PDA

View Full Version : Supreme Court strikes down death penalty for juveniles



Jolie Rouge
03-01-2005, 02:47 PM
Supreme Court strikes down death penalty for juveniles
By Joan Biskupic, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — A divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that convicted murderers who were younger than 18 at the time of their crimes cannot be executed, in part because there is a "national consensus" among the states that such executions are wrong.

By a 5-4 vote, the justices said the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment bans the execution of juvenile offenders. The decision, announced by Justice Anthony Kennedy during a dramatic court session that revealed the tension among the justices over the issue, invalidates laws in 20 states. It lifts the death sentences from about 71 juvenile offenders nationwide; they probably will get life in prison.

The decision comes three years after the court banned executions of mentally retarded inmates. The rulings reflect the prevailing view of today's court that capital punishment should be reserved for the nation's "worst offenders" and that the mentally retarded and juveniles cannot reliably be classified that way. Kennedy, writing for the majority, said juvenile criminals lack maturity and are particularly susceptible to peer pressure. "The age of 18 is the point where society draws the line for many purposes between childhood and adulthood. It is ... the age at which the line for death eligibility ought to rest."

Tuesday's ruling also reverses a stand the court took in 1989, when it allowed executions of killers who committed their crimes at age 16 or 17. Kennedy noted that of the 38 states that have the death penalty, 18 exempt juvenile offenders from executions. When the court last ruled on the issue in 1989, 13 states had such exemptions. During the past decade, three states (Texas, Oklahoma and Virginia) have carried out the sentence for juvenile crimes.

The case decided Tuesday involved a Missouri man, Christopher Simmons, who was 17 when he abducted a woman from her home, bound and gagged her, and threw her into a river to drown.

Kennedy noted that "the stark reality is that the United States is the only country in the world" that officially allowed the juvenile death penalty.

Kennedy's opinion drew an angry response from Justice Antonin Scalia. "The basic premise — that American law should conform to the laws of the rest of the world — ought to be rejected out of hand," Scalia said.

Officials in states that have juvenile offenders on death row said they were reviewing the opinion. Alabama Attorney General Troy King, whose office had urged the justices to retain the juvenile death penalty, said he was disappointed "on behalf of victims."

Kennedy, who usually votes with the court's five-member conservative wing, became the key vote in the case by siding with liberals John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Dissenting were Scalia, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas.

As a result, officials in Prince William County, Va., said Tuesday they will not prosecute a murder case there against teen sniper Lee Boyd Malvo, who is already serving life in prison in two of the 10 sniper killings that terrorized the Washington area in 2002. Prince William County Commonwealth's Attorney Paul Ebert had hoped to get the death penalty for Malvo, who was 17 at the time of the killings, but said another trial would now be an unnecessary expense.

The case is Roper vs Simmons, 03-633.


Contributing: The Associated Press

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-03-01-scotus-juvenile_x.htm?csp=24&RM_Exclude=Juno


Juveniles on death rows

The state breakdown of the 72 people on death rows who were juveniles when they committed their crimes, according to the Death Penalty Information Center:

Texas: 29.
Alabama: 14.
Mississippi: 5.
Arizona, Louisiana, North Carolina: 4 each.
Florida, South Carolina: 3 each.
Georgia, Pennsylvania: 2 each.
Nevada, Virginia: 1.

Arkansas, Delaware, Idaho, Kentucky, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Utah allow the execution of juveniles but do not have any on their death rows.

schsa
03-02-2005, 12:47 PM
A twelve year old does not have the same mental capacity for making decisions as a 16 year old. It's hard to say what constitutes a cold blooded killer. I remember the movie The Bad Seed where the little girl was killing people and no one believed that she could be the one. But some children are just as capable as adults to commit murder.

Jolie Rouge
03-02-2005, 01:20 PM
Most murders do not rate the death penalty - only the worst of the worst. In the cases where juveniles are involved they also look at extenuating circumstances...

Not familar with the "Bad Seed" case.... how old were the Menendez Brothers when they murdered their parents in order to inheirit ?

Jolie Rouge
03-09-2005, 09:38 AM
Judicial Tyranny
Armstrong Williams

By a 5-4 margin, the U.S. Supreme Court outlawed the death penalty for juvenile criminals as cruel and unusual punishment. Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy stressed that inexperience should shield youths from the full extent of criminal punishment. "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," Kennedy said

The court has long construed the 8th amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment in light of "evolving standards of decency that marked the progress of a maturing society." The Supreme Court had recognized in the 1950s that "evolving standards" ought to be determined by reference to international as well as domestic measures. And in this case, the majority stressed that eliminating the death penalty for juveniles is consistent with international opinion, and is supported by a majority of Americans.

A majority of Americans? Do you think a majority of Americans would have supported the death penalty for Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, after they stalked through the halls of Columbine High murdering classmates?

What about for DC sniper Lee Boyd Malvo? He was 17 years old when he participated in a shooting spree that left ten people dead.

Are these the whimsical acts of a minor? Or are they calculated acts of brutality deserving the full extension of criminal punishment? I think a majority of Americans would find it acceptable to punish these juveniles to the full extent of the law. I think they would do so because that's what these criminals deserve.

Somehow the Supreme Court missed this point. Somehow they failed to realize that making sure that criminals--even juveniles--get what they deserve is a moral imperative. Condemning people for acts they commit is part of having a morality that holds people responsible for their behavior.
When the legal system demands that a juvenile take responsibility for committing a capital crime, it is not the legal system that is showing a disregard for the sanctity of life. Rather, it is the criminal who showed disregard for the sanctity of his own life when he knowingly chose to commit a crime serious enough to warrant the death penalty.


