DescentBB

Posted: **Tue Mar 01, 2005 8:37 pm**

We have a variety of age groups on this board, so I'm very interested to hear opinions about today's ruling by the Supreme Court.

Voice of America wrote: Opponents of capital punishment won a major victory at the U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday. By a vote of five to four, the high court ruled that it is now unconstitutional to execute criminals who were younger than 18 when they committed their crimes.

The majority opinion striking down juvenile death sentences was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy. He noted what he called the "overwhelming weight of international opinion" that has moved against the juvenile death penalty in recent years.

Justice Kennedy also wrote that American society views juveniles as, in his words, "categorically less culpable than the average criminal" because of their lack of maturity and emotional stability.

Voice of America

Posted: **Tue Mar 01, 2005 8:43 pm**

Tough call, I'd say a lot of people under 20 are very immature, but there is a big difference between just being immature like most dorks at that age and commiting crimes that would carry the death penalty. I don't think age should factor in that much if it is that bad of a case.

Posted: **Tue Mar 01, 2005 8:48 pm**

i chose "no, discretion" option.

as much i totally don't trust the government... i trust organized crime pimping out youngins for hits even less. i mean that is the distinction.

**that may be a really simplistic answer, i know you guys like 48 page diatribes on the smallest thing you have never experienced, but that is my answer.**

Posted: **Tue Mar 01, 2005 9:21 pm**

if your old enough to intentionally take a life. then your old enough to forfiet a life. we are all taught from a very young age that Murder is wrong

Posted: **Tue Mar 01, 2005 9:58 pm**

I say that pretty much everyone knows that murder is wrong. They should be responsible for their actions, especially ones regarding serious crime. What I'd really like is for the death penalty for anything to be trashed. I figure it's a much more effective punishment to stay in jail for the rest of your life than to experience a few minutes of pain...

Posted: **Tue Mar 01, 2005 11:00 pm**

I am against the death penalty for all age groups, so thatâ??s why I voted yes. It costs more, isn't effective, and just creates more victims. There was a girl in my High School whos father was on death row. She was pretty messed up. I would be too. Why create more pain?

The crime can't be undone. Why make more victims?

Posted: **Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:08 am**

I voted for descression- I think in respect to murder, everyone should be held equally liable. Pretty much what CUDA said, if you're old enough to commit murder, you're old enough to live with the consequences. Goob, I think your girl was looking for someone to blame- the government has the responsibility to enforce it's laws, and either way she would have lost her father. (Don't get me into the victom thing... I don't like that part of American society)

Posted: **Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:28 am**

Scalia wrote:The Court thus proclaims itself sole arbiter of our Nation's moral standards--and in the course of discharging that awesome responsibility purports to take guidance from the views of foreign courts and legislatures. Because I do not believe that the meaning of our Eighth Amendment, any more than the meaning of other provisions of our Constitution, should be determined by the subjective views of five Members of this Court and like-minded foreigners, I dissent.

Posted: **Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:36 am**

You are still enforcing the law if you put him behind bars for life, where he can receive visits. Don't spin it that way.

You are paying extra taxes; I am paying extra taxes, to kill these people. Tell me it isn't torture to know the exact second that your father, or even child, will be killed: and not be able to do a damn thing about it. These people did nothing wrong.

You can hate the compassionate part of America all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that it costs more, isn't effective, can kill innocent people, and creates more victims. Revenge isn't greater then all of those combined.

No intelligent American would ever claim that our system is perfect. So why do we bet peoples lives on it?

Just look at our friends that agree with you.

Countries and territories which retain the death penalty for ordinary crimes

AFGHANISTAN, ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA, BAHAMAS, BAHRAIN, BANGLADESH, BARBADOS, BELARUS, BELIZE, BOTSWANA, BURUNDI, CAMEROON, CHAD, CHINA, COMOROS, CONGO (Democratic Republic), CUBA, DOMINICA, EGYPT, EQUATORIAL GUINEA, ERITREA, ETHIOPIA, GABON, GHANA, GUATEMALA, GUINEA, GUYANA, INDIA, INDONESIA, IRAN, IRAQ, JAMAICA, JAPAN, JORDAN, KAZAKSTAN, KOREA (North), KOREA (South), KUWAIT, KYRGYZSTAN, LAOS, LEBANON, LESOTHO, LIBERIA, LIBYA, MALAWI, MALAYSIA, MONGOLIA, MOROCCO, MYANMAR, NIGERIA, OMAN, PAKISTAN, PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY, PHILIPPINES, QATAR, RWANDA, SAINT CHRISTOPHER & NEVIS, SAINT LUCIA, SAINT VINCENT & GRENADINES, SAUDI ARABIA, SIERRA LEONE, SINGAPORE, SOMALIA, SUDAN, SWAZILAND, SYRIA, TAIWAN, TAJIKISTAN, TANZANIA, THAILAND, TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO, UGANDA, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UZBEKISTAN, VIET NAM, YEMEN, ZAMBIA, ZIMBABWE

