(Also posted at Instapundit.)
WITHOUT MURDER, it's cruel and unusual punishment to sentence a juvenile to life in prison without parole, writes Justice Kennedy for a 6-3 Court. Dissenting, Justice Thomas criticizes the majority for imposing "an exacting constraint on democratic sentencing choices based on ... such an untestable philosophical conclusion": "that a 17-year-old who pulls the trigger on a firearm can demonstrate sufficient depravity and irredeemability to be denied reentry into society, but... a 17-year-old who rapes an 8- year-old and leaves her for dead does not."
এতে সদস্যতা:
মন্তব্যগুলি পোস্ট করুন (Atom)
পোস্টগুলি
২৫টি মন্তব্য:
Well if a sixteen year old girl is mature enough, responsible enough and smart enough to sail around the world, perhaps we need to start re-thinking what is a juvenile dontcha think?
Seems to me (in the eyes of liberals) the childrens are perfectly capable of determining for themselves when they can have sex and an abortion (without mom and dad pestering them); taken seriously on matters of domestic and international issues (in terms of who we should be choosing for President) but commit a violent crime and they're mere babes who can't determine right from wrong.
Floridians are not old enough to consent to sex until they are 18 -- how can the state consider themselves fully responsible for their crimes before that age?
Life in prison without parole is too kind for anyone who rapes an 8 year old and leaves her for dead. A slow,painful death is the way to go.
Still, I'm thinking just throwing him to the wolves in general population might be pretty good, too. Let him have lifetime of moments that she experienced at his hands.
As to Kennedy. The man's a empty vessel influenced by leftist liberals. What can anyone expect?
Agree with Hoosier. The Left is deeply invested in prolonging the dependence and immaturity of youth, witness one of ZeroCare's biggest accomplishments - carrying a 26 year old on his parents' insurance.
There are other heinous crimes than murder; certainly raping a minor in such fashion qualifies. Once again the Court proves judicial review produces lots of lousy law. Maybe if these people had to live on the streets where this stuff happened...
Quayle said...
But we all know that Kennedy has a weak mind, and an even weaker philosophical foundation, and is thus an empty shell that is easily influenced by new strong additions to the court.
Influenced or seduced?
So a violent teen rapist or child molester can't get a life sentence? That seems unjust.
It's worth noting the Roberts concurrence, which I think is correct--no general rule against life sentences w/o parole for juveniles, but the sentence was unconstitutional in this case where the crimes were only armed robbery including an assault and an additional burglary. Roberts went on to note that while the highest possible nonhomicide sentence was inappropriate for a juvenile who committed relatively minor violent crimes, it would certainly be appropriate for vicious rapists guilty of torture and attempted murder, and cited a number of examples of teenagers appropriately sentenced to life w/o parole.
The majority is nutty.
I think fls asks the relevant question.
At what point are teens responsible? Shouldn't the law be consistent?
I don't care hold old the offender is, when you rape an 8-year-old and leave her for dead, severe, and I do mean severe penalties must be applied.
At what point are teens responsible?
I'm ok with sixteen. I mean if we're going to entrust a sixteen year old to operate a one ton motorized contraption capable of causing considerable havoc if used improperly, I think life imprisonment or even execution is fine if they brutally rape and leave an eight year old for dead.
At what point are teens responsible? Shouldn't the law be consistent?
That's asking a lot from a system that will give someone two counts of murder for killing a woman who's in the middle of carrying an unborn baby to term.
"Floridians are not old enough to consent to sex until they are 18 -- how can the state consider themselves fully responsible for their crimes before that age?"
Because the age of consent is a completely arbitrary measure defined by the state.
I have to say, this kind of decision really bothers me because it is truly "judicial activism." The political branches of gov't are entrusted with determining the proper punishment for this sort of thing, not the courts. Where do they get off splitting hairs about which sentences are appropriate for certain crimes? Where does the Constitution say anything about that?
"Floridians are not old enough to consent to sex until they are 18 -- how can the state consider themselves fully responsible for their crimes before that age?"
And nobody in the US is old enough to consent to drink alcohol until the age of 21.
It's all so arbitrary.
Floridians are not old enough to consent to sex until they are 18 -- how can the state consider themselves fully responsible for their crimes before that age?
Because, former law stupid, the decision that it's wrong to murder people is a rather easier one to make than the decision about whether or not to have sex.
