U.S. abolishes death penalty for under 18's
Times Online
America has abolished the death penalty for murderers under the age of 18, after the Supreme Court ruled today that the practice was unconstitutional.
The decision, by the narrowest of margins - 5 votes to 4 - provides a death row reprieve for about 70 juvenile murderers in the 19 US states which enforce the death penalty against children, and prevents them from seeking to execute minors for future crimes.
The court ruled that executing juveniles violated the constitution's Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
The ruling represents a further step in narrowing the scope of the death penalty, since it was reinstated in 1976.
In 1988, the court outlawed executions for those aged 15 and younger when they committed their crimes. Three years ago, justices banned executions of the mentally retarded.
Today's ruling prevents states from making 16- and 17-year-olds eligible for execution.
"The age of 18 is the point where society draws the line for many purposes between childhood and adulthood. It is, we conclude, the age at which the line for death eligibility ought to rest," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote.
Juvenile offenders have been put to death in recent years in only a few other countries, including Iran, Pakistan, China and Saudi Arabia. Kennedy cited international opposition to the practice.
"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," he wrote.
Justice Kennedy noted that most states did not allow the execution of juvenile killers and those that do use the penalty infrequently. The trend, he said, is to abolish the practice because "our society views juveniles ... as categorically less culpable than the average criminal."
Dissenting, Justice Antonin Scalia disputed that the number of juvenile executions was steadily falling, showing a growing consensus against the practice.
He said that today's ruling was a denial of the will of the people. "The court says in so many words that what our people's laws say about the issue does not, in the last analysis, matter: 'In the end our own judgment will be brought to bear on the question of the acceptability of the death penalty'.
"The court thus proclaims itself sole arbiter of our nation's moral standards.," Justice Scalia wrote.
Death penalty opponents praised the ruling as a victory for human rights.
"Today, the court repudiated the misguided idea that the United States can pledge to leave no child behind while simultaneously exiling children to the death chamber," said William F Schulz, executive director of Amnesty International USA.
"Now the US can proudly remove its name from the embarrassing list of human rights violators that includes China, Iran, and Pakistan that still execute juvenile offenders," he said.
More than 3,400 inmates await execution in the 38 states that allow death sentences.
Justices were asked to rule on age in murder cases after Missouri's highest court overturned the death sentence given to Christopher Simmons, who was 17 when he kidnapped a neighbor, tied her up and threw her off a bridge in 1993. Prosecutors say he planned the burglary and killing of Shirley Crook and bragged that he could get away with it because of his age.
The four most liberal justices had already gone on record in 2002, calling it "shameful" to execute juvenile killers. Those four, joined by Justice Kennedy, formed today's decision: Justices John Paul Stevens, David H Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.
Chief Justice William H Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas joined Justice Scalia to uphold the executions. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor filed a separate dissent, arguing that a blanket rule against executing juveniles was misguided, and that it was better to approach the issue on a case-by-case basis.
"The court's analysis is premised on differences in the aggregate between juveniles and adults, which frequently do not hold true when comparing individuals," she wrote.
"Chronological age is not an unfailing measure of psychological development, and common experience suggests that many 17-year-olds are more mature than the average young 'adult'."
The federal government already bars the execution of juveniles for federal capital crimes.
Times Online
America has abolished the death penalty for murderers under the age of 18, after the Supreme Court ruled today that the practice was unconstitutional.
The decision, by the narrowest of margins - 5 votes to 4 - provides a death row reprieve for about 70 juvenile murderers in the 19 US states which enforce the death penalty against children, and prevents them from seeking to execute minors for future crimes.
The court ruled that executing juveniles violated the constitution's Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
The ruling represents a further step in narrowing the scope of the death penalty, since it was reinstated in 1976.
In 1988, the court outlawed executions for those aged 15 and younger when they committed their crimes. Three years ago, justices banned executions of the mentally retarded.
Today's ruling prevents states from making 16- and 17-year-olds eligible for execution.
"The age of 18 is the point where society draws the line for many purposes between childhood and adulthood. It is, we conclude, the age at which the line for death eligibility ought to rest," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote.
Juvenile offenders have been put to death in recent years in only a few other countries, including Iran, Pakistan, China and Saudi Arabia. Kennedy cited international opposition to the practice.
"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," he wrote.
Justice Kennedy noted that most states did not allow the execution of juvenile killers and those that do use the penalty infrequently. The trend, he said, is to abolish the practice because "our society views juveniles ... as categorically less culpable than the average criminal."
Dissenting, Justice Antonin Scalia disputed that the number of juvenile executions was steadily falling, showing a growing consensus against the practice.
He said that today's ruling was a denial of the will of the people. "The court says in so many words that what our people's laws say about the issue does not, in the last analysis, matter: 'In the end our own judgment will be brought to bear on the question of the acceptability of the death penalty'.
"The court thus proclaims itself sole arbiter of our nation's moral standards.," Justice Scalia wrote.
Death penalty opponents praised the ruling as a victory for human rights.
"Today, the court repudiated the misguided idea that the United States can pledge to leave no child behind while simultaneously exiling children to the death chamber," said William F Schulz, executive director of Amnesty International USA.
"Now the US can proudly remove its name from the embarrassing list of human rights violators that includes China, Iran, and Pakistan that still execute juvenile offenders," he said.
More than 3,400 inmates await execution in the 38 states that allow death sentences.
Justices were asked to rule on age in murder cases after Missouri's highest court overturned the death sentence given to Christopher Simmons, who was 17 when he kidnapped a neighbor, tied her up and threw her off a bridge in 1993. Prosecutors say he planned the burglary and killing of Shirley Crook and bragged that he could get away with it because of his age.
The four most liberal justices had already gone on record in 2002, calling it "shameful" to execute juvenile killers. Those four, joined by Justice Kennedy, formed today's decision: Justices John Paul Stevens, David H Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.
Chief Justice William H Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas joined Justice Scalia to uphold the executions. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor filed a separate dissent, arguing that a blanket rule against executing juveniles was misguided, and that it was better to approach the issue on a case-by-case basis.
"The court's analysis is premised on differences in the aggregate between juveniles and adults, which frequently do not hold true when comparing individuals," she wrote.
"Chronological age is not an unfailing measure of psychological development, and common experience suggests that many 17-year-olds are more mature than the average young 'adult'."
The federal government already bars the execution of juveniles for federal capital crimes.
