by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright March 2, 2005
All Rights Reserved.

utting the breaks on the death penalty, the Supreme Court ruled that minors could no longer be executed, no matter how heinous the crimes. Since reinstating the death penalty in 1987, it was left up to the states to decide death sentences of murderers under the age of 18. In 2002, the high court excluded mentally retarded killers for execution, citing “cruel and unusual punishment,” the same clause now used to ban juvenile executions. Tuesday's ruling spares the lives of 72 killers facing execution on death row in 12 different states. Even convicted teenage killer Lee Boyd Malvo, known as the “beltway sniper,” got spared another trial in Virginia, where prosecutors hoped for a death sentence. Because Malvo was 17 when he terrorized the D.C. area, he can't face the death penalty. Death penalty advocates bemoaned the high court's decision to ban juvenile executions.

      Sparing juveniles and mentally retarded offenders, the Supreme Court tried to revise perhaps the most controversial appendage in American jurisprudence: The death penalty. Putting lipstick on a pig only hides the problem. No matter how you modify capital punishment, strong objections exist. Growing opposition to the death penalty, both domestically and internationally, leaves parts of the country in conflict. Even the late Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren spoke of “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society,” implying that capital punishment involves indecency. Even profoundly mentally ill inmates like Texas child killer Andrea Yates faced the death penalty, despite getting life in prison. Even with the testimony of mental health experts, certifying Yates as insane, prosecutors still convinced a jury she knew “right from wrong.”

      Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy likened the juvenile death penalty to “cruel and unusual punishment.” “The stark reality is that the United States is the only country in the world that continues to give official sanction to the juvenile death penalty.” Whether foreign countries oppose the juvenile death penalty doesn't add weight to the complexity of the issue. Executing minors runs counter the entire juvenile justice system that recognizes stark differences between teenagers and adults. Juvenile crimes and sentencing guidelines differ from adults specifically because the system recognizes adolescence as a mitigating circumstance. It's only reasonable to ask whether profound mental illness and mental retardation also create a legitimate mitigating event.

      Writing for the minority, Justice Antonin Scalia rejected the idea of getting guidance from overseas. “I do not believe that the meaning of our [Constitution] should be determined by the subjective views of five members of the court and like-minded foreigners,” rejecting the idea of majority rule and cross-cultural feedback. Operating in a vacuum offers little chance to check domestic trends against international standards. Scalia dismisses majority rule unless it's the conservative wing of the court. He has no problem accepting majority opinions as long as they rubber-stamp his own views. Scalia invokes state rights when he votes outside the majority. “Kids are different from adults, and by their very nature cannot qualify as the ‘worst of the worst' standard used by some to justify the sentence of death,” said Diane Rust Tierney, executive director of the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty.

      Heinous crimes deserve appropriate punishments, especially when they involve underage minors. Murder isn't monopolized by adults. Where it involves juveniles, the state must take into account the age of the perpetrator. Mental illness, retardation and now age make no distinction between liberal and conservative. Justices must abandon political ideology and accept the best scientific and cultural evidence when weighing life-and-death decisions. Today's juvenile justice systems stands as proof that the vast majority believe separate crimes and punishment apply to underage minors. Calling the ban on juvenile execution “an abomination of justice,” Law Enforcement Alliance of America spokesman Kevin Watson highlighted “the strong need to appoint the right judges,” believing the Supreme Court infringes on states' rights. States must also follow federal guidelines.

      Liberalism or conservatism have nothing to do with the best evidence indicating that age mitigates against serious adult-like crimes. Ruling that juveniles cannot be executed doesn't invalidate the practice to trying juveniles in adult courts. “The court proclaims itself the sole arbiter of our nation's moral standards—and in the course of discharging that awesome responsibility purports to take guidance from the view of foreign courts and legislatures,” said Scalia, disparaging the majority's ruling. Scalia believes the high court sets moral standards yet fully supports Ten Commandments' monuments as essential symbols of American life. Scalia knows perfectly well that the founding fathers rejected King George and prayed to a higher authority. Even conservatives on the high court or elsewhere must accept the wisdom sparing juveniles the death penalty.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2002 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.