Tuesday, March 01, 2005

Teens can still be evil

Well, we can't win 'em all, I guess.


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.
I'm sorry, this really doesn't make any sense to me. I will have to do some research today, but I really can't fathom how executing a 16 year old is just de facto cruelty. One of the boneheads who is going to benefit from this ruling is Lee Boyd Malvo, who you may remember as one of the Washington Sniper Duo. Can anyone dispute that this kid is a little monster who targetted several innocent people, taking and ruining lives and putting an entire state in terror. What HE did was cruel. Executing him isn't just justice, it's a repudiation of what he did. It says "Society will not permit a monster like you to draw breath". It is repayment in part for what he took from people, it is penance for his crimes against society, and it is an act of cleansing, of removing someone from life who doesn't deserve to be there. Malvo is as deserving of death as any other murderer. But no, he's young so it's cruel. I think it's an act of cruelty against the noble and decent people of Washington to let him live.

Am I missing something? Is there some inherent immunity from being evil just because you haven't lived for exactly 18 years? If he was 17 years and 364 days old, it would be an act of cruelty to execute him, but it wouldn't be 24 hours later? Give me a break.

I like this post from Mark Levin on The Corner at National Review Online:

All those gang members under the age of 18, some of the most vicious murderers known to law enforcement, will be pleased with this ruling. After they murder, they will now have time to "attain a mature understanding of [their] own humanity."

Go Mark!

Joshua Claybourn at In The Agora has this take:

Aside from ignoring the voice of the people through representative democracy, and instead relying on their own beliefs as well as international opinion (something the Court won't do with abortion), the Court's opinion also fails to chastise the Supreme Court of Missouri for its failure to follow binding U.S. Supreme Court precedent. Only Justice Scalia addresses it in the final two pages of his dissent.


4 Comments:

Blogger Robbie said...

I've already done some research for you on the types of 'less culpable' kids who will be spared the punishment they deserve (here on Texas' Death Row).

12:49 PM  
Blogger leyva1313 said...

In the words of Coretta Scott King, “An evil deed is not redeemed by an evil deed of retaliation. Justice is never advanced in the taking of human life. Morality is never upheld by legalized murder."
(Coretta Scott King)
Before we can kill kids we need to 1st treat them as humans and give them the same rights we have. no wait i'm wrong we 1st need to give all adults of all races the same rights...

5:03 PM  
Anonymous Alex said...

"Before we can kill kids we need to 1st treat them as humans and give them the same rights we have."

Sure, we need to give them a fair trial for the adult crimes they commit - crimes that, oh, by the way, deprive other humans of their right to live - and then we need execute them as humanely as possible. Great point. Thanks for that.

"no wait I'm wrong we 1st need to give all adults of all races the same rights..."

We can only pray that Lincoln wins the war and slavery is abolished for all time and... oh wait... you're talking about what exactly?

9:35 PM  
Blogger Phil Aldridge said...

Leyva, I agree that an evil deed is not redeemed by an evil deed of retaliation. However, execution is a noble deed of justice, so I don't think Ms. King's quote applies.

Alex, I love you.

11:41 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home