 |
| |
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:20
|
|
quote:
While a majority favors capital punishment as a general policy, there is far less support for executing persons who committed murder when they were under the age of 18. Just 35% support such a policy, while 58% are opposed.(1) Only 11% strongly favor execution in this circumstance, compared with 20% who strongly oppose it. There is little religious division on this issue. Similar percentages of white mainline Protestants (43%), white evangelicals (42%), and seculars (41%) favor capital punishment for minors, compared with 31% of white Catholics. As with the death penalty in general, African-Americans are the most opposed to capital punishment for minors. Fully 80% oppose this, while just 16% favor it. |
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=725
There's your national mood.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ogie Oglethorpe
|
 |
Marietta, GA
Dec 1999
time: 05:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
quote:
While a majority favors capital punishment as a general policy, there is far less support for executing persons who committed murder when they were under the age of 18. Just 35% support such a policy, while 58% are opposed.(1) Only 11% strongly favor execution in this circumstance, compared with 20% who strongly oppose it. There is little religious division on this issue. Similar percentages of white mainline Protestants (43%), white evangelicals (42%), and seculars (41%) favor capital punishment for minors, compared with 31% of white Catholics. As with the death penalty in general, African-Americans are the most opposed to capital punishment for minors. Fully 80% oppose this, while just 16% favor it. |
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=725
There's your national mood. |
Since I can't get your link to work, does the study give stats on the mood of states actually having capital punishment on the books as opposed to the nation as a composite?
Likewise has this changed in any respect since 15 years past?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
|
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:20
|
|
quote:
Since I can't get your link to work, does the study give stats on the mood of states actually having capital punishment on the books as opposed to the nation as a composite? |
I'm not sure what that sentence means...
The link seems to work for me. Incidentally, it's a Pew study taken in July 24, 2003.
quote:
Likewise has this changed in any respect since 15 years past? |
Probably. According to Pew in this same study, support for DP in general dropped sharply from '96-'03 (strongly favor declines by 15, favored up by one, opposed up by 9, strongly opposed up by 3).
Last edited by Ramo on 02-03-2005 at 11:20
|
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
The decision was poorly written, no argument there. But some posters, when stating that it should be left to the courts to determine the mental competency of these minors when charged with a capital crime:
quote:
Actually it depends on the nature of the punishment in question not person being punished. If you want to say that a person lacks the requisite mens rea to be deserving of such punishments, that is an issue of fact to be either brought up at trial or before the people themselves to change the law. |
New research has shown that is indeed the case (less mentally competent juveniles), but due to the adversarial nature of our courts, the return to go-for-the-jugler politics, etc. there is no reliable process in our courts or political system to address the science. If your parents are well to do, the chances of you successfully pleading this are greatly amplified than if your parents are poor, in Texas, and you have a pro bono defender.
So SCOTUS has intervened. The points concerning the mens rea were part of the briefs filed in this case. I agree that the decision was poorly crafted, but given how the US system of jurisprudence works, it was a necessary result.
In an ideal world what I want to know is what is the recidivism rate of these juveniles. Are they essentially at a butthole/jerk/dangerous phase, that with proper supervision they will outgrow and become productive members of society? Or are they little monsters in transition to becoming bigger monsters? My suspicion is the latter, given the Sociopathic personality, but the problem is that it is only a suspicion. It also is a study with no constituency, i.e. the law and order types simply want them executed, and the liberal types cannot believe that they may indeed by rabid little sociopaths. That's what I would like to know. Then we can make a sensible set of decisions on what to do with them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
However, as if to celebrate the lifting of a yoke around his neck this week a 14 year old A/B honor roll student shot to death his bus driver because she reported him for chewing tobacco on her bus. Will there be a back lash?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whoha
|
 |
The TOC is supposed to be classified guys...
Dec 2001
time: 23:20
|
|
"Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, noted 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."
Hurrah for having judges decide on foreign law that we did not even vote for...
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The Supreme Court is interpreter of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights says there shall be no cruel and unusual punishment. |
What other states and nations do or do not do does not establish what is cruel or unusual.
[edit]the 50 or so friend of the court briefs filed weren't mentioned here[/edit]
Last edited by Whoha on 03-03-2005 at 08:35
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wycoff
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
State courts regularly refer to precedent in other states as persuasive authority. I don't see why the SCOTUS shouldn't do the same? |
The states are all have a common boundry which they cannot exceed: the US Constitution. We're part of the same country with the same set of basic laws. Besides, while other state law can be persuasive authority, its not mandatory authority. I've seen many cases of courts rejecting arguments built around holdings in other states. The reasoning for SCOTUS to substantially base its decisions on other western countries (countries such as France that doesn't have the common law, for example) is far less supportable and should be far less persuasive. Its not a very good analogy.
quote:
And the US is bound by international customary law and historical common law which no one has ever voted for, so that isn't the best of arguments. |
The Senate approves treaties and legal agreements. We're not under the jurisdiction of the world court. Common Law precesents can be completely superceeded by statutes, which are written and passed by elected officials. Substantive Due Process (as you certainly know) is much harder to overcome; at the very least it would have to be overruled by a later SCOTUS opinion, but it'd most likely take a Constitutional Amendment to overturn. I think that SCOTUS is doing a disservice to the citizens of this country if it uses foreign law as a basis for a ruling that would be so difficult to overturn, no matter what the subject matter is.