I do not take the death penalty lightly. The decision to end a criminal's life is perhaps the most solemn decision that the state can make. This decision is never easy. I mention this merely to point out that it's for the people and their elected officials to decide when it is appropriate to extend full criminal punishment. This is not a decision that the constitution leaves to five old people in black dresses. The police power resides solely in the state government.

It is a fundamental violation of the separation of powers when five unelected, unaccountable judges use their own sense of morality to invalidate the laws of 19 states.

Justice Kennedy's assessment that executing juveniles violates "evolving standards of decency" has no basis in reality. The only measure of the people's will on this issue is the fact that society chose to enact legislature permitting the application of the death penalty to juveniles who commit heinous crimes. It is not the judge's job to engineer our culture. Their job is to uphold the law—not to invent it through grand moral sweeps.

CatrinaF25
03-15-2005, 07:10 PM
they can not vote. most cant drive. cant buy smokes or liquor cant fight in the war. there are reassons for this. I donot believe they should beable to do this to children and i am very glad of this ruleing

Jolie Rouge
03-15-2005, 07:35 PM
I do not believe they should be able to do this to children and I am very glad of this ruling

I would hardly describe Lee Malvo, Eric Harris, and Dylan Klebold as "children".

You don't think these individuals should be held accountable for randomly shooting innocent people, who planned and carried out the ultimate violence ... but people like YankeeMary think it is okay to slowly subject an innocent woman to a protracted death by dehydration and starvation because she is an inconvience to her own husband ?

:confused:

Jolie Rouge
03-16-2005, 01:26 PM
KILLING EX-KIDS
Tue Mar 8, 2005
By William F. Buckley Jr. [/i]

Oddly, people sometimes need to be reminded that capital punishment is a pretty gruesome act, and maybe it should be more gruesome. "What do you think of the Supreme Court decision outlawing capital punishment for those who committed murder when not yet 18?" The difficulty in answering that question with any enthusiasm is that to take a negative view of the Supreme Court's decision risks giving the impression that one enjoys hanging people whose crime was committed when very young.

But of course other analyses were sought by those who asked the question. They focused on two points especially. One was the strange invocation by the majority (Justice Kennedy) of practices on capital punishment by other nations. A decent respect for the opinion of mankind is different from subordination of one's own policies because they are different from those of others, even of mankind's. The Declaration of Independence promulgated the first self-governed state in the world since Athens; so we were early on encouraged to reach our own conclusions in matters of public policy.


The thinking underlying the democratic process has to do with consensus -- in this case, an American consensus. To introduce, for critical consideration, the judgment of non-Americans is to vitiate the sovereignty of American political judgments. These, by the way, alter on capital punishment in both directions, no doubt reflecting the public mood. In 1917, Missouri became the 13th state to abolish capital punishment; but seven of these states, soon after, reinstated the death sentence. Are we to suppose that if a few European countries do as much in the years ahead, the Supreme Court will reauthorize the execution of people who, as youths, committed murder?


The second dereliction of the court was of course removing the whole question of what is constitutional from the deliberation of the voters. The court overruled not only the 19 states that continued to authorize such punishment, but also its own decision in 1989, when it authorized the death penalty for minors.


The proposition can be argued that that which is cruel and unusual reflects public sentiment. In 1885, we have been reminded, James Arcene was hanged for murders he committed when he was 10 years old. One likes to believe that murders by 10-year-olds are unusual, but not for that reason designated as constitutionally unusual as regards the death sentence.


What the majority of the Supreme Court was up to (by the barest majority, 5-4) was social activism. The planted axiom in Roper v. Simmons was that American voters do not mature ethically as quickly as Supreme Court justices, and therefore judicial epiphanies need to be enunciated, late-born thoughts of the Framers.


A criticism of unusual character was made during the discussions of capital punishment. One critic, writing in a British paper, argued that the search for utterly painless punishment contradicted the purpose of punishment. One didn't gather from the essayist that he was arguing for the restoration of torture. But he argued with some plausibility that pain is a desirable feature of punishment.


There is, obviously, the psychological pain of confronting death, but the passage from life to death of a murderer does not reasonably impose a mission to devise the ultimate chloroform. We have not had a public execution in the United States since Rainey Bethea was hanged in Kentucky in 1936 for murdering an elderly woman. The endorsement of public executions has been pretty much abandoned, in the general search for the insulation from unpleasant activity, other than sexual depravity.


But there is no consensus, among penologists, on whether crime deterrence would be advanced by exposing the public to the act of execution. There are the abolitionists who argue in favor of televised executions on the grounds that such exposure would magnify the opposition to a bestial practice. That might be so, probably is so. But that does not mean that such executions wouldn't simultaneously augment deterrence.


Professor Ernest van den Haag, the late, learned advocate of capital punishment, rested his case on the single point, namely that punishment of that order affirms the full extent of the community's respect for life: take a life, forfeit yours.


When the British Parliament voted to outlaw the death sentence for murder in 1969, this was done athwart the absolutely resolute judgment of about 70 percent of the public, who, then and today, believe that murderers should hang. Well, maybe not hang, but be injected with a liquid which, however pleasant, would nevertheless be lethal. The British Parliament sometimes acts like the U.S. Supreme Court, but at least the Brits have a chance to vote for members of Parliament.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=128&ncid=742&e=9&u=/ucwb/20050309/cm_ucwb/killingexkids

Jolie Rouge
03-16-2005, 01:32 PM
Scalia Slams Juvenile Death Penalty Ruling
Mon Mar 14, 2005
By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Justice Antonin Scalia criticized the Supreme Court's recent decision to strike down the juvenile death penalty, calling it the latest example of politics on the court that has made judicial nominations an increasingly bitter process.

