Abortion and and putting children to death should be on the same ballet. It would make it easier for me to decide on both issues. Hmmmm Yes or No, kill kids, don't kill kids?

That would be some ballet. And just as fictional as the Magic Flute.

But that's for another thread.

[Relic]

Originally posted by tonton
That would be some ballet. And just as fictional as the Magic Flute.

But that's for another thread.

Well I figured if you going to vote for death might as well get them all over with. Maybe the death penalty should be added on there as well. That way Wolfgang Amadeus would prpbably vote for it if you told him Antonio Salieri would hang.

[SDW2001]

Whether we should be killing juveniles or not is a good debate to have. However, this an absolutely awful decision on the court's part. The USSC should not be using any interntational standard. It's only job is to determine the constitutionality of a particular law or legality. Know where I got that from? A little thing called Article III, Section II of the United States Constitution:

Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Whether we should be killing juveniles or not is a good debate to have. However, this an absolutely awful decision on the court's part. The USSC should not be using any interntational standard. It's only job is to determine the constitutionality of a particular law or legality. Know where I got that from? A little thing called Article III, Section II of the United States Constitution:

1) Agreed. The USSC should only rule on US Law.

2) US Law often affects international law. Sometimes, US Law and International Law are hopelessly intertwined.

3) If only the US would enter the ICC, this might be made easier.

4) Perhaps our legislators ought not be such passive supporters of the killing of children.