Tuesday, March 01, 2005
No Death For Children
Yes, I know, it may seem cruel, but that activist panel of judges called the Supreme Court (actually 5 out of 9) has outlawed the death penalty for juveniles! What next?! First they outlaw killing retards, now we can't kill children? Dammit, next thing you know we won't be able to kill black people, just because they are black! Oh, no and you KNOW what comes after that, we won't be able to kill gay people because they are gay, and they don't know what they are doing... obviously.
High Court Ends Death Penalty for Youths
High Court Ends Death Penalty for Youths
"A closely divided Supreme Court outlawed the death penalty for juvenile criminals on Tuesday, declaring there was a national consensus such executions were unconstitutionally cruel and ending a practice that had brought international condemnation.Oh so now we are listening to f---ing "Old Europe"?! What is Kerry president or something? What the hell is this? Tell him Justice Scalia!
....
The United States has stood almost alone in the world in officially sanctioning juvenile executions, a 'stark reality' that can't be ignored, [Justice] Kennedy wrote. Juvenile offenders have been put to death in recent years in only a few other countries, including Iran, Pakistan, China and Saudi Arabia.
'It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty, resting in large part on the understanding that the instability and emotional imbalance of young people may often be a factor in the crime,' Kennedy wrote."
"In an angry dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia disputed that a 'national consensus' exists and said the majority opinion was based on the 'flimsiest of grounds.' The appropriateness of capital punishment should be determined by individual states, not 'the subjective views of five members of this court and like-minded foreigners,' he wrote."YEAH!!! You tell those goddamn foreigners to stay out of our business! Isn't it about time that we get rid of those five activist judges on the Supreme Court and put in some good "fair" judges? Yeah!
"Dianne Clements, president of the Houston-based Justice for All victims' advocacy group, criticized the decision and said she hopes that when there is a Supreme Court vacancy a strong death penalty supporter is nominated.OH SNAPPP!!!! That's sssright!! So guess what you activist Supreme Court justices you better watch out, because we will keep our eyes on you sons!! You better be making the right decisions from now on, or you are through!!
'The Supreme Court has opened the door for more innocent people to suffer by 16- and 17-year-olds,' she said. 'I can't wait for the Supreme Court to have judges more concerned with American values, American statutes and American law than what the Europeans think.'"
posted by digitaljay @ 8:58 PM MST
1 Comments:
On Wed Mar 02, 04:57:00 PM MST,
fm_illuminatus said...
Actually, I think it will cost us more.
The difference between us and North Korea was before this point the "children" we executed (well, put on death row and made big threatening words about doing things without actually taking action) were 16-17 yr olds. In Korea and Iran, I believe the execution goes as low as 12? Or worst. Still I can easily understand how people would be against executing anyone under 18, however, and would have no problem if states went ahead and passed laws banning death for under 18, or even under 21 if they so choose.
What upsets me about this decision is that the supreme court issued a DICTUM on this subject, subverting the right of the people to make the choice by popular vote (and actually no death under 18 is pretty popular... polls show 76% support I think). Additionally Judge Kennedy idiotically reasoned that "because the French" (and other "modern nations") aren't executing people under 18, we should too. You know what else the French do? They ban muslims from praying and wearing those head things. The French also put secret police in churches and mosques, so they can arrest anyone being too "evangelical" (it's a 7 year prison term). Should we do that too? Maybe Judge Kennedy should issue a DICTUM about that. Hell, Judge Kennedy should declare himself Caesar... it would be in character, given his regard for the voting public. Even you liberals should be upset about that. Yes? Or would you settle for Caesar, as long as he was a "progessive liberal" one?
The difference between us and North Korea was before this point the "children" we executed (well, put on death row and made big threatening words about doing things without actually taking action) were 16-17 yr olds. In Korea and Iran, I believe the execution goes as low as 12? Or worst. Still I can easily understand how people would be against executing anyone under 18, however, and would have no problem if states went ahead and passed laws banning death for under 18, or even under 21 if they so choose.
What upsets me about this decision is that the supreme court issued a DICTUM on this subject, subverting the right of the people to make the choice by popular vote (and actually no death under 18 is pretty popular... polls show 76% support I think). Additionally Judge Kennedy idiotically reasoned that "because the French" (and other "modern nations") aren't executing people under 18, we should too. You know what else the French do? They ban muslims from praying and wearing those head things. The French also put secret police in churches and mosques, so they can arrest anyone being too "evangelical" (it's a 7 year prison term). Should we do that too? Maybe Judge Kennedy should issue a DICTUM about that. Hell, Judge Kennedy should declare himself Caesar... it would be in character, given his regard for the voting public. Even you liberals should be upset about that. Yes? Or would you settle for Caesar, as long as he was a "progessive liberal" one?