In a 35-minute speech Monday, Scalia said unelected judges have no place deciding issues such as abortion and the death penalty. The court's 5-4 ruling March 1 to outlaw the juvenile death penalty based on "evolving notions of decency" was simply a mask for the personal policy preferences of the five-member majority, he said. "If you think aficionados of a living Constitution want to bring you flexibility, think again," Scalia told an audience at the Woodrow Wilson Center, a Washington think tank. "You think the death penalty is a good idea? Persuade your fellow citizens to adopt it. You want a right to abortion? Persuade your fellow citizens and enact it. That's flexibility."

"Why in the world would you have it interpreted by nine lawyers?" he said.


Scalia, who has been mentioned as a possible chief justice nominee should Chief Justice William Rehnquist retire, outlined his judicial philosophy of interpreting the Constitution according to its text, as understood at the time it was adopted.

Citing the example of abortion, he said unelected justices too often choose to read new rights into the Constitution, at the expense of the democratic process. "Abortion is off the democratic stage. Prohibiting it is unconstitutional, now and forever, coast to coast, until I guess we amend the Constitution," said Scalia, who was appointed to the court by President Reagan in 1986.


He blamed Chief Justice Earl Warren, who presided from 1953-69 over a court that assaulted racial segregation and expanded individual rights against arbitrary government searches, for the increased political role of the Supreme Court, citing Warren's political background. Warren was governor of California and the Republican vice presidential nominee in 1948. "You have a chief justice who was a governor, a policy-maker, who approached the law with that frame of mind. Once you have a leader with that mentality, it's hard not to follow," Scalia said, in response to a question from the audience.

Scalia said increased politics on the court will create a bitter nomination fight for the next Supreme Court appointee, since judges are now more concerned with promoting their personal policy preferences rather than interpreting the law. "If we're picking people to draw out of their own conscience and experience a 'new' Constitution, we should not look principally for good lawyers. We should look to people who agree with us," he said, explaining that's why senators increasingly probe nominees for their personal views on positions such as abortion. "When we are in that mode, you realize we have rendered the Constitution useless," Scalia said.


Scalia, who has had a prickly relationship with the media, wasted no time in shooing away photographers from the public event five minutes into his speech. "Could we stop the cameras? I thought I announced ... a couple are fine at first, but click click click click," Scalia said, impatiently waving the photographers off.

During a speech last year in Hattiesburg, Miss., a deputy federal marshal demanded that an Associated Press reporter and another journalist erase recordings of the justice's remarks. The justice later apologized. The government conceded that the U.S. Marshals Service violated federal law in the confrontation and said the reporters and their employers were each entitled to $1,000 in damages and attorneys' fees.

___


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=558&e=12&u=/ap/scalia


On the Net:

Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/

YNKYH8R
03-17-2005, 05:50 AM
Scalia Slams Juvenile Death Penalty Ruling
Mon Mar 14, 2005
By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer

Citing the example of abortion, he said unelected justices too often choose to read new rights into the Constitution, at the expense of the democratic process. "Abortion is off the democratic stage. Prohibiting it is unconstitutional, now and forever, coast to coast, until I guess we amend the Constitution," said Scalia, who was appointed to the court by President Reagan in 1986.
This is an interesting comment...

CatrinaF25
03-17-2005, 11:44 AM
I would hardly describe Lee Malvo, Eric Harris, and Dylan Klebold as "children".

You don't think these individuals should be held accountable for randomly shooting innocent people, who planned and carried out the ultimate violence ... but people like YankeeMary think it is okay to slowly subject an innocent woman to a protracted death by dehydration and starvation because she is an inconvience to her own husband ?

:confused:
hun thats not what i said. I just dont think they should be put to death . be punished ? YES 100% death no

YNKYH8R
03-17-2005, 12:25 PM
I would hardly describe Lee Malvo, Eric Harris, and Dylan Klebold as "children".

You don't think these individuals should be held accountable for randomly shooting innocent people, who planned and carried out the ultimate violence ... but people like YankeeMary think it is okay to slowly subject an innocent woman to a protracted death by dehydration and starvation because she is an inconvience to her own husband ?

:confused:
Wait a minute this is apples and oranges. Whether you call these underage individuals 'children' or not you have to give way to basic biology and hormones realizing that a juvinelle (sp) brain is still growing and doesn't think with the same reasoning. Look at columbine, all they wanted was to stop being picked on. Their solution was to kill. Which is completely irrational, just like a lot of childrens frame of mind. Where as Schaivo (whatever) is an adult that her husband claims never wanted to live like this. I know I wouldn't.

Jolie Rouge
03-17-2005, 01:04 PM
... all they wanted was to stop being picked on. Their solution was to kill.

Kids have always been picked on in school - most do not resort to mass murder. They went to the prom the Saturday before the killings, taking time out between dances to plant pipebombs in the gym. They planned this out for months in advance, including having others purchase the weapons for them. Walked thru the school targeting - not the poeple who may have picked on them - but minorities and just random people who got in their way. Planted a pipebomb with a timer in the BMW they drove to school to take out random people in the parking lot. Way too much malice, violence and forethought went into this.

Most kids just talk to their parents, teachers, principle - not try to murder innocent people to make themselves infamous.

DP case for sure if they had not saved the State the money.

