My initial reaction to the headline about the juvenile death penalty was fairly ho-hum, insofar as I found it to hardly be a shock, and at first blush there is distaste to be associated with executing juvenile offenders in the first place (even when they are deserving recipients of the penalty).
Still, a little thought on the subject, and some knowledge now of the opinion, and I must admit, Law Professor
Stephen Bainbridge hits the problem on the head:
Once again, nine old men and women in robes have elevated themselves into a super-legislature in which they have exercised privileges they deny to our elected representatives.
Like it or not: there really is no constitutional basis for barring the various states from making their own laws on this subject. So, really, what we have here, is the idea that five individuals can supplant the opinions of the citizens of nineteen states with their own for no other reason than (ultimately) that they object to the practice.
“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,’” he wrote.
And James Joyner rightly notes:
I’m not a big fan of capital punishment for minors but find it incomprehensible that it could suddenly be unconstitutional. The 8th Amendment was ratified in 1791. The fact that 19 states still allowed youth executions until this morning belies the argument that the citizenry considers the practice cruel.
Part of the problem is that many people think it is simply the role of the Court to say what the “right thing” is on a given issue, rather than to determine legality within a set of bounds. This is not, however, the role of the Court, which is to determine the constitutionality of the issue, or to interpret the meaning of a federal law, treaty, etc. and determine its applicability, amongst a few other tasks.
However, the Court seems to see itself as a moral arbiter, not a legal one, and hence we get decades-long fights, like the one over abortion, which belongs in state legislatures, not the courts.
FYI: the nineteen states in question are: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Utah, Texas and Virginia.
Sphere: Related Content
March 1st, 2005 at 12:43 pm
OTB on Roper v. Simmons
James Joyner opines:I’m not a big fan of capital punishment for minors but find it incomprehensible that it could suddenly be unconstitutional. The 8th Amendment was ratified in 1791. The fact that 19 states still allowed youth executions until this
March 1st, 2005 at 12:49 pm
Supreme Court Overrules Death Penalty for Minors
High Court Ends Death Penalty for Youths (AP)
The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the Constitution forbids the execution of killers who were under 18 when they committed their crimes, ending a practice used in 19 states. The 5-4 decision throws o…
March 1st, 2005 at 12:58 pm
All Republican states, except Delaware and Pennsylvania (which is almost Republican), I believe that allow juveniles to be executed what a sad statement. One could also point out that they are all rather religious states. It’s a rather general statement, but there must be a pattern there someplace. Let’s see these states are against two consenting adults marrying, but it’s okay to execute juveniles — something is very wrong.
March 1st, 2005 at 3:01 pm
Supremes to Juvenile Thugs: Don’t Pay No Mind, If You’re Under 18 You Won’t Be Doin’ Any Time
Iran, Pakistan, China and Saudi Arabia execute young children for trivial offenses, most of which would not be considered offenses at all in a free society. Half the states in the U.S., the freest country in the world, have laws allowing executions o…
March 1st, 2005 at 3:11 pm
Entirely predictable
Kennedy also, again, wrote a majority opinion overturning recent precedent. Lawrence overturned the 1986 decision in Bowers v. Georgia. Roper overturns the court’s 1989 decision in Stanford v. Kentucky.
In other words, if we’re liberalizing U.S. l…
March 1st, 2005 at 5:00 pm
The Supreme Court and the Death Penalty
Which amedment, dudes? Does the word “indicia” appear anywhere in the Constititution? Does the Constitution state anywhere that a law adopted by the majority of states shall be the law of the land in all states?
March 1st, 2005 at 6:21 pm
We dissent
On its face, this may sound like the typical stuff of Supreme Court decisions. It is not. In fact, the Court has, at least as far as the death penalty is concerned, abolished the traditional mechanism for constitutional amendments by…
March 2nd, 2005 at 6:45 am
The Case For The Juvenile Death Penalty
People under the legal age of 18 should be executed for their crimes. A lot of people think that kids under 18 should not face the death penalty. I beg to differ. People get the death penalty for premeditated murder….
March 2nd, 2005 at 7:06 am
Scalia on Capital Punishment of Minors (Roper v. Simmons)
In the Agora has some interesting observations and links regarding the Supreme Court decision yesterday to declare unconsitutional the capital punishment of minors (and in the process, overturned 19 state laws).
Vote for Judges notes the internation…
March 2nd, 2005 at 7:47 am
However, the Court seems to see itself as a moral arbiter
In fairness, the wording of the 8th amendment puts the court in that position. (on this case)
Joyner’s argument though, smacks down this silly ruling.
March 2nd, 2005 at 7:25 pm
Roper (not the guy who replaced Siskel)
Unlike my co-blogger, I tend to think that the Supreme Court’s decision in Roper v. Simmons was the morally correct one—in general, I am suspicious of the death penalty not for legal or practical reasons, but philosophical ones; namely, that…
March 12th, 2005 at 1:04 am
A challenge to social conservatives who are upset by the Supreme Court ruling on executing minors
A lot of conservatives seem to be upset by the Supreme Court’s ruling that minors cannot be executed, and so it has me wondering about something. Most conservatives agree with Robert Locke’s diseased rant about libertarians when he makes this…