| Name: |
roswellric
- 
|
|
| Subject: |
Death Penalty for
|
|
Date:
|
3/1/2005 4:01:04 PM
|
less than 18 year olds. See the Supreme Court ruling? The majority justice sited "overwhelming international opinion" as a reason to do away with it. Imagine that! I thought we lived under the Constitution not what other countries thought about our laws. Scary! Write your Congressman!
|
| Name: |
copperline
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Death Penalty for
|
|
Date:
|
3/2/2005 6:17:07 AM
|
Well, the Court may have cited this as a context for the ruling but clearly international opinion wasn't the tipping point for their ruling. I think it's proper to rule against executing children, and when you are under 18 you are legally a child. To me, this has to do with both mercy and a recognition that immaturity does limit a child's judgement & decision - making. Unforturnately, it's all too possible for a child (even a pre-teen) to commit hideous crimes because they don't (or can't) control their violent impulses and selfish drives... There have even been cases of kids murdering younger siblings or plotting together to poison a teacher, but when would it ever be OK to execute a child?
And to address the international opinion point a bit: perhaps we need to take another look at this. Listening to international opinion may not always be a bad thing, in fact it may be dangerous not to. Have we been right all the time? I think of the US as a world leader, so we'd better live up to our highest principles. For instance, how can we oppose the use of children as soldiers if we don't make this sort of vital distinction between children and adults in our own legal system?
|
| Name: |
lamont
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Death Penalty for
|
|
Date:
|
3/2/2005 7:02:12 AM
|
Do we have soldiers under the age of 18?
|
| Name: |
FLee
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Death Penalty for
|
|
Date:
|
3/2/2005 9:09:20 AM
|
Tell this to the parents, family and friends of the children killed at Columbine High by premeditated murderers - Klebold being 17. Both began planning these murders over a year before April 20, 1999 (at ages 16 & 17)
The court also cited "scientific evidence" on a child's (under 18) mental capacity that is not widely accepted in the medical community and is, in fact widely regarded as, to use a medical term, "bunk". Harris and Klebold knew exactly what they were doing.
In case you forgot, here are a list of those murdered in cold blood at Columbine:
Cassie Bernall
Asked if she believed in God, her affirmative answer to the killers got her a mortal shot in the head. Paradoxically, she had been one of the school's alienated students until she began going to religious meetings, which turned her into a person with a sunny dispositon all remembered.
Steven Curnow
Steven wanted to join the Navy and fly fighter aircraft. He was a devoted "Star Wars" fan and could recite dialogue from memory.
Corey DePooter
He worked hard to get good grades, and his passion was fishing. He had taken a job to be able to buy his own boat.
Kelly Fleming
Kelly was a poet, songwriter and loved music, particularly the guitar. Her family had moved to Littleton from Phoenix within the last 18 months.
Matthew Kechter
Matthew worked hard to make straight A's and be on the football team. He would go out of his way to help others. He was last seen in the library, just before Harris and Klebold started their killing there.
Daniel Mauser
He was a smart, shy boy who excelled in math and science but pushed himself to be an outgoing athlete. received all A's on his last report card. He ran cross-country, was on the debate team and recently returned from a two-week trip to Paris with his French club.
Daniel Rohrbough
Daniel Rohrbough, 15, was shot as he held an exit door open for other students. He Lay on the sidewalk for hours after dying, a only feet from escape from the killers. He worked with his father in their electronics business.
Dave Sanders (teacher)
He gave his life trying to save others. After pulling a group of students to safety, he went back into the hallway and was shot by the killers. He bled to death, while waiting for rescue by the SWAT team.
Rachel Scott
Rachel Scott had ambitions to be a missionary in Africa. She was also a talented actress, having just been a part of a school play. After school, she worked in a Subway sandwich shop.
Isaiah Shoels
A "child of color" and a football player. He had successfully recovered from heart trouble only months earlier, and despite being small, worked extremely hard at playing on the school football team.
John Tomlin
At 14, Tomlin worked hard to buy a 4x4 Chevrolet truck. He spent a great deal of time working on it. After graduation, he planned on joining the army.
Lauren Townsend
Laren was captain of the the girls varsity basketball team. She loved the sport and was good at it. She also excelled in school and was a member of the National Honor Society.