Posted: **Wed Mar 02, 2005 1:01 am**

Gooberman wrote:There was a girl in my High School whos father was on death row. She was pretty messed up. I would be too. Why create more pain?

You think she was messed up simply because her dad was gonna be executed?

Posted: **Wed Mar 02, 2005 1:03 am**

Gooberman wrote:There was a girl in my High School whos father was on death row. She was pretty messed up. I would be too. Why create more pain?

You think she was messed up simply because her dad was gonna be executed?

Posted: **Wed Mar 02, 2005 1:06 am**

Gooberman wrote:You can hate the compassionate part of America all you want

I have a brilliant idea for increasing dialogue! Any time someone disagrees with me, I'll accuse them of hating compassion!

it costs more, isn't effective, can kill innocent people, and creates more victims.

Mostly true, though I've heard differing statements about whether it is or isn't effective.

But, with respect to the original question: is there any reason why the supreme court should have specifically affirmed an age restriction? In particular, should the 8th amendment ("Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.") legitimately be interpreted as limiting the death penalty to those over 18?

I think the court has once again engaged in a level of activism it should not. I happen to agree with your position, Goob -- but I don't think the court went about this the right way.

Just look at our friends that agree with you... Countries and territories which retain the death penalty for ordinary crimes...

"ordinary crimes"? What's meant by "ordinary crimes" here? How would your list change if we did away with the semantic garbage of "ordinary crimes" and simply dealt with nations that have the death penalty for anything at all?

Posted: **Wed Mar 02, 2005 3:02 am**

Lothar wrote:I have a brilliant blah blah blah

read the last sentence of his post again.

"ordinary crimes"?

A regular crime commited by a regular citizen, murder would fall into this category. A few countries like Mexico and Isreal allow it for military crimes and a few other cases.

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenalty-countries-eng

Feel free to scrutinize, I wrote several papers on this subject in college, and can also give you numerous literature sources. As well as additional web pages. There are also several dedicated to executions that have gone wrong, those definitely fall under "cruel".

You think she was messed up simply because her dad was gonna be executed?

Yes, I am sure this has no impact on their lives.

All of us can only guess at the extent, you may think not alot, I think quite a bit, but irregardless: it will put her through a pain that you don't know. For what purpose?

To Lothars "under 18":

Thatâ??s a tough one, since I consider it to be cruel and unusual for any age: It is the supreme courts job to determine what is cruel or unusual punishment. So I agree with the courts ruling to get rid of it for those under 18, but I disagree that they didn't extend it to all age groups.

It's a start.

Posted: **Wed Mar 02, 2005 3:08 am**

Gooberman wrote:So I agree with the courts ruling to get rid of it for those under 18, but I disagree that they didn't extend it to all age groups.

Voted the "yes" option, although the rest of the option wasn't exactly the reason why. This is.

Posted: **Wed Mar 02, 2005 3:34 am**

Gooberman wrote:Yes, I am sure this has no impact on their lives. All of us can only guess at the extent, you may think not alot, I think quite a bit, but irregardless: it will put her through a pain that you don't know. For what purpose?

Actually, I'm willing to bet that more people would be affected less in this situation if the murderer was swiftly done away with. Nothing like going to visit daddy in jail every week cuz he killed the neighbors.

If it was impossible to be wrongfully executed, I would push for executions for a lot more than just murder.

Personally, one of the very few reasons I even disagree with execution is the mistake factor.

Posted: **Wed Mar 02, 2005 5:38 am**

First off the easy work around is to jail the underage killer, wait until he is 18...then execute him

"The majority opinion striking down juvenile death sentences was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy. He noted what he called the "overwhelming weight of international opinion" that has moved against the juvenile death penalty in recent years."

