High Court Nixes Death Penalty for Minors under 18
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the Constitution
forbids the execution of killers who were under 18 when they committed
their crimes, ending a practice used in 19 states.

The 5-4 decision throws out the death sentences of about 70 juvenile
murderers and bars states from seeking to execute minors for future
crimes.

The executions, the court said, were unconstitutionally cruel.

It was the second major defeat at the high court in three years for
supporters of the death penalty. Justices in 2002 banned the execution
of the mentally retarded, also citing the Constitution's Eighth
Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishments.

The court had already outlawed executions for those who were 15 and
younger when they committed their crimes.

Tuesday's ruling prevents states from making 16- and 17-year-olds
eligible for execution.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, cited the fact that
most states don't allow the execution of juvenile killers and those that
do use the penalty infrequently. The trend, he noted, was to abolish the
practice.

"Our society views juveniles ... as categorically less culpable than the
average criminal," Kennedy wrote.

And if they ban the requirement that a minor gets out at 21 for most violent
crimes, they will be doing good.

Harry Krause wrote:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the
Constitution
forbids the execution of killers who were under 18 when they
committed
their crimes, ending a practice used in 19 states.

The 5-4 decision throws out the death sentences of about 70 juvenile
murderers and bars states from seeking to execute minors for future
crimes.

The executions, the court said, were unconstitutionally cruel.

It was the second major defeat at the high court in three years for
supporters of the death penalty. Justices in 2002 banned the
execution
of the mentally retarded, also citing the Constitution's Eighth
Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishments.

The court had already outlawed executions for those who were 15 and
younger when they committed their crimes.

Tuesday's ruling prevents states from making 16- and 17-year-olds
eligible for execution.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, cited the fact
that
most states don't allow the execution of juvenile killers and those
that
do use the penalty infrequently. The trend, he noted, was to abolish
the
practice.

"Our society views juveniles ... as categorically less culpable than
the
average criminal," Kennedy wrote.

I don't know about this. If you look at the statistics of inner cities,
you'll see that an alarming rate of murders and habitual crimes are
perpetrated by persons under 18. Now, I'm not necessarily for the death
penalty, but, I do think that these thugs should be treated just like
someone who did the same crimes and was OVER 18.

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 19:46:33 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the Constitution
forbids the execution of killers who were under 18 when they committed
their crimes, ending a practice used in 19 states.

The 5-4 decision throws out the death sentences of about 70 juvenile
murderers and bars states from seeking to execute minors for future
crimes.

The executions, the court said, were unconstitutionally cruel.

It was the second major defeat at the high court in three years for
supporters of the death penalty. Justices in 2002 banned the execution
of the mentally retarded, also citing the Constitution's Eighth
Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishments.

The court had already outlawed executions for those who were 15 and
younger when they committed their crimes.

Tuesday's ruling prevents states from making 16- and 17-year-olds
eligible for execution.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, cited the fact that
most states don't allow the execution of juvenile killers and those that
do use the penalty infrequently. The trend, he noted, was to abolish the
practice.

"Our society views juveniles ... as categorically less culpable than the
average criminal," Kennedy wrote.

And if they ban the requirement that a minor gets out at 21 for most violent
crimes, they will be doing good.


They'd change their minds if they spent a couple weeks in an 8th grade
classroom!


John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John H wrote:
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 19:46:33 GMT, "Calif Bill"

wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the
Constitution
forbids the execution of killers who were under 18 when they committed
their crimes, ending a practice used in 19 states.

The 5-4 decision throws out the death sentences of about 70 juvenile
murderers and bars states from seeking to execute minors for future

crimes.

The executions, the court said, were unconstitutionally cruel.

It was the second major defeat at the high court in three years for
supporters of the death penalty. Justices in 2002 banned the execution
of the mentally retarded, also citing the Constitution's Eighth
Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishments.

The court had already outlawed executions for those who were 15 and
younger when they committed their crimes.