This case, though dealing with Cruel and Unusual standards, might as well be dealing with Substantive Due Process, as it would be as hard to overturn.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wycoff
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
quote:
The states are all have a common boundry which they cannot exceed: the US Constitution. We're part of the same country with the same set of basic laws. Besides, while other state law can be persuasive authority, its not mandatory authority. I've seen many cases of courts rejecting arguments built around holdings in other states. The reasoning for SCOTUS to substantially base its decisions on other western countries (countries such as France that doesn't have the common law, for example) is far less supportable and should be far less persuasive. Its not a very good analogy. |
No, it's actually a very good analogy. States use other state's decisions on issues not related to the US Constitution in the slightest, such as in issues involving tort and contract. Tort and contract and all other sort of common law issues are seperate in the states and they do not have to reference other states' laws on the issue if they don't want to. They can be (and are at times) vastly different on the same issue (so same basic law argument doesn't fly).
And we are dealing with persuasive authority in this case. NO WHERE did it say it was mandatory authority. They used foriegn decisions as persuasive authority, which many countries in the West do (including Britain). |
I understand the difference between state laws. I think that the fact that they are different states in the same country adds immensely to the potential persuasive power of contrary doctrine in other state's laws. Still, using other state's laws to argue a case in your state is a last resort step you take when arguing the case according to the precedent in your state would result in you losing the case. Resorting to refrencing laws of other countries would be a far greater reach, and much less persuasive than even laws in the other state.
Britain has incentive to take the precedents of other western European states into account because its in the EU along with those states. Though the EU is not a country, it is a relationship that, because of common standards (even enforced uniformity), ensures that Britain has much greater incentives to follow precedents set by other member countries. Would British courts be persuaded by practices common in South East Asia? Highly doubtful. Why should SCOTUS be persuaded by practices of EU countries? Its the job of the legislature to make such comparisions.
quote:
Customary law is not approved, because it is not treaty. It is based on consistent practice. |
Such as? Are you referring to the rights protected under Substantice Due Process? The overwhelming majority of those rights are protected because of common internal practices, with no references to other countries.
quote:
And I think that SCOTUS would do a disservice if it didn't look to foriegn courts reasoning in deciding what cruel and unusual actually is. |
Foreign practices may be looked at, but US practices, conventions, and precedents should be orders of magnitude more persuasive to SCOTUS. Again, its up to the the Legislatures to decide whether we should fall in-line with other countries.
It would be inappropriate if SCOTUS declared that the US should follow the Kyoto protocol because of foreign practices. I fail to see how using foreign practices as major persuasive material when deciding a constitutional matter much differs
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:20
|
|
quote:
Still, using other state's laws to argue a case in your state is a last resort step you take when arguing the case according to the precedent in your state would result in you losing the case. Resorting to refrencing laws of other countries would be a far greater reach, and much less persuasive than even laws in the other state. |
Not really. Using the laws of other states as an example of the common movement of the law can be very important in a case. Many cases have been ruled on the basis that other states are moving towards a view.
quote:
Britain has incentive to take the precedents of other western European states into account because its in the EU along with those states. |
It's done so well before that. It's not rare to look at other state law to guide the court.
Want me to cite cases?
The Paquete Habana dealt with the customary law of seizing fishing vessels of the opposing country during wartime. The Supreme Court (back in 1900), looked at old English law (Henry IV) as well as treaties made betwen France & the Holy Roman Emperor (Francis I and Charles V), French law under Louis XIV, as well as leading treatises on French law. In fact, it seems they used much more French precedent than British to decide the issue. That was back in 1900, well before the complaints of active judiciary.
Also there are cases were the customary crime against piracy was cited, even though the US had not defined it. The Supreme Court used customary law to determine how to define the crime of piracy. United States v. Smith, 1820. Piracy was defined as ius cogens, ie customary law which a country could not make reservations to.
Those are two of the main precedents
quote:
US practices, conventions, and precedents should be orders of magnitude more persuasive to SCOTUS. |
And Kennedy did look at them as well. He also looked at the persuasive authority of foriegn practice, and decided that those combined indicated a movement country and international wide banning execution for those under 18.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zulu Elephant
|
|
As far as Im concerned, the fewer people executed, the better - until the DP is abolished.
The reasons given are obviously pretty shoddy and if I disagreed with the decision I'd be spitting nails.
However, some people have argued that the court is overstepping its mark and that the legislature should be deciding these things. How does this compare to the court's decision to abolish segregation - isn't that an example of the court making a decision that would never (at the time) have been passed by congress due to public hostitility in many states
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20.
Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-03-2005 10:50
.
Also, I am annoyed when the consrvatives whine and b*tch about "activist judges", THAT IS THIER JOB, IT'S CALLED JUDICIAL REVIEW! The conservatives just want a court that is thier whore.
|