So international law is now the precedent by which laws are going to be adjudicated? Perhaps we should just toss out the compendium of american jurisprudence and accept say middle eastern law as the new paradign.

Quote:
Just look at our friends that agree with you... Countries and territories which retain the death penalty for ordinary crimes...

Yes and look at countries that chop hands off for stealing and stoning to death of wayward women.

For years and years american ghetto gangs have used underage people to do their dirty work just because the courts would not lock the little dears up for acting as mules. Now I guess underage persons can be used for contract hits also.

Posted: **Wed Mar 02, 2005 7:59 am**

Why not just auto-enlist every juvenile who gets in major trouble with the law into the military for 15 years or something? That would teach em discipline.

Posted: **Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:47 am**

That would also make our military the biggest bunch of... well, you get the idea.

Posted: **Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:54 am**

Stryker wrote:That would also make our military the biggest bunch of... well, you get the idea.

Actually the courts for the longest time have given low level miscreants the option of spending time in the local hoosgow or doing a tour in the military. You might be surprised at the number of misguided juvies this has straightened out.

Posted: **Wed Mar 02, 2005 10:44 am**

The ruling is based on crap!
There is no authority for the court to make this law, and that's what they did, they created law!
They are supposed rule on the application and enforcement of law created by the legislative branch not create it out of whole cloth, their perception of public/world opinion and 'feelings'.

Personally I'm against the death penalty but I wouldn't try to implement my personal bias into law if I was on the Supreme Court, I'd petition my legislators to change the law.

Posted: **Wed Mar 02, 2005 11:22 am**

woodchip wrote:
For years and years american ghetto gangs have used underage people to do their dirty work just because the courts would not lock the little dears up for acting as mules. Now I guess underage persons can be used for contract hits also.

To bolster this statement you should read the circumstances involving the lad and his friend that led to the USSC ruling:

"Shirley Crook was duct-taped over the mouth and eyes during a 1993 burglary by Simmons and 15-year-old Charles Benjamin, then taken from her home, hogtied and shoved off a train trestle into the Meramec River. Prosecutors contended Simmons believed he could escape punishment because he was a juvenile, something Simmons later denied."

http://tinyurl.com/56wtb

Posted: **Wed Mar 02, 2005 11:29 am**

woodchip wrote: Actually the courts for the longest time have given low level miscreants the option of spending time in the local hoosgow or doing a tour in the military. You might be surprised at the number of misguided juvies this has straightened out.

That may have been true for the '50s and '60s, but when I enlisted the millitary would immediatley kick you to the curb if they found out a judge had anything to do with your interest in the armed forces.

Posted: **Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:22 pm**

This is why I don't like polls with such specific answers...

If I agree with Gooberman about the death penalty in general, but I also agree with Lothar, Will Rob, and others about the way the Supreme Court made the ruling, which way do I vote?

(...I finally ended up voting 'Yes', since I tend to agree with Goob that at least "it's a start"....)

Posted: **Wed Mar 02, 2005 1:41 pm**

I'm kind of in the same boat as Foil. I'm not a real fan of the death penalty under any circumstances (see the movie "Dead Man Walking;" it might make you see things in a new light). I would definitely argue against it for juveniles; regardless of the person's emotional maturity, to me, executing a minor seems over the "cruel and unusual" line. As for adult offenders...I'm still mixed about that. However, after reading more about this decision, I'd tend to agree with some of the dissenters as well; since when did international opinion start dictating American constitutional law? I still went with the "yes" option, though.

Posted: **Wed Mar 02, 2005 3:00 pm**

It's pretty clear there are really two issues here:

1) whether or not the death penalty itself is good/bad
2) whether or not the court had any basis on which to set age 18 as the limit for the death penalty

Gooberman wrote:To Lothars "under 18":

Thatâ??s a tough one, since I consider it to be cruel and unusual for any age: It is the supreme courts job to determine what is cruel or unusual punishment. So I agree with the courts ruling to get rid of it for those under 18, but I disagree that they didn't extend it to all age groups.

Fair enough.

Though, I think that they actually have a legal basis for their interpretation. Simply put, they *invented* a law by creating an interpretation of the constitution that clearly is not what the founders intended. They've decided to legislate by judicial fiat, rather than allowing the federal or state legislatures to do their jobs.