Tuesday's ruling prevents states from making 16- and 17-year-olds
eligible for execution.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, cited the fact that
most states don't allow the execution of juvenile killers and those
that
do use the penalty infrequently. The trend, he noted, was to abolish
the
practice.

"Our society views juveniles ... as categorically less culpable than
the
average criminal," Kennedy wrote.

And if they ban the requirement that a minor gets out at 21 for most
violent
crimes, they will be doing good.



They'd change their minds if they spent a couple weeks in an 8th grade
classroom!


John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."


If you were a competent substitute teacher, you'd think otherwise.

If you were a competent, that would be amazing.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message


If you were a competent, that would be amazing.


Not to worry, I'm sure I'm a better writer than you are a home handyman,
and I never hire undocumented help from a shape-up.

Well, you are most likely wrong. Since I do not see any great American
Novel with the in his own mind "the great" HK as the author, I will say you
are just another liberal arts major, making a living.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

Calif Bill wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message


If you were a competent, that would be amazing.


Not to worry, I'm sure I'm a better writer than you are a home handyman,
and I never hire undocumented help from a shape-up.


Well, you are most likely wrong. Since I do not see any great American
Novel with the in his own mind "the great" HK as the author, I will say
you
are just another liberal arts major, making a living.




Your criteria is as vacuous as your existence.

At least my existance is not posting lies on newsgroups as a major part of
life.

Calif Bill wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

Calif Bill wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message


If you were a competent, that would be amazing.


Not to worry, I'm sure I'm a better writer than you are a home
handyman,
and I never hire undocumented help from a shape-up.


Well, you are most likely wrong. Since I do not see any great
American
Novel with the in his own mind "the great" HK as the author, I
will say
you
are just another liberal arts major, making a living.




Your criteria is as vacuous as your existence.

At least my existance is not posting lies on newsgroups as a major
part of
life.

Yeah, like Fritz, JimH, Smithers, and now NOYB.

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 01:23:41 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John H wrote:
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 19:46:33 GMT, "Calif Bill"

wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the
Constitution
forbids the execution of killers who were under 18 when they committed
their crimes, ending a practice used in 19 states.

The 5-4 decision throws out the death sentences of about 70 juvenile
murderers and bars states from seeking to execute minors for future

crimes.

The executions, the court said, were unconstitutionally cruel.

It was the second major defeat at the high court in three years for
supporters of the death penalty. Justices in 2002 banned the execution
of the mentally retarded, also citing the Constitution's Eighth
Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishments.

The court had already outlawed executions for those who were 15 and
younger when they committed their crimes.

Tuesday's ruling prevents states from making 16- and 17-year-olds
eligible for execution.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, cited the fact that
most states don't allow the execution of juvenile killers and those
that
do use the penalty infrequently. The trend, he noted, was to abolish
the
practice.

"Our society views juveniles ... as categorically less culpable than
the
average criminal," Kennedy wrote.

And if they ban the requirement that a minor gets out at 21 for most
violent
crimes, they will be doing good.



They'd change their minds if they spent a couple weeks in an 8th grade
classroom!


John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."


If you were a competent substitute teacher, you'd think otherwise.

If you were a competent, that would be amazing.


Bill, please do me favor. Next time you respond to Harry, delete his **** first.
Then I won't accidentally run across it while reading something written by
someone with sense.

Thanks!!


John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

Bassy,
I think you take this too seriously, when you go to your support groups tell
them you are having trouble playing nicely in rec.boats.


wrote in message
oups.com...

Calif Bill wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

Calif Bill wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message


If you were a competent, that would be amazing.


Not to worry, I'm sure I'm a better writer than you are a home
handyman,
and I never hire undocumented help from a shape-up.


Well, you are most likely wrong. Since I do not see any great
American
Novel with the in his own mind "the great" HK as the author, I
will say
you
are just another liberal arts major, making a living.




Your criteria is as vacuous as your existence.

At least my existance is not posting lies on newsgroups as a major
part of
life.

Yeah, like Fritz, JimH, Smithers, and now NOYB.