Batman
Active member
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2005
- Messages
- 407
- Reaction score
- 7
- Location
- Fulton, KY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Well, it doesn't, it also doesn't mention a lot of things that are in law today. The Supreme Court makes decision by interpreting the law based on the Constitution and then those interpretations set precedent that future decisions are based on. Decisions like 2002's Atkins v. Virginia set the precedent that it was unconstitutional to execute a mentally retarded person which was based on the 8th and 14th amendment. Here's a link to the opinion of the court that states the rationale for stopping death penalty not just for youths which is defined as <18 years old, but also for adults whose crimes were committed when they were youths.Pacridge said:Where in the constitution does it draw any age limits on cruel and unusual punishment?
Evil:shuamort said:Evil? Sorry, Batman, people are not evil, some of their actions could be labeled that
Sure, anytime. And thanks for the invocation of Godwin's Law.Batman said:Sorry shuamort, I thought Hitler was an evil man. Thanks for clearing that up.
shuamort said:Sure, anytime. And thanks for the invocation of Godwin's Law.
"The age of 18 is the point where society draws the line for many purposes between childhood and adulthood. It is, we conclude, the age at which the line for death eligibility ought to rest," Justice Anthony Kennedy (news - web sites) wrote.
Juvenile offenders have been put to death in recent years in only a few other countries, including Iran (news - web sites), Pakistan, China and Saudi Arabia. Kennedy cited international opposition to the practice.
"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," he wrote.
Squawker said:The real bone of contention was over using international opinion as a basis for the ruling. I don't like this trend at all. We have our laws and constitution. What the rest of the world does should not be a factor in determining how judges rule in any case.
Batman said:Absolutely.
Some statements by Antonin Scalia who wrote the dissent:
'The court says in so many words that what our people's laws say about the issue does not, in the last analysis, matter'
'The court thus proclaims itself sole arbiter of our nation's moral standards'
U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., was recently vilified for suggesting that if the Texas law was unconstitutional, states could not regulate other behavior such as fornication, bigamy, adult incest, bestiality and obscenity. Justice Antonin Scalia exonerates the senator by saying in his dissent: “(T)his (opinion) effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation.”
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?