Kyle Velasquez
At 16, Kyle was remembered by his family as a "gentle giant". He always had a smile and tried to cheer up others who were "down in the dumps". He also was a great Denver Broncos fan and wore a ball cap proclaiming his support for the team.
|
| Name: |
SBsigmapi
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Death Penalty for
|
|
Date:
|
3/2/2005 9:44:08 AM
|
The laws of civility are thrown out the window when you committ brutal murders. If you dont put these kiddy killers to death, we will spend a fortune to feed them, clothe them, and provide them shelter for the rest of their lives. I would have preferred to keep my tax dollars and piece of mind that we werent going to be parolling killers when they are still light enough on foot to orchestrate more killing sprees. This ruling is just ignorant. I thought we had wrestled power away from the Dumb ocrats.
|
| Name: |
lamont
-
|
|
| Subject: |
International Opinion?
|
|
Date:
|
3/2/2005 9:44:44 AM
|
Yes, absolutely. Perhaps we should consult with the U.N. and get Kofi Annan's guidance on issues of international importance. Just ask the families of the 1 million Tutsis slaughtered in Rwanda. We definitely need outside opinions.
|
| Name: |
FLee
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Death Penalty for
|
|
Date:
|
3/2/2005 10:08:29 AM
|
To your point, we have a couple of these premeditated killers in jail down here who will now be eligible for parole when they are 41.
|
| Name: |
Council Roc Doc
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Death Penalty for
|
|
Date:
|
3/2/2005 10:13:32 AM
|
Personally, I have three basic problems with the ruling:
1. The 18 year old litmus test, we should continue to trust our juries and
state judges and appeal processes.
2. Basically rationalizes interpreting the Constitution periodically in light
of trendy societal and political value systems.
3. How long will it be that life in prison is viewed as cruel and unusual
punishment in terms of the Constitution?
|
| Name: |
lamont
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Death Penalty for
|
|
Date:
|
3/2/2005 10:44:28 AM
|
#2- nail/head
|
| Name: |
copperline
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Death Penalty for
|
|
Date:
|
3/2/2005 11:33:20 PM
|
No, I haven't forgotten about Columbine. Or all the other senseless murders I have thought about, but especially those committed by children. I just think that even if you DO believe in capital punishment, there has to be a point where any reasonable person would agree that an individual was just too young to be held to that penalty. So where is that point if not age 18? 16? 12? 8 years old? Try to visualize yourself executing a kid. I can't.
By the way, my point about child soldiers was that many 3rd world countries draft & arm children as young as 10 in their armies.... the kids are cheap, plentiful and can fire a gun...and they are treated just like adults by those governments. No special protections, allowances or differences in treatment between adults and kids there.
|
| Name: |
lamont
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Made My Point
|
|
Date:
|
3/3/2005 8:29:07 AM
|
And from those countries we are to seek international opinion?
|
| Name: |
roswellric
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Made My Point
|
|
Date:
|
3/3/2005 8:53:12 AM
|
Ouch!
|
| Name: |
Council Roc Doc
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Death Penalty for
|
|
Date:
|
3/3/2005 10:16:59 AM
|
Cl, your emotions have gotten in the way of reasonable debate. The great issue here is whether or not the Constitution of the United States of America forbids the death penalty for individuals under the age of 18. Unless there is a section that has been hidden for hundreds of years in the national archives, clearly it does not! If you want to rewrite the Constitution, the Supremes should have to contact their representatives and senators just like the rest of us have to do.
|
| Name: |
SBsigmapi
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Death Penalty for
|
|
Date:
|
3/3/2005 10:43:21 AM
|
Why should i find it any more difficult to visualize executing a killer who was born on March 4th 1987 (17) than a killer born on March 2nd 1987(18)? Now when a kid is ticked off, he had just better get his killing spree over with before he hits his 18th bday---as long as he beats the deadline the libs have protected his life----thus ignoring the protection of the INNOCENT PEOPLE KILLED.
|
| Name: |
lamont
-
|
|
| Subject: |
GP CRD
|
|
Date:
|
3/3/2005 10:50:50 AM
|
It is the Supreme Courts job to interpret the Constition, not re-write it.
|
| Name: |
copperline
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Death Penalty for
|
|
Date:
|
3/3/2005 9:45:41 PM
|
I'm a bit surprised that you would point out the emotions I feel about this issue and not make the same observations about all the posts I've seen in this debate. Isn't a stingent demand for retribution and revenge a purely emotional position to take?