YNKYH8R
03-17-2005, 01:58 PM
Unfortunately we’ll never know the true motive we have only the eye witnesses and the tapes to watch. There is one thing you missed though that is the irrationality of the act itself. You your self wrote about who was shot and who wasn’t. Obviously they wanted everyone to suffer. I know I’ve felt like that at some point but I can imagine that I was not picked on as badly as these two were. This isn’t an excuse just a possible explanation. The death penalty doesn’t teach anyone any lessons. It doesn’t teach the convicted anything and no one seems to learn from it because these acts continue on even into adult years. Look at the guy who killed the federal agent, judge, and court clerk. Whoever did that is guaranteed the death penalty…I would imagine that the perp doesn’t care.

Jolie Rouge
03-17-2005, 08:08 PM
I would imagine that the perp doesn’t care.


Perhaps if the Death Penalty was administered in a reasonable amount of time after the sentence is handed down...

We have the DNA advances that have not been available in the past - do the scans to confirm the guilty and free the wrongly convicted; then carry out the sentence as handed down by Judge and Jury. Most DP cases are brutal murders, no one seems worried about the Civil Rights of the victims - least of all the killer.



I know I’ve felt like that at some point but I can imagine that I was not picked on as badly as these two were.

I *was* picked on in school - much more viciously than was has been attributed to these cold hearted killers - doesn't mean I tried to murder anyone.

YankeeMary
03-18-2005, 04:57 AM
I would hardly describe Lee Malvo, Eric Harris, and Dylan Klebold as "children".

You don't think these individuals should be held accountable for randomly shooting innocent people, who planned and carried out the ultimate violence ... but people like YankeeMary think it is okay to slowly subject an innocent woman to a protracted death by dehydration and starvation because she is an inconvience to her own husband ?

:confused:
I sure do not appreciate your comment here and would appreciate you keeping your opinion about me to yourself. It totally amazes me that people on this board behave such as this. My opinion differs from you so therefore you take it upon yourself to try and not only slam me but to also misquote me. I feel that they should have let her die 15 years not because she is an inconvience to her DH but because SHE DIDN'T WANT TO LIVE LIKE THIS! So funny how YOU are so perfect that it gives you the right to judge others, must be nice. But hey you know what God will forgive you and so will I.

YankeeMary
03-18-2005, 05:01 AM
Perhaps if the Death Penalty was administered in a reasonable amount of time after the sentence is handed down...

Just as if they would have let Teri die in the beginning? So its ok to kill as long as it done quickly? Do we have a fence rider here?

adorkablex
03-18-2005, 07:10 AM
Kids have always been picked on in school - most do not resort to mass murder. They went to the prom the Saturday before the killings, taking time out between dances to plant pipebombs in the gym. They planned this out for months in advance, including having others purchase the weapons for them. Walked thru the school targeting - not the poeple who may have picked on them - but minorities and just random people who got in their way. Planted a pipebomb with a timer in the BMW they drove to school to take out random people in the parking lot. Way too much malice, violence and forethought went into this.

Most kids just talk to their parents, teachers, principle - not try to murder innocent people to make themselves infamous.

DP case for sure if they had not saved the State the money.


Going with Jolie on this one.
I knew right from wrong from the age of 2 on up until now. At 12/13 (Around the time of Columbine), I may have gotten teased (have to love getting boobs around 12 year old boys :rolleyes: ) but I knew that shooting up the school wasn't the solution. I knew that it was murder. Children under the age of 18 may act irrational but in my opinion, it's not something you can gauge on age. I mean a person doesn't suddenly become more responsible at the stroke of midnight on their 18th birthday. Heck, if the "not old enough for war, voting etc" argument can be used, why not the "not even old enough to buy liquor"? It's ridiculous to me that if I went upstairs and killed my Mom for say... burning dinner (heh) I'd get life or the death penalty. Though if a 17 year old kid 2 days before his 18th birthday did the same he wouldn't get the death penalty. It's bullcrap.

I remember watching a case on court tv about these two little boys who killed another little boy. I think they beat him/stabbed him to death. He was 9/10 or so and had some mental development problems... and two 11 year olds killed him. Seemingly for the sport of it.

Kids/teenagers that murder someone in such a cold hearted manner shouldn't be thought of as normal. And I don't know about you but I don't want a murder back on the streets around MY kids in 10 years. (I'm just talking about the whole being tried as an adult/minor.. even though no one brought it up.)

OK. Enough of my rant.. I'm off to dry my hair and pack. :)

YNKYH8R
03-18-2005, 08:44 AM
Ashley I understand your argument but IMO the government needs to make up its mind about how it perceives 18 year old people. Get this:
At the age of eighteen you can go to war and die for your country, smoke, buy pornography, and drive. You can’t do these things before 18 because you cannot be held accountable for your actions. Yet you can be given the DP before 18. What about not being accountable for actions? Something needs to change a line needs to be drawn. Besides even Saudi Arabia with its public executions don’t execute children.

And yes I do believe that the perpetrators of the Columbine shooting were aware of what they were doing is wrong but the irrationality of the act itself shows deep emotional stress or some other dysfunction. Whether it is hormonal or not, I don’t know. I do know I don’t blame the media, television, video games, or music. I see it as maybe those in their school that treated them the way they were being treated should have thought twice.

Jolie Rouge
03-18-2005, 03:55 PM
Perhaps if the Death Penalty was administered in a reasonable amount of time after the sentence is handed down...

Just as if they would have let Teri die in the beginning? So its ok to kill as long as it done quickly? Do we have a fence rider here?


Terri has commited no crime. The one and only person asserting that Teri had stated a DNR was to her husband -- while in discussions with her friends, family, associates, ect. state the complete opposite. Hmmm... the one person who gets to pull the plug is the one person who stands to benefit from her death. Convient.


