Justices Have Doubts on Executing Juvenile Offenders
Four Supreme Court Justices Monday declared their opposition "to executing juvenile offenders, a strong signal that sentiment is growing at the court for further restrictions on the death penalty in the United States. "
"The announcement by Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer -- the court's most liberal members -- came in a written opinion dissenting from a 5 to 4 decision, in which the court's conservative majority refused to reconsider the question of whether executing murderers who committed their crimes at age 16 or 17 is "cruel and unusual punishment" prohibited by the Constitution."
In their dissent, authored by Justice Stevens, the four justices opined that the practice is "a relic of the past [that] is inconsistent with evolving standards of decency in a civilized society.... We should put an end to this shameful practice."
"It was the first time since the court upheld the execution of 16- and 17-year-old offenders in 1989 that four members of the court have gone on the record in favor of reversing that ruling. Executing anyone younger than 16 remains barred under a 1988 ruling by the court."
"Opponents of the death penalty said the opinion means the court could hear a different case on the same issue relatively soon, after more state legislatures -- whose views the court considers in determining whether a "national consensus" against a particular aspect of the death penalty has formed -- have passed pending legislation outlawing the death penalty for juvenile offenders."
The opinion by Stevens likened the death penalty for juvenile offenders to the execution of mentally retarded offenders. The court banned that practice last June by a vote of 6 to 3, finding that a "national consensus" had emerged against it.
The dissent also argued that "like the mentally retarded, adolescents lack the impulse control of adults, and are thus neither deterred by the threat of death nor fully morally culpable for their actions. Society recognizes the immaturity of adolescents by forbidding them to vote, marry, drink or serve on juries, he wrote."
The opinion noted "a 'national consensus' repudiating executions of juveniles, in part because of poll data and also because no state has lowered its minimum age for execution since 1989 while five states have raised the age to 18."
Now for some facts:
In another death penalty case yesterday, Justice Breyer dissented from the court's refusal to hear the case of Charles Kenneth Foster, who has been on death row in Florida for 27 years. Breyer wrote that Foster's claim that "such a long time awaiting execution is itself a form of cruel and unusual punishment" should be heard.
To show the difference in the judicial philosophies (and in our view, the difference in humanity) among the Justices of this Court, compare these quotes from the Foster case:
Justice Breyer:
"If executed, Foster . . . will have been punished both by death and also by more than a generation spent in death row's twilight. It is fairly asked whether such punishment is both unusual and cruel."
Breyer also noted that the delays in Foster's executions were due to state errors in sentencing that required lengthy appeals to correct.
Justice Clarence Thomas:
"Justice Clarence Thomas blamed Foster's own efforts to fight his sentence for the delay in his execution. "Petitioner could long ago have ended his anxieties and uncertainties by submitting to what the people of Florida have deemed him to deserve: execution."
| < Bush Stretching the Truth on Iraq | Appeals Court Holds Argument on Constitutionality of Federal Death Penalty > |