My logic is that I really don't think the founding fathers could have ever imagined a time when we would be actually have to consider the state's right to execute children. I don' t think the state was convicting children of murder & hanging them back then, probably because it was so rare as to be unworthy of specific consideration during the 1700's. The Constitution did establish a Supreme Court to expound on their principles of law and make them apply in the 21st Century. In this case, there is an absence of specific language to address this modern-day phenomena, except as refers to our protection against cruel and unusual punishment. This ruling is not a revision of the Constitution, it's about crafting a legal strategy to deal with a modern problem using the guiding principles of the Constitution.
As the Justices pointed out in their opinion, there is a generally accepted notion that age and maturity does impact on culpability in all criminal cases. They also cited that the majority of States have laws that prohibit execution of juveniles under the age of 18. Their decision was to set an age at which this principle would be codified as federal law. Since age 18 is most commonly accepted as the boundary between childhood and adulthood AND the majority of state legislatures had already established their support for such a distinction by prohibiting these executions, this was the logical place to establish a boundary when a person will be treated as an adult in all respects, or as as child with all due protections and considerations.
|
| Name: |
copperline
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Death Penalty for
|
|
Date:
|
3/3/2005 10:16:25 PM
|
You can't protect innocent people who have already been killed. And some people don't have problems visualizing themselves executing children, I guess.
|
| Name: |
copperline
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Made My Point
|
|
Date:
|
3/3/2005 10:28:13 PM
|
Not at all. I think we should make all efforts to oppose the use of child-soldiers everywhere in the world. It really is criminal to press kids into military service & we ought to hold those governments to account for this as a crime against humanity. The sole purpose of using children in this way is to send them in as the "first wave" against opposing forces while the experienced adult soldiers hold the rear, block their retreat and hope that the children do enough damage to make their job easier.
I was using this as an extreme example of a government that doesn't make distinctions between children and adults.
|
| Name: |
lamont
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Made My Point
|
|
Date:
|
3/4/2005 7:29:35 AM
|
What type of "efforts" shall we use to oppose this? Perhaps we should channel our efforts through the UN. Yeah, that'll work.
|
| Name: |
lamont
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Death Penalty for
|
|
Date:
|
3/4/2005 7:34:41 AM
|
Should be decided by the individual courts on a case by case basis. When murder is premeditated by a 17 year old, see Colombine, I have no problem with his execution.
|
| Name: |
lamont
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Death Penalty for
|
|
Date:
|
3/4/2005 7:37:46 AM
|
"Children" my a$$. And you are so correct; you cannot protect innocent people who are already dead but, you can certainly protect future victims from this "child".
|
| Name: |
Island Camper
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Columbine
|
|
Date:
|
3/4/2005 9:07:10 AM
|
Since Columbine has come up in this discussion, I figured I'd mention a little rumor I've heard. The 2 boys supposedly killed themselves, right? What if one of the swat teams killed them? Would they have come out of the school and said, "No need to fear, we killed the kids with the guns"? I doubt it. I think it's quite possible that those boys could have been killed by the police. Whay do ya'll think?
|
| Name: |
SBsigmapi
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Death Penalty for
|
|
Date:
|
3/4/2005 9:42:32 AM
|
This arguement is getting on my nerves. A killer is a killer. When i was sixteen i knew darn well what the consequences would be if i killed someone. Maybe you are too old to remember how much you knew and how intelligent you were when you were 16. By God if someone can do calculus, they can figure out that they should not be killing people. Execute them and let them burn in hell.
|
| Name: |
papa
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Death Penalty for...
|
|
Date:
|
3/4/2005 12:20:07 PM
|
When I was 16, I thought I was never going to die, drive my Mom's Plymouth Belvedere at 120 mph (fast as it would go) down one of the back roads around Lake Martin just to see what would happen, and generally didn't have enough sense to come in from out of the rain half the time. And if you're honest, I expect you'll remember you were pretty much the same way.
|
| Name: |
lamont
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Sure
|
|
Date:
|
3/4/2005 12:27:49 PM
|
Was pretty much the same way but, never, absolutely never, entertained any thoughts of murdering anyone.
|
| Name: |
JIM
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Columbine
|
|
Date:
|
3/4/2005 1:29:25 PM
|
You been on the Island to long, ask me what I think, people that think like that are nuts.
|
| Name: |
Council Roc Doc
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Death Penalty for
|
|
Date:
|
3/4/2005 3:59:04 PM
|
Are you then inferring that for any future case brought before the Supreme Court that is not addressed in specific language by the Constitution, a simple 5-4 majority vote is all that is needed to craft a latest and greatest interpretation of what the Constituion really implies? Extremely dangerous logic IMHO.
What is so wrong with able jurors at the state level evaluating these criminals for culpability and depravity on a case by case basis. I have read Kennedy's opinion and he slyly maneuvers around this very issue.
|
| Name: |
papa
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Sure
|
|
Date:
|
3/4/2005 5:29:22 PM
|
Well, I can't honestly say that. I'd say I never had any SERIOUS thoughts of it, but I was perfectly capable of losing my temper now and again. I did throw a target dart at my brother's head once -- it had no point, and all he got was a bad bonk. But that's the way it goes -- no sense, a bad impulse, a better aim than you thought, and the accidental opportunity to do real harm, and...that's what it can take -- stupid, young, and the wrong moment. I did do some shoplifting on rare occasions when I was younger than 16, and got caught. I've often wondered how my life would have been different if I'd been caught by someone who didn't know my folks. I thought that was the worst experience in the world, but no -- it almost surely would have been a lot worse for everybody concerned if I'd been caught by some hard-a** with a throw-away-the-key mentality. Or if I hadn't had parents who could have been trusted to give a care. Or if any one of a hundred things had been just a little bit different. There but for the grace of God...
|
| Name: |
copperline
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Death Penalty for
|
|
Date:
|
3/4/2005 7:12:04 PM
|
Council Roc Doc... Yes, I suppose that's exactly my position here. The Supreme Court is there to interpret the Constitution, and the Legislative Branch can write what laws it will to add to that Constitution. Conflicts between existing laws and constitutional principles have to be resolved somewhere, with all 3 branches serving to check and balance each other. I thought it was important that the Court cited that a majority of states had already taken the position (opposing execution of juveniles) and in this case was ratifying the expressed opinions already held as the majority opinion of the people. By saying that it considered the weight of existing state laws, I thought the Court was acknowleging the just workings of the states and the opinions of their elected representatives.
I can't imagine a role for the Supreme Court if NOT to interpret laws and give us the guidelines for applying those laws now and in the future. Wouldn't leaving broad leeway for laws to be interpreted by jurors create a crazy patchwork of laws that were inconsistent and impossible to inforce? The High Courts' role is to give that necessary guidance, don't you agree? How would an alternate way of doing things work in your opinion?
|
| Name: |
Council Roc Doc
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Death Penalty for
|
|
Date:
|
3/4/2005 10:47:12 PM
|
Cl,
When this case was brought to the Supreme Court, nineteen states had in place laws that allowed the death penalty for individuals under the age of 18. Four other states abolished their laws permitting the dp under 18 which added to the states that do not permit the death penalty at all (which has no bearing on this case) and you have your so called "consensus". What bull. The only consensus permitting change to the Constitution is 2/3's of both houses of congress and 3/4 of state legislatures ( I believe) through an amendment.
|
| Name: |
copperline
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Death Penalty for
|
|
Date:
|
3/4/2005 11:13:09 PM
|
How did this ruling change the constitution? In my opinion, they were upholding a basic principle that prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment". That principle has also been applied to mentally retarded people who are judged to have insufficient mental capacity. I'd still like to know what you think the role of the Supreme Court is supposed to be..... and I'm not trying to be a smarta$$ by asking that, I really want to know what you think.....
|
| Name: |
Council Roc Doc
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Death Penalty for
|
|
Date:
|
3/7/2005 1:22:10 PM
|
Of course the Constitution was not changed. However, if the dp for crimes permitted under the age of 18 was permissible 15 years ago based on an interpretation of the Eighth Amendment, what has changed that requires a new interpretation? International opionion? Hardly ,since the treaty quoted by Kennedy was not even ratified by the US. This decision rightfully and legally belongs in the hands of the States, not in the hands of 5 Supremes that now consider themselves sociologists, moralists and legislators for the rest of us.
|
| Name: |
copperline
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Death Penalty for
|
|
Date:
|
3/7/2005 3:46:00 PM
|
Enough said (and good points). The two of us may just have to agree to disagree on this one, Doc. I appreciate your thoughtful replies and well-considered arguments in this discussion. You seemed to enjoy the debate rather than take offense at a differing opinion. Thanks, Paul.
|
| Name: |
Council Roc Doc
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Death Penalty for
|
|
Date:
|
3/7/2005 5:07:13 PM
|
Likewise Cl, see ya on the lake!!
|
| Name: |
MotorMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Sure
|
|
Date:
|
3/12/2005 12:18:21 PM
|
Try <a href="http://www.nra.org">The nra</a>
|
|
New Post
Search
Seneca Lake Topics Forum
Reply
»
New York Lakes
»
Seneca Lake
Login
|
Home