Can you imagine the uproar it we strapped down inmates and refused them food & water until they died of "natural causes" ? People who dealt death in the cruelest manner are given a last meal, a tranquelizer, an alcohol swab ( no chance of last second infections ? ) and a shot to guide them into the next life. Teri gets starved to death - treament you would not wish upon a dog ( and would in fact bring you up on charges.... )

Jaxx
03-19-2005, 02:51 AM
I think it depends on how severe the crime is - JMO

Jolie Rouge
07-01-2007, 10:15 PM
Common Sense on Capital Punishment
By Fred Thompson

Our country seems to be able to come to the right
conclusions over time, even when we’re being told over and over again that we're wrong. When I say the right conclusions, by the way, I mean conclusions supported by honest research and real evidence. I've got a good example -- capital punishment.

For decades, the self-proclaimed smart kids have been telling us that the death penalty just doesn't work. The people with the top jobs in academia and the news business have scoffed at the American people's insistence that executions prevent murder.

On the very surface of the issue, it would seem pretty obvious that an executed murderer can't murder anybody else -- but we've been told that we were wrong even about that. You've undoubtedly heard the old saw about executions actually motivating murderers to kill, presumably because what murderers really want is attention. The argument is a stretch, demanding that we believe that killers aren't deterred by the consequences of being caught and executed.

Without evidence, though, it's hard to rebut.

In the last few years, however, serious researchers have applied themselves to finding the evidence. Criminologists and economists have gathered and analyzed a mountain of data, and many of them were surprised by what they found. Now, they've published papers in respected academic journals that are establishing an unexpected consensus.


The reliable two-thirds of Americans who have always supported the death penalty probably wouldn't be surprised to find out that study after study has shown that the death penalty deters murders. Some studies show really dramatic effects, with each execution of a murderer deterring as many as 18 or more murders. That's according to Emory University professors, who found as well that delaying execution also leads to further murders. Most studies have concluded that some number of murders between three and 18 are prevented for every application of capital punishment.

I guess the most surprising thing to me was seeing an article about these findings just a few weeks ago by the Associated Press. The most interesting quote was from a well-known opponent of capital punishment who looked at the evidence and said, "Abolitionists or others, like me, who are skeptical about the death penalty haven't given adequate consideration to the possibility that innocent life is saved by the death penalty."

Certainly, the use of DNA evidence to clear long-held prisoners from murder charges proves that we need to be more careful about handing out death sentences; and science must be used even more and earlier in the criminal process to protect the innocent and convict the guilty. However, these studies are important in properly analyzing the effect of the death penalty.

Adra
07-02-2007, 04:29 AM
So many thoughts on this subject.

I taught my children that there are consequences for their actions. I taught them that they should THINK before acting. I tried so hard to monitor who their friends were and where they were hanging out. That was my job because -it's true- their minds don't work like an adults. However I made them responsible for their actions.

I think I am going to really be fussed at for my opinion, but in most cases I see the parents as not providing adequate training at home. But I think that these misfits should not be put back in society and I do not want my tax money supporting them. So the alternative is the death penalty.

PrincessArky
07-02-2007, 05:22 AM
the thing that kills me is take for example the boys involved in the Arkansas school shooting they killed 5 ppl and they are both free now and there is no record of their killing as far as a "rap sheet" within a couple of years the boy that was 13 at the time has already been in trouble with the law dwi and having guns and yet I doubt any of his neighbors actually know anything about his past

Jolie Rouge
06-16-2010, 08:15 PM
17-year-old accused of murder pleads not guilty
June 15, 2010

BATON ROUGE, LA (WAFB) - He's accused of killing six people, but Michael Louding says he didn't do it. Tuesday morning, Louding, 17, entered a not guilty plea to four murder charges.

When Louisiana State Police, Baton Rouge Police and the East Baton Rouge Sheriff's Office joined forces for a homicide task force, they say they had one goal: to protect the public. Last Monday, they announced the arrests of seven people earlier this month, including Louding.

"We've unfortunately had to deal with a lot of juveniles that have committed murders. Maybe not this many," said District Attorney Hillar Moore.

Police say Louding has killed six people over the last year. They say in 2009 he shot and killed local rapper Chris "Nussie" Jackson, Marcus Thomas, Terry Boyd and Michael Smith. This year, police blame Louding for the shooting deaths of Charles Matthews and Darryl Milton, while they were sitting in a parked Cadillac. Louding is charged with the attempted murder of another man.

"I mean he was 16 with the first one last year. Pretty young," said Margaret Lagattuta, Louding's court appointed attorney. She says she doesn't have a lot of information on her client right now, but will sit down with him next week to discuss the details of his cases. She did say he is the youngest she's ever represented, who's accused of so much. "Just keeping it in your head. It's not like one case, it's six cases. So it's a little more complicated."

Louding's sister was the only family member present in the courtroom. She told 9 News she doesn't think her brother is a bad person, he just hangs around bad people.

Louding is due back in court in August.

http://www.wafb.com/Global/story.asp?S=12654492


comments

The sad thing is he is in jail bragging about what he did to everyone and he was paid to kill them. SICK!

--

Anyone regardless of their age, accused of killing six people beginning at age 16 surely isn't a bad person, he kills because "he" hangs around bad people. Sad...

Jolie Rouge
06-26-2011, 05:18 PM
The problem with this case ... if they do not do something to change the path of the "kid" in question ... he will be one of those on Death Row or LWOP before he is 20....