Even for libtards.
Justice Thomas asks, it seems to me, the right question: who decides?
Why is it that folks who take offense at a law only seem to see the U.S. Supreme Court as the body to fix these things? Do they really want nine unelected people who serve until they die, deciding all these matters?
Why have legislatures then?
Floridians are not old enough to consent to sex until they are 18 -- how can the state consider themselves fully responsible for their crimes before that age?
I believe that this is 'consent to sex with an adult'.
Do 17 year-olds getting it on get arrested?
@ Geoff M
I don't know about Florida, but teenagers younger than 18 can have sexual intercourse with "adults' in most states, assuming the adult is less than 4 or some states <5 years older. (16 yo with 19 yo bf.)
In many places teenagers are impregnated by their "boyfriends" who are 25 years old.... but the statutory rape thing is overlooked by many libbers in these cases, while abortion rights are not.
Who decides?
And yes, some crimes are worse than others. I would think a teenage rapist who targets a little girl is at risk for seriously harming other girls in the future. Distant future included. Thorny decsion.
Thorny, indeed, JAL. 3 (maybe 4) felonies in 6 months, the last one when he was 17 years and 11 months old.
Here's my conundrum: I agree that life in prison with no eligibility for parole was probably too harsh of a sentence for Graham. But guess what? I don't get to (or want to!) adjudicate every criminal trial in the US. And neither should the SCOTUS. Because they sought to overturn this sentence, they expanded the doctrine of Constitutional proportionality to non-death penalty cases for the first time, and re-wrote the laws of 37 state legislatures. That's a pretty big power grab by the 6 political appointees of the majority, IMO.
So the answer is that if you as a private citizen, or for that matter a police office, learn that a 17 year old kid has raped someone, kill him. If you are a cop, just say he was killed while trying to escape.
Sort of like how the military is being taught, if you capture a terrorist kill him, lest the terrorist get a lengthy and expensive trial.
In kennedy v. Lousiana the supreme court ruled that the death penalty was inappropriate even in the rape of a child. in part they actually had the nerve to rely on the concern that the killers would have an incentive to kill their victims. But the court never cares about the incentives it puts on decent people to exact vigilante justice.
Our justiice system is set up as an alternative to vigilante justice. if it strays too far from our sense of decency, people will stop being interested in the alternative.
And its this kind of sh-t that is why i consider kennedy to be an activist. when the 8th amendment was written, we hung horse theives.
Why is it that folks who take offense at a law only seem to see the U.S. Supreme Court as the body to fix these things? Do they really want nine unelected people who serve until they die, deciding all these matters?
They want someone in a position to call balls and strikes, someone who doesn't have to worry about placating campaign donors to keep their job.
Only in golf do people call their own fouls.
Besides, padre, evildoers will be punished in the afterlife, for all eternity. They're not really escaping scot-free.
But we all know that Kennedy has a weak mind, and an even weaker philosophical foundation, and is thus an empty shell
You guys didn't complain about these faults when Kennedy was the fifth vote to elect GW Bush.
Do 17 year-olds getting it on get arrested?
The person whose judgment is not fully formed is the victim. Both are victims in this case.
The person whose judgment is not fully formed is the victim. Both are victims in this case.
In the case of a 17 year old raping an 8 year old, there is only one victim.
The overwhelming majority of 17 year olds know that raping little girls is wrong and wouldn't do such a thing.
And the suggestion that teenagers' judgment is not fully formed does not apply to this case. What science has primarily provided evidence for is that teenagers (and children) tend to be more impulsive and make poorer snap judgments. Raping someone and leaving her for dead is not quite in the category of "oops, didn't think that one through well enough..."
Constitutionally, we Judges are different: the Law Я Us.
But wait, The Hon Kennedy writes in the decision
climate of international opinion ...also "not irrelevant".
See
Eugene Volokh • May 17, 2010 10:27 am
You guys didn't complain about these faults when Kennedy was the fifth vote to elect GW Bush.
I didn't even know that he was registered to vote in Florida, let alone what number his vote was.
We don't know the thought process of Thomas's 17 year old raping an 8 year old, because neither the 17 year old nor the 8 year old actually exist.
Nor does the six year old exist whose death penalty for the theft of $50 Justice Thomas would seemingly not rule out as cruel and unusual, according to Justice Stevens' concurrence.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন