March 8 USA: Disorder in the court's thinking Proclaiming their mastery of moral evolution, America's unelected rulers have decreed that the same juveniles who enjoy the constitutional right to kill their unborn have acquired the constitutional right to avoid execution when they kill the already born. The reasoning of the bare Supreme Court majority in Roper vs. Simmons is clearly specious, but the understandable reaction of some conservatives requires amendment. The facts: Christopher Simmons, age 17, told 2 friends that he planned to commit murder by tying up a victim and throwing that victim off a bridge. Simmons asked them to join his entertainment, which, he assured them, they could "get away with" because they were minors. He bragged about the crime after drowning Shirley Crook -- who left behind a devastated husband and daughter -- according to plan. Tried as an adult, Simmons was convicted by a jury and sentenced to death, as permitted by the laws of Missouri. The jury properly concluded, as the Supreme Court's majority noted, that Simmons' crime "involved depravity of mind and was outrageously and wantonly vile, horrible, and inhuman." The Eighth Amendment prohibits "cruel and [not or, please note] unusual punishments." In its previous most recent decision dealing with the use of capital punishment for juveniles, the Supreme Court ruled in 1989 that the Constitution does not proscribe execution of offenders who are 16 or 17 when they commit their crimes. But last week, having cogitated on America's "evolving standards of decency," the court's four liberals and one swing justice ignored that precedent and declared capital punishment to be both cruel and unusual for those under 18. But a punishment permitted by 20 states can hardly be unusual. Moreover, from 1642 to 1986, 2 % of death penalty recipients in America were executed for crimes committed while they were under 18 -- something that the 1989 court conceded was consistent with the Eighth Amendment. But between 1990 and 2003, 3.4 % of death sentences were given in under-18 cases. So juvenile execution is not unusual in a constitutional sense and cannot, by definition, be unconstitutional (although several nonconstitutional arguments support its abolition). Furthermore, the majority admits the plausibility of the argument that occasionally a "juvenile offender has sufficient psychological maturity, and at the same time demonstrates sufficient depravity, to merit a sentence of death." Jurors, who hear arguments for and against such conclusions, are manifestly well-positioned to satisfy the court's own "insistence on individualized consideration." Finally, the court's majority has struck down abortion statutes that do not permit mature juveniles to undergo abortions without parental notification. And as Justice Antonin Scalia observed, whether "to obtain an abortion is surely a much more complex decision for a young person than whether to kill an innocent person in cold blood." The court's decision is, in short, inconsistent with both settled American law and common sense. Yet some critics have overreacted. For example, they are outraged that the court's majority drew attention to the fact that the "civilized nations of the world are in virtual unanimity" against juvenile execution. But the justices acknowledged that this reality is not controlling in American courts. And didn't our own Founders declare their "decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind"? Similarly, Scalia's dissent in Simmons, in most respects a cogent refutation of the majority's plainly nonlegal expression of justices' personal moral preferences, errs in his insistence on "the original meaning" of "cruel and unusual." What those words meant in 1789 might well be different from our contemporary understanding. In fact, by his own showing, when the amendment was adopted in 1791, "the death penalty could theoretically be imposed for the crime of a 7-year-old." But Scalia is surely correct that the majority's whims cannot be "a predictable basis for law -- much less a democratic one." Americans deserve better from our highest judicial tribunal. * * * By middle adolescence (age 14-15) young people develop abilities similar to adults in reasoning about moral dilemmas, understanding social rules and laws. -- American Psychological Association, amicus brief filed in Hodgson vs. Minnesota, 1990 (source: Opinion, Fort Worth Star-Telegram - Don Erler is president of General Building Maintenance) ***************************** Court Ruling Encourages Death Row Opponents In 1988, the U. S. Supreme Court left it up to states whether 16- and 17-year-olds could be given the death penalty. But last week, the court reversed itself in a 5-4 decision that nullifies death sentences given to offenders who committed capital crimes while under the age of 18. The fact that the justices reversed themselves heartened death penalty opponents who hope that the court will eventually examine the role race plays in capital murder cases, whether it's the suspect or the victim. "They didn't base this decision at all on race, they didn't add up the number of minorities or anything like that, but that's who it was disproportionately affecting," says Richard C. Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center. "So, I think the bigger issue on race is that the Supreme Court is, I think, saying that the door is still open for reconsidering things that its decided in the past.'" According to the center, there were 29 Blacks, 26 Whites, 16 Latinos and one Asian among juvenile offenders on death row when the court ruled in the Missouri 1st-degree murder case, Roper v. Simmons, that the execution of juveniles is cruel and unusual punishment. Two-thirds of the youth offenders are people of color whose lives have now been spared. The court said the ruling was also because of growing international sentiments against the execution of juveniles. In the world community, the U. S. stands alone in sanctioning the death of juvenile offenders. Blacks making up only 12 % of the nation's population but 42 % of death row (1,444). By contrast, Whites constitute 71 % of the U.S. population but only 46 % (1,576) of death row inmates. In the Missouri case, the defendant, Christopher Simmons, now 27, was 17 when he murdered a woman who recognized him when he and a 15-year-old companion burglarized her house. After the Circuit Court of Jefferson City convicted him and sentenced him to death, Missouri's Supreme Court ruled 4-3 to overturn his death sentence because of his age. They ruled that the executions of juveniles have become so rare that they constitute cruel and unusual punishment, a violation of the 8th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court upheld that ruling. "When a juvenile commits a heinous crime, the state can exact forfeiture of some of the most basic liberties, but the state cannot extinguish his life and his potential to attain a mature understanding of his own humanity," writes Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. "While drawing the line at 18 is subject to the objections always raised against categorical rules, that is the point where society draws the line for many purposes between childhood and adulthood and the age at which the line for death eligibility ought to rest." People under 18 cannot vote and cannot serve in the armed services without their parents' permission. They cannot purchase liquor, and, ironically in the state of Louisiana, they cannot witness an execution unless they are the one being put to death. Although Black and Brown juveniles represent 21 % of the 16- to 17 year-olds in America, they represent more than triple that proportion (66 %) of all death row inmates sentenced as juveniles. Death penalty opponents say that race of the victim is also a factor. For example, of the 72 juvenile offenders on death row, 71 % (65) of their victims were White. 9 % were Black, 11 % were Latino and 7 % were Asian. "If you kill a White person, you're much more likely to get the death penalty than if you kill a minority or a Black person. Over 90 % of the studies have come to the same conclusion. So it's a very strong core of evidence," says Deiter of the Death Penalty Information Center. "Studies have been done in virtually every death penalty state around the country and they all keep coming to the same conclusion. So there's a very powerful body of scientific knowledge that they can use now." At the time of high court's ruling, 19 states had no death penalty for juveniles: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Washington and Wyoming. Ted Shaw, director-counsel and president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, recalls being deeply troubled when the high court ruled 5-4 against an LDF case in 1987 that raised the issue of racial discrimination in the imposition of the death penalty( Mcklesky v. Kemp.) In this Georgia murder case, the LDF argued that prosecutors sought the death penalty in 70 % of the cases involving Black defendants and White victims. Yet, they sought the death penalty 15 % of the time when the defendant was Black and the victims was also African-American. Overall, 81 % of the prisoners on death row since 1976 had victims that were White. "There we put before the Supreme Court all of the remnants of racial discrimination and the imposition of the death penalty in Georgia, not only with respect to the race of the defendant, but also the race of the victim," Shaw recalls. "And the court basically said, 'Even if we accept your evidence at face value, you're asking us to do more than we're willing to do. It would require uprooting an entire criminal justice system.'" Death Penalty decisions have taken several twists and turns over the years. A Supreme Court decision resulted in a national moratorium in 1972 because the court ruled that laws governing the death penalty in some states were arbitrary and capricious and therefore constituted cruel and unusual punishment. After death penalty laws were tightened at the state level, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty in 1976. Legal executions resumed the following year. In 1988, the Supreme Court decided 5-4 (Thompson v. Oklahoma), to strike down the juvenile death penalty for youth at the age of 16. In another 5-4 decision in 1989, (Stanford v. Kentucky) the court said states could impose the death penalty on offenders ages 16 and 17. Shaw says it would be a stretch to predict a near future reversal of McClesky v. Kemp, the 1987 race and the death penalty case. "I refuse to ever be hopeless because when you're hopeless, you might as well lay down and die," he says. William Shultz, director of Amnesty International U.S.A., which, for nearly 2 years, has led a global campaign against the juvenile death penalty, says a key to last week's win was that the U. S. had shamed itself in the context of the world. "The overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty is not controlling here, but provides respected and significant confirmation for the court's determination that the penalty is disproportionate punishment for offenders under 18," Kennedy writes. "The United States is the only country in the world that continues to give official sanction to the juvenile penalty." Agreeing with Kennedy were Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Justices Sandra Day O'Conner, Antonin Scalia, William Rehnquist and Clarence Thomas dissented. Shultz says opponents will continue to fight, focusing on race as well as other issues of unfairness. "We're going to have to keep fighting and this is not an easy fight," says Shaw. "One thing you know is you won't always win. But if you don't fight, you don't have a chance of winning. That's why I say we've got to keep hanging in there and keep swinging." (source: NNPA) MARYLAND: Inmate Indicted in Strangulation on Md. Prison Bus A 2-time convicted murderer who vowed at a court hearing that he would kill again if he did not get psychiatric help was indicted yesterday in Baltimore County on a first-degree murder charge in the strangling of a fellow inmate last month on a prison bus. Prosecutors said they would seek the death penalty against Kevin G. Johns, 22, who is accused of killing Philip E. Parker Jr., 20, hours after Parker testified on Johns's behalf at a Feb. 2 hearing in Hagerstown, Md. The bus that carried both men and 33 other prisoners from Hagerstown arrived at Maryland Correctional Adjustment Center in Baltimore at 4 the following morning. Parker was dead, and Johns had bloodstains on his shirt, according to accounts of the incident. Parker's killing resulted in the swift firing of three correctional officers who were on the bus, the suspension of another guard and the reprimand of the bus driver. It also sparked a host of changes in prisoner transportation policies, including requirements that security cameras be installed on prison buses and other vehicles, that interior lights be kept on at night and that commercial radios remain off. Additionally, the commissioner of the Maryland Division of Correction, Frank C. Sizer Jr., has ordered a review of the prison system's transportation policies. Mark Vernarelli, a spokesman for the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, said he is not sure how an inmate could have escaped from restraints to kill another prisoner on that bus. "There may have been a problem with the restraints," Vernarelli said. "To what extent they were restrained is part of the investigation." Johns's public defender, Stephen Musselman, did not return calls yesterday seeking comment on the indictment. Johns, who was serving a 35-year sentence for killing a relative in 2002, was sentenced to life in prison at the Hagerstown hearing for strangling his 16-year-old cellmate last year. Parker, who was assigned to the same Baltimore prison as Johns, was serving 42 months for unarmed robbery. Parker had testified that Johns had a bad temper and had repeatedly asked for psychological treatment. Baltimore County prosecutor Ann Brobst, who is handling the death penalty case, said the bus slaying occurred on Interstate 70 as the vehicle traveled about four miles through the county on its way to Baltimore. She declined to say how she knew that the killing took place in Baltimore County. The bus traveled through four jurisdictions, including Howard County and Baltimore. "I can't discuss the evidence in the case," Brobst said. She said the case is eligible for the death penalty under Maryland law because Johns was serving a life sentence at the time of the murder. She said the county's policy is to seek the death penalty in every case that is eligible. Michael Stark, spokesman for the Maryland-based Campaign to End the Death Penalty, pointed out that Baltimore County is one of the most aggressive death penalty jurisdictions. Of the eight people on Maryland's death row, 5 are from Baltimore County. "This is a ridiculous gesture on behalf of prosecutors who are trying to make themselves tough," he said. (source: Washington Post) NEW YORK: Poll: Voters split on death penalty restoration New York voters are almost evenly split on whether the state should put the death penalty back on the books, but a majority prefer life-without-parole sentences for murderers, a statewide poll reported Tuesday. 46 % of voters told the Siena College Research Institute pollsters the death penalty should not be re-instituted while 42 percent said it should. Asked what was the "more appropriate punishment for 1st-degree murderers," 56 % opted for life without parole while 29 % favored death. The poll comes out as the New York Legislature continues to wrestle with the death penalty issue. A death penalty law was restored in 1995 by the then-newly elected Republican Gov. George Pataki and the Legislature, but it was effectively declared unconstitutional by New York's highest court last year. Since then, Pataki and the state Senate's Republican majority have pressed for a new law, but Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, a Democrat, has stalled the effort with a series of public hearings. Silver has said he cannot promise the Assembly will even vote on a death penalty bill this year. While Pataki has argued that the death penalty is a crime deterrent, the Siena poll found that New York voters aren't particularly concerned about crime right now. Asked to identify the most pressing issue facing the state, 24 % said improving education; 18 % said health care; and 14 % said creating new jobs. Just 3 % of voters identified crime as the most important issue facing the state. The telephone poll by the Albany-area institute of 600 registered voters was conducted Feb. 28-March 4 and has a sampling error margin of plus or minus 4 percentage points. (source: Associated Press)