I'd rather have them come down on the other side and say "we can't outlaw this at all" than have them say "we're going to partly do what you want, but it'll involve making up bogus interpretations of the constitution". I don't want the courts to go outside of the law just to make society function how I want it to. The court simply should not have that power.

Posted: **Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:10 pm**

A sharp debate, and right to the point. See Lothar's post above.

Woodchip wrote:First off the easy work around is to jail the underage killer, wait until he is 18...then execute him.

Wrong on that one chip. The holding is that the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments forbid imposition of death penalty on offenders who were under age of 18 when their crimes were committed.

Lothar wrote:It's pretty clear there are really two issues here:

1) whether or not the death penalty itself is good/bad
2) whether or not the court had any basis on which to set age 18 as the limit for the death penalty.

I think this is about right, and I echo Will's analysis that the ruling isn't grounded in the Constitution.

And that's the problem, I think, Goob. The result might be pleasing to you, but in my opinion it should alarm you. To reach this result, the Supreme abrogated its own opinion -- one that is only 15 years old. That is absolutely astonishing. How old is Roe v. Wade?

Here's a quote from that opinion:

Majority Opinion from Stanford v. Kentucky, recently abrogated by the Supreme Court wrote: When this Court cast loose from the historical moorings consisting of the original application of the Eighth Amendment, it did not embark rudderless upon a wide-open sea. Rather, it limited the Amendment's extension to those practices contrary to the "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S., at 101, 78 S.Ct., at 598 (plurality opinion) (emphasis added). It has never been thought that this was a shorthand reference to the preferences of a majority of this Court. By reaching a decision supported neither by constitutional text nor by the demonstrable current standards of our citizens, the dissent displays a failure to appreciate that "those institutions which the Constitution is supposed to limit" include the Court itself. To say, as the dissent says, that " 'it is for us ultimately to judge whether the Eighth Amendment permits imposition of the death penalty,' " post, at 2986 (emphasis added), quoting Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S., at 797, 102 S.Ct., at 3377--and to mean that as the dissent means it, i.e., that it is for us to judge, not on the basis of what we perceive the Eighth Amendment originally prohibited, or on the basis of what we perceive the society through its democratic processes now overwhelmingly disapproves, but on the basis of what we think "proportionate" and "measurably contributory to acceptable goals of punishment"--to say and mean that, is to replace judges of the law with a committee of philosopher-kings. (Stanford v. Kentucky (1989) 492 U.S. 361, *379.) (Emphasis in bold added ... by Bold, oddly enough)

I study the Constitution, and I have a fair reputation for being knowledgeable about its contents, and constitutional interpretation in general. I studied it extensively in law school, and happened to excel in those classes, not because I'm extraordinary -- I just love studying it. I also took advanced constitutional law courses, stateside and abroad in London and the University of Exeter. But I have never seen the Supreme Court reverse itself in this way, in the mere span of 15 years. It blows me away.

This is why the nuclear option that is about to be deployed in the U.S. senate is so significant to me. And timely.

If the Supreme Court can simply, by fiat, decide that a "child" who is 17 years, 364 days, and 23 hours can commit murder and elude the death penalty based on its own view of "constitutional interpretation", then you better make sure your own oxen has some body armour. Roe v. Wade was crafted out of the same ethereal brew -- there was no constitutional penumbra of privacy rights out of which leapt that miserable opinion -- until Justice Blackmun started re-drafting the Constitution to his own personal liking. So far, Roe has been given stare decisis effect.

How long do you think that rule of law will last after the conservative backlash from this little gift from the Supreme Court? There's really no telling. But I would caution -- be careful what you wish for in terms of an organic, evolving constitution. You might just get it.

BD

Posted: **Thu Mar 03, 2005 12:00 am**

snoopy wrote:Pretty much what CUDA said, if you're old enough to commit murder, you're old enough to live with the consequences.

What about that elementary school kid back in the late 90s who shot a classmate dead? He was like... what... 5 or something?

There are always the exceptions.

Posted: **Thu Mar 03, 2005 5:46 am**

So on the one hand a juvie is not responsible when he/she murders someone as they are not "adult" enough, yet in some states a underage minor girl does not have to inform her parents if she is pregnant and wants a abortion. Curious dichotomy.