Board of Supervisors president angered by jailing of Santa Clara County 12-year-old
By Karen de Sá Posted: 06/26/2011 03:47:33 PM PDT

One year after Santa Clara County set a national precedent for restricting its juvenile hall to offenders ages 13 and older, the county supervisor who championed the policy is furious over the month-long jailing of a 12-year-old boy. "The policy was intended for 100 percent of the kids," said Dave Cortese, president of the Board of Supervisors. "If and when there's a homicide or an equivalent level of violence, then there may not be other options -- but that's not the case here."

The policy was adopted by the Board of Supervisors in May 2010 as a result of Mercury News stories on several troubling detentions in recent years. One case involved three siblings in foster care -- ages 10, 11 and 12 -- who spent five days locked up. Another involved a mentally ill boy who arrived shortly after his 11th birthday and spent almost two years in San Jose's juvenile hall.

Cortese recently notified a reporter about the apparent disregard for the policy after becoming frustrated by attempts to free the 12-year-old boy from the juvenile hall on Guadalupe Parkway. Cortese's office spent weeks advocating for release to a facility more effective in treating a boy his age. The supervisor's staff presented to attorneys and probation officers involved with the case an eight-page list of alternative placements and interventions specifically addressing his problems with gangs, violence and family relationships.

Because he is a minor, the Bay Area News Group is not naming the boy, who was detained at juvenile hall on May 16 and released Wednesday to his mother and a social worker with a local agency that will provide round-the-clock social work and supervision. The boy will also be monitored electronically with an ankle bracelet. "We're advocating for him and all the people who will be impacted if he's not offered the proper care," Cortese said. "He needs social services, psychological counseling maybe -- he needs a complete separation from gang-affiliated kids."

Juvenile records are confidential, but professionals who have worked with the 12-year-old Santa Clara County resident describe his case as a difficult one. Sources familiar with his case say he committed at least two violent crimes -- including assaulting a staff member at a local agency -- and has a history of running away from unlocked facilities.

On May 21, the boy was ordered by juvenile court Judge Jesús Valencia to serve 30 days in juvenile hall.

Sources say the Probation Department had urged the judge to grant the youth and his family intensive "wrap-around" treatment at home. But prosecutors took a harsher approach.

Deputy district attorney Chris Arriola, who supervises the juvenile unit, said his office does not make recommendations to the court that a very young person be sent to juvenile hall in a light manner. He would not comment on the particular case, but did say: "The D.A. agrees with the policy to try and keep children 13 and younger out of juvenile hall -- wholeheartedly. We look at only the most serious cases in regard to detaining young minors. However, there are always exceptions."

When county supervisors set a minimum age limit for juvenile hall admission, it was believed to be the first policy of its kind on the nation. And Cortese says he's not aware of any other jurisdictions that have followed suit.

Probation Chief Sheila Mitchell said there have been three young people under age 13 in detention since the policy passed, but one of them only stayed one night. Details about the length of confinement of the other youths were not available.

Agreeing with many juvenile justice experts, Cortese said contact with older, more hardened offenders and the punitive environment of the jail-like juvenile hall does not help youthful offenders get the help they need to reject crime.

In his "State of the County" speech in January, Cortese sought to broaden the policy, vowing to make 16 the minimum age for detention.

While judges retain the ultimate authority over where to place offenders, county supervisors aimed their policy at influencing the judges and probation officers who make recommendations to the court.

Although it's not uncommon for children under age 13 to be arrested, the policy's intent is for them to serve their time in alternative settings, including supervision at home, foster care with intensive services, and small, community-based treatment centers.

In an email, Patrick Tondreau, presiding judge of the Juvenile Court, wrote: "As an ongoing concern, we are very focused on trying to prevent any young minors from coming into the hall, and if they do we work hard to find an alternative to get them out of the hall as quick as possible."

While not referring to any specific case, he added: "Unfortunately, there are occasional times when the circumstances dictate the need to detain a young minor."

But a staffer with Cortese's office, Enrique Flores, maintained that the courts overlooked numerous alternative placements presented to attorneys involved with the case of the 12-year-old. One suggested placement included a residential boys academy that features daily 6 a.m. military-style drills, intensive supervision and life skills classes.

Flores, a youth-intervention specialist who has mentored the boy, described him as looking older than his age and being highly susceptible to the influences of older gang members in his neighborhood. Flores said he's "receptive, like a sponge," adding that could lead him to more criminality, or toward a better path if he gets help quickly.

With that knowledge, Cortese said, he is tired of hearing juvenile justice officials complain there are no other options than the juvenile hall. He said those options do exist and are simply not taken advantage of. "And who pays?" he asked. "The boy and society, because they're going to release a more hardened criminal instead of a rehabilitated human being."

http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_18357942?source=rss



See also L http://www.bigbigforums.com/news-information/639008-court-rules-out-life-sentences-teens.html

gmyers
06-26-2011, 08:21 PM
I don't like exexcuting really young peopl;e either. But its scary to think they know they wont be executed so they'll commit really horrible crimes or murders and not worry about it.

Jolie Rouge
06-26-2011, 08:50 PM
That is a problem we are dealing with here ... teenagers involved with the gangs committing crimes at young ages and they are being put up to it by the older gangbangers BECAUSE they will get a lighter sentence due to their age. They brag about it. We had a 13 year-old that is the "triggerman" in a series of shootings... listening to him ... I don't know if anything can "save" this one.

Jolie Rouge
05-04-2012, 09:56 AM
Trial of ‘Lil Boosie’ set to begin
Preliminary procedures to qualify pool of 150 prospective jurors
BY JOE GYAN JR. Advocate staff writer May 03, 2012

About 150 East Baton Rouge Parish residents will converge Monday on the 19th Judicial District Courthouse for possible jury duty in the highly publicized and much-anticipated first-degree murder trial of nationally acclaimed Baton Rouge rapper Torrence “Lil Boosie’’ Hatch.

