I am inclined to agree with the Supremes that sentencing juveniles (those under age 18) to death is “cruel and unusual.” While I have no doubt that some 17-year-olds are capable of making morally informed decisions, I’m also sure there are 18-year-olds who aren’t, and setting an arbitrary date is better than leaving it to the whims of juries and judges.
I don’t have a problem with capital punishment per se, I think there is sufficient doubt that it is used in this country in a broadly fair and equitable fashion that its use in any cases has to be open to question. In the case of ostensible juveniles, I would tend to err on the side of youth (acknowledging that the alternative is a life sentence, which is hardly a walk in the park).
19 view(s)
If we’re to be consistent, we should not prohibit capital punishment for juveniles on the grounds that it’s ‘cruel and unusual’ since there’s no difference I can see between the amount of pain and suffering that a juvenile can suffer and the amount an adult can suffer.
I think the justification for prohibiting captial punishment of juveniles must be on the grounds that they are not yet able (in at least some cases, as you suggest) to make proper moral distinctions. That’s a completely different issue from the cruel and unusual punishment issue, and it’s a shame if the Supreme Court has confused these two issues.
Of course, there may be some legal interpretation of ‘cruel and unusual’ different from how I understand it in my legally-naive way. If so, then the Supreme Court isn’t confused, I am.
I agreee with you, Dave. I am not philosophically opposed to capital punishment. I think it is appropriate for the state to deprive its citizens of life under some circumstances.
However, I have no faith in the US judicial system to get it right enough of the time, and I know that a disproportional number of disadvantaged get the death penalty for the same things those with more money get lesser sentences for. So, I am against the death penalty in practice.
Of course, there may be some legal interpretation of ‘cruel and unusual’ different from how I understand it in my legally-naive way. If so, then the Supreme Court isn’t confused, I am.
I suspect you are, and that C&U has legal and Constitutional meanings beyond the obvious meaning of the words. There are no Constitutional clauses that say, “Thou shallt do what is Right,” for better or for worse (probably for better).