Posted: **Thu Mar 03, 2005 12:57 pm**

I took the "States should decide option," but what I meant by that was what Will and Lothar said: it's not up to the courts. If we're going to have a law like that, it ought to go through the normal democratic process. The way this was done, the people in favor of the death penalty didn't even get a say.

On the issue itself--whether the death penalty should be allowable for minors--I'm undecided. I think I could live comfortably in a society that did things either way.

My own preference, though, would be to not constrain the courts. Adulthood is a fuzzy thing, and I think they ought to able to exercise judgement on a case-by-case basis about whether someone was behaving as an adult, and whether the death penalty is appropriate. That goes both ways, really--there are people over 18 who are insane, retarded, or just plain immature who it probably would be unfair to treat as adults, but there are also people 16 or 17 years old who are functioning entirely as adults and shouldn't be protected from the consequences of their actions. Not that I think such cases should boil down to such judgements, but I don't want to tie anybody's hands.

On the death penalty itself, I don't think it's cruel or unusual at all, or in any way contrary to the moral standards of a decent society. Quite the opposite, I like it as a form of justice: I like what it says about the value of human life.

An interesting note: Lothar and I have talked about the death penalty a lot over the years. It's one of only a handful of issues where we haven't yet convinced each other and/or agreed to a conclusion neither of us originally held.

Posted: **Thu Mar 03, 2005 2:07 pm**

I'm of the mind that no matter what age you are. If you murder someone you should get the death penalty. My opinion doesn't include acts of self defense or accidental deaths. Though I think that these options are used as a scapegoat too much in the system, it doesn't exclude the fact that they do happen.

I'm also scratching my head on where this recent notion that it costs more tax payer dollars to execute a prisoner then it does to keep that same prisoner for life came from. It just doesn't add up for me. You have to figure that most people sentenced to death sit in prison for 5-10, maybe 20 or more years until their appeals finally run out. Then eventually they get what they were sentenced to get years ago. However if they were sentenced to life or consecutive life sentences they'd still be in prison taking up tax dollars.

You're trying to tell me that it costs more to inject someone with lethal chemicals in one sitting then it would to pay for the food, guards, facilities, utilities, possible amenities and other miscellaneous things that would be used in taking care of multiple prisoners for upwards of 50 or more years? Depending on what their age was when they entered? heh, I don't think so.

Tag them, bag them and move on to the next one. The system is already extremely congested as it is.

Posted: **Thu Mar 03, 2005 2:26 pm**

Tyranny wrote:I'm also scratching my head on where this recent notion that it costs more tax payer dollars to execute a prisoner then it does to keep that same prisoner for life came from. It just doesn't add up for me... You're trying to tell me that it costs more to inject someone with lethal chemicals in one sitting then it would to pay for the food, guards, facilities, utilities, possible amenities and other miscellaneous things that would be used in taking care of multiple prisoners for upwards of 50 or more years? Depending on what their age was when they entered? heh, I don't think so.

Yes, it's counter-intuitive, but from the research I've done, it's generally the truth. Most of the extra cost has to do with all the court and legal expenses for the appeals, etc. Just do a quick web search for "death penalty costs"... you'll find all kinds of resources (including a few good impartial statistical studies).

Tyranny wrote: Tag them, bag them and move on to the next one. The system is already extremely congested as it is.

Oh, what a lovely statement...

Sheesh.

Posted: **Thu Mar 03, 2005 8:17 pm**

Drakona wrote:An interesting note: Lothar and I have talked about the death penalty a lot over the years. It's one of only a handful of issues where we haven't yet convinced each other and/or agreed to a conclusion neither of us originally held.

If you come across any writings of Dennis Prager on the subject, I think he makes some excellent arguments based on societal retribution. That's one of a number of applied rationale (general deterrence -- if the death penalty were applied to Friday murders only, who really thinks murders wouldn't decline on that day of the week; specific deterrence -- this specific murderer won't be murdering again, etc. etc.).

I struggled with it when I was younger. But I have few problems with it today. The biggest issue for me is the most horrifying aspect of it, which is that we're not infallible and make mistakes.

BD

Posted: **Fri Mar 04, 2005 12:53 am**

Foil wrote:Yes, it's counter-intuitive, but from the research I've done, it's generally the truth. Most of the extra cost has to do with all the court and legal expenses for the appeals, etc. Just do a quick web search for "death penalty costs"... you'll find all kinds of resources (including a few good impartial statistical studies).