The prospective jurors will attend an orientation, fill out questionnaires and receive preliminary instructions from state District Judge Mike Erwin, who will preside over the trial. Potential jurors will not be questioned in the courtroom until Tuesday when the jury selection process is expected to begin in earnest. The jury will be anonymous, meaning the 12 jurors and any alternate jurors will be identified in court and in court documents only by number. The jury will also be sequestered and security at the courthouse and in the courtroom will be heavy.

Prosecutors are not seeking the death penalty, meaning Hatch would be sentenced to life in prison if convicted as charged in the murder-for-hire of Terry Boyd, 35. Hatch, 29, 1132 Pompey Drive, is accused of paying Michael “Marlo Mike’’ Louding to kill Boyd, who was shot to death through a window while he was inside his Vermillion Drive home Oct. 21, 2009. Louding, who was 17 at the time, is charged with first-degree murder in the killing, but is not eligible for the death penalty because of his age.

Adrian Pittman, 38, of Baton Rouge, also is charged with first-degree murder in Boyd’s death. Hatch, Louding and Pittman have pleaded not guilty.

Jason Williams, one of Hatch’s attorneys, said Hatch is “ready for his day in court.’’ Louding, 19, of Baton Rouge, will testify at the trial, prosecutor Dana Cummings has said. Louding’s attorney, Margaret Lagattuta, has said Louding wants to testify. Louding is charged in five other killings over a 14-month span, beginning with the Feb. 9, 2009, shooting death of local up-and-coming rapper Chris “Nussie” Jackson, and ending with the April 1, 2010, double-murder of Charles Matthews and Darryl “Bleek” Milton. He is charged with first-degree murder in the deaths of Jackson; Marcus Thomas on April 25, 2009; and Matthews and Milton. He also is charged with second-degree murder in the killing of Michael Smith on Dec. 18, 2009. Louding was 16 at the time of Jackson’s and Thomas’ deaths.

Hatch pleaded guilty in November to charges that accused him of conspiring to smuggle drugs and other illegal contraband into Dixon Correctional Institute and the Louisiana State Penitentiary. He was sentenced to eight years in prison. At the time of his plea, Hatch already was imprisoned on a third-offense marijuana possession charge from East Baton Rouge Parish. He is currently being held at the state penitentiary in Angola. His attorneys want him moved to East Baton Rouge Parish Prison for the trial.

Once Cummings begins presenting the state’s case, jurors will hear some of Hatch’s violence-laden rap lyrics. Erwin last week gave his permission for the lyrics to be played at the trial. Hatch’s attorneys are appealing the ruling. Cummings told the judge she considers some of Hatch’s rap lyrics “admissions’’ and will use them to demonstrate Hatch’s “intent, motive and plan.’’ Williams and fellow Hatch attorney Martin Regan argue the lyrics have nothing to do with the case and prove only that Hatch is a rap artist.

In one of Hatch’s songs, titled “187,’’ he refers to himself as the John Gotti of the south side and says, “I’m the reason the murder rate sky high.’’ He also says, “Whoever try to play me, they dead now.’’ Elvin Howard, Baton Rouge police detective, testified last week at a pretrial hearing that “187’’ is California police code for murder.

http://theadvocate.com/csp/mediapool/sites/dt.common.streams.StreamServer.cls?STREAMOID=BubnG hL4weUc2TDg1xijls$daE2N3K4ZzOUsqbU5sYsIVqaJC3t6Mjy 5R_zzwsiVWCsjLu883Ygn4B49Lvm9bPe2QeMKQdVeZmXF$9l$4 uCZ8QDXhaHEp3rvzXRJFdy0KqPHLoMevcTLo3h8xh70Y6N_U_C ryOsw6FTOdKL_jpQ-&CONTENTTYPE=image/jpeg

Louding is mentioned in several of Hatch’s songs and is pictured in at least two of his videos on YouTube. In the song “Lime Light,’’ Hatch states, “Marlo Mike up in the back seat beggin’ for a body.’’

Hatch’s attorneys asked Erwin last fall to disqualify East Baton Rouge Parish District Attorney Hillar Moore III’s office from prosecuting the murder case, alleging Moore has a “personal interest’’ in the case because some of the lyrics authorities seized from Hatch’s home in 2010 contain disparaging remarks about the district attorney. The judge rejected the defense request. Moore has denied the allegation.

http://theadvocate.com/home/2665374-125/trial-of-lil-boosie-set

Jolie Rouge
05-22-2012, 10:29 AM
What's Your Verdict: 14 Years Old and Life Without Parole?
By Ariane de Vogue | ABC OTUS News – 3 hrs ago.

The Supreme Court has already rejected the death penalty for juvenile offenders, but what about life without parole? Justices are considering two cases: One involves Evan Miller, who beat a neighbor and then set his trailer on fire so that the man burned to death. The other case involves Kuntrell Jackson, who was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for a murder that occurred just after his 14th birthday. Jackson didn't pull the trigger, but he was charged as an adult. How should justices decide? Watch the video, vote below and tell us why in the comments section.


14 years old and live without parole? http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/should-13-and-14-year-old-killers-be-sentenced-to-life-without-parole/question-2671801/

Public OpinionPoll Results http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/should-13-and-14-year-old-killers-be-sentenced-to-life-without-parole/question-2671801/

http://news.yahoo.com/whats-verdict-14-years-old-life-without-parole-140234667--abc-news-politics.html

comments

It depends , if it is a Violent saddistic murder then life with out parole , like the first on where the kid beat the man then burned him alive - sorry little junior you can rot in prison and I will not care one bit

..

At what point do you say they're still a child or hardened criminal.I'd say burning a man to death constitutes the later.

..

Kids today, at increasingly younger ages are committing crimes unheard of by adults in their 20's or 30 as hardened criminals of 30-40 years ago. It is a result of Gang activity, poor social values, lack of parental concerns, and unhealthy peer pressure. Feral monsters that have no feelings other then their own immediate needs to survive as preditory animals on the unsuspecting or weak. A crime should be judged by it's sophistication, and criminal intent, not just age. Many Criminal Drug dealers use the young as tools to carry Drugs or Weapons knowing they will recieve little or no time if caught. An introduction into a Gang often Schools the young into a mindset of vicious unrepenting behavior, with little concern of who they hurt, or how. A 14 year old can and will pull a Trigger as fast as an adult, and not think twice about it !

..

something has to be done they are getting away with murder - i knew murder was wrong before i was 10 years old. What is the difference if you kill someone when you are 14 or 19 ?

..

Yes life for a child. I would not execute as child. but a murdererous child? Society needs to be protected from such children. Some of these children have no remorse for taking a life. Making them a good possibility to do it again. children can be psycopath killers , and they desrve to be punshished the same as adults. it is just sad they are children.

..

No one can prove to me that a 14 year old who beat his neighbor then torched his home and allowed him to burn to death, did not know it was wrong. Let the little murderer rot in prison for the rest of his life!

..

While I don't consider 14 year old kids to be adults, I do think they are aware of good and bad. If you're going to go out there at 14, beat up your neighbor, then set his house on fire, then society does not want you. Only God knows what you are capable of doing once you actually hit adulthood.

...

If you are going commit adult acts you should be treated and punished as an adult.

This isn't taking the car out for a joy ride and killing someone in an accident...

As for my view ... see article above ... do you really think a "child" that was a contract killer at age 14; 6 murders committed by the age of 16 ... has any serious chance at rehabilitation ?

Jolie Rouge
09-18-2012, 06:05 AM
Unglesby: No sentence; no prosecution
by james minton - Baker-Zachary bureau
September 18, 2012

ST. FRANCISVILLE — The attorney for a teenager accused of first-degree murder in the June 2010 throat-slashing death of an 8-year-old boy filed a motion Monday to throw out the indictment against his client, citing a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling on juvenile sentences.

Trevor Reese, now 19, is scheduled for trial next month in the death of Jackson Attuso, who was killed on a bike and hiking path at The Bluffs on Thompson Creek subdivision. Reese was 16 when Attuso was killed. Reese has pleaded “not guilty by reason of insanity.”

The Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that a murder statute that mandates a life sentence without probation, parole or sentence suspension is unconstitutional. An earlier Supreme Court ruling prohibits juvenile offenders from receiving the death penalty.

The motion by defense attorney Lewis Unglesby, of Baton Rouge, says, “There is no legal sentence for this defendant and no prosecution can ensue.”

The motion points out that another Supreme Court ruling prohibits sentencing a juvenile to life without parole when the defendant commits a crime other than homicide, such as aggravated rape. In response, the Legislature passed an act allowing for parole consideration when the juvenile did not commit first- or second-degree murder, the motion says. “But nothing exists for homicide crimes today,” the motion adds.

“Where a penalty has not been endorsed through full legislative consideration, no penalty exists,” the motion says, adding that a judge cannot “play the part of a mind reader and guess as to the appropriate law that should be applied at trial.”

Twentieth Judicial District Judge William G. Carmichael ruled last year that Reese is competent to stand trial, but the ruling does not address his mental condition at the time of the slaying. Reese was booked in the West Feliciana Parish Jail as a juvenile, but his case was transferred to adult court shortly after he was arrested.

Carmichael is holding prosecution and defense attorneys to an informal order not to publicly discuss the case.

West Feliciana Parish sheriff’s deputies arrested Reese after he approached members of a construction crew in The Bluffs and told them to call 911 because he had stabbed someone, Sheriff J. Austin Daniel said after the slaying.

Reese was a student at Baton Rouge Magnet High School when the attack occurred.

The victim was part of a group including his mother, brothers and family friends — all riding bicycles — when he was attacked on June 10, 2010.

http://theadvocate.com/home/3920301-125/unglesby-no-sentence-no-prosecution

comments

This is very sad, and has to be very hard on the family of the victim. Politicians, judges, and lawyers are always saying we have the best legal system in the world. But to the working people that have to live with the laws created by the politicians, the rulings of the supreme courts, and the court room farce, it is obvious the system is broken.....very broken, and its not going to change until the political atmosphere changes. I speak the truth.

..

The crime is the lawyer trying to get the is scum off. This monster/thug killed an innocence 8 year old child for no reason and then blamed it on looking at television ( Dexter ). You can put him away for 40 years under manslaughter but to let him be free and walking around would be unspeakable.


http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/96085519.html


Advocate Baker - Zachary bureau
Published: Jun 10, 2010 - UPDATED: 3:20 p.m.

ST. FRANCISVILLE — West Feliciana Parish Sheriff J. Austin Daniel said an 8-year-old boy was stabbed to death today by a 16-year-old boy in The Bluffs on Thompson Creek, a golfing and residential development in the southeastern part of the parish.

Daniel said the victim suffered numerous stab wounds to the body and that his throat was cut.

The 16-year-old is in custody as the investigation continues, the sheriff said