Thats my point. As soon as they're sentenced to death the process should be carried out. There should be no appeals. This would drastically reduce costs and to me these don't factor into the overall number because if the system worked how it should you wouldn't even be able to file one if you've been sentenced for a crime warranting the death penalty in the first place.

Did your research also take into consideration that people serving life sentences have also been filing appeals to reduce sentencing? You add that in with all the other costs to hold a person for life that I've mentioned above and the logic that an execution costs more still doesn't add up.

Posted: **Fri Mar 04, 2005 9:05 am**

Tyranny wrote:...As soon as they're sentenced to death the process should be carried out. There should be no appeals.

Oh.. my... God. Please tell me you're not serious.

How can you put a monetary price on the value of a life possibly saved through an appeal?

Because that's exactly what you're proposing: the value of whatever money is saved is somehow greater than the value of giving a person the chance to appeal what may turn out to be a false conviction (however frequently or infrequently this occurs).

Personally, I can't imagine putting a price on someone's life like that.

Posted: **Fri Mar 04, 2005 9:11 am**

Okay... I'm sorry, we're kinda getting on a tangent. This thread was originally about the Constitutionality of a Supreme Court ruling about minors, so if we're going to debate the death penalty in general, it should probably be in a separate thread...

(Then again, although I'm still pretty new to the DBB, I'm guessing the subject has been debated at length before...

)

Posted: **Fri Mar 04, 2005 1:29 pm**

Hey Tyranny, why don't you look up Wilton Dedge from Florida? Or Jose Cruz from Illinois? Then you'll find out why there are appeals in the country. I say screw it, no age limits on the death penalty, let's kill everyone that we don't like. Infants, kids, teens, adults, and seniors, everyone deserves to die the same.

And Lothar, you're not compassionate, you're an azzhole.

Posted: **Fri Mar 04, 2005 2:37 pm**

Zuruck wrote:And Lothar, you're not compassionate, you're an azzhole.

I'm against the death penalty, but I think this ruling was outside the scope of the court's power, so that makes me an azzhole? OK then...

Posted: **Fri Mar 04, 2005 9:07 pm**

Lothar wrote:.... but I think this ruling was outside the scope of the court's power...

That was my main gripe.

Capitol punishment? erm.. *shrug* sure. Murder is evil. get rid of evil. Minors that murder? sure.. in some circumstances.

I'm, really not that flip. It's just Ive debated this for over 25 years.

I think that the Supreme court needs to be cut off at the knees. Congress has allowed them way too much latitude. Neglagence has allowed a compromise in the checks and balances. Dictating Law is NOT thier job.

To makes matters worse, They made thier judgement on what Europe feels on the matter. That is to say, they feel obligated to lean in the direction "And that we owe it to the global community" to consider thier views on captiol punishment. .... is this OUR country or someone else's????

WTH??????

GAH!!! ... where can I buy an island. ...

Posted: **Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:27 pm**

Zuruck wrote:I say screw it, no age limits on the death penalty, let's kill everyone that we don't like . . . .

And Lothar, you're not compassionate, you're an azzhole.

And you're out of your league.

You might have taken the time to understand that Lothar's position is aligned with your own. I recommend you spend some more time with your Dad.

BD

Posted: **Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:37 pm**

Tyranny wrote:Thats my point. As soon as they're sentenced to death the process should be carried out. There should be no appeals. This would drastically reduce costs . . .

I sure see where your frustration is coming from Tyranny, but due process is critical. Due Process is something to which we're all entitled, and its rigid requirements keep us from being subjected to the whims of overwhelming government power.

Trials end up with wrong verdicts, and judges make wrong rulings. So we have a system, internal to the judiciary, that gives an accused a shot at result correction. It's not perfect, but we need it, if we want to look at ourselves in the mirror the next morning after pulling the switch on the condemned.

Money? The cost difference between execution on the one hand, and keeping someone in jail for the rest of his or her days, on the other? -- Who cares, I say. It's a red herring offered by people who think the death penalty is wrong. I could care less about the cost -- it's utterly negligible, I'll absorb it as a taxpayer.

BD

DescentBB

Supreme Court: Death Penalty for Minors Unconstitutional

Supreme Court: Death Penalty for Minors Unconstitutional