Christopher Simmons, age 17, high school junior, wanted to murder someone. It’s unclear just why the young Mr. Simmons wanted to murder someone, but it is clear that he did. He had a specific plan: commit burglary, find victim, tie up victim, throw victim off bridge. He enlisted two friends to help him.

He assured them that they could “get away with it” because they were minors.

Well, in an age where most people just talk about their dreams, Chris Simmons took the initiative and followed through. He and his comrades broke into the home of Shirley Crook, covered her eyes and mouth with duct tape, threw her in the back of her own minivan, and drove to a state park.

The trio then resecured her bindings, wrapped some electrical wire around her legs, walked out onto a railroad trestle, and dumped the living woman into the waters of the Meramec River, where she drowned.

Mrs. Crook’s husband came home, found his bedroom in disarray, and reported his wife missing. Fishermen found her body. Christopher Simmons, having bragged about killing the woman because the “bitch seen [sic] my face,” was arrested. He quickly confessed, even agreeing to carry out a physical reenactment of the murder.

The State sought the death penalty, and with the help of testimony from the victim’s family, fished what they wished. Simmons appealed, appealed, appealed, and finally the Missouri Supreme Court overruled the sentence. Though the U.S. Supreme Court had held in Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U.S. 361, 106 L. Ed. 2d 306, 109 S. Ct. 2969 (1989) that there was no constitutional bar against the juvenile death penalty, the Missouri Court ruled times have changed since then, and apparently the Constitution with them. (Also the Missouri Supreme Court has somehow achieved the power to overrule the supposedly sovereign Federal Supreme Court’s rulings by its own initiative.)

Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, apparently agreed. Execution of minors was unconstitutional.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a scathing dissent that pointed out a number of problems with the majority opinion.

1) The majority pointed out that 47% of states that use the death penalty also have law making execution of minor illegal. When Stanford v Kentucky was written, 42% of the states that use the death penalty had laws prohibitting minors' execution. So a whole 5% swing and 15 years somehow allowed the Supreme Court to change their decision.

Scalia writes:

"In urging approval of a constitution that gave life-tenured judges the power to nullify laws enacted by the people’s representatives, Alexander Hamilton assured the citizens of New York that there was little risk in this, since “the judiciary . . . has neither FORCE nor WILL but merely judgment.” The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961). But Hamilton had in mind a traditional judiciary, “bound down by strict rules and precedents which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them.” Id., at 471. Bound down, indeed. What a mockery today’s opinion makes of Hamilton’s expectation, announcing the Court’s conclusion that the meaning of our Constitution has changed over the past 15 years – not, mind you, that this Court’s decision 15 years ago was wrong, but that the Constitution has changed. The Court reaches this implausible result by purporting to advert, not to the original meaning of the Eighth Amendment, but to “the evolving standards of decency,” ante, at 6 (internal quotation marks omitted), of our national society. It then finds, on the flimsiest of grounds, that a national consensus which could not be perceived in our people’s laws barely 15 years ago now solidly exists. Worse still, the Court says in so many words that what our people’s laws say about the issue does not, in the last analysis, matter: “In the end our own judgment will be brought to bear on the question of the acceptability of the death penalty under the Eighth Amendment.” Ante, at 9 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court thus proclaims itself sole arbiter of our Nation’s moral standards – and in the course of discharging that awesome responsibility purports to take guidance from the views of foreign courts and legislatures. Because I do not believe that the meaning of our Eighth Amendment, any more than the meaning of other provisions of our Constitution, should be determined by the subjective views of five Members of this Court and like-minded foreigners, I dissent."

2) Scalia also tosses a grenade at the American Psychological Association. He points out that inn an abortion case before the Supreme Court in 1990 (Hodgson v Minnesota), the APA said a "rich body of research' showed that by age 14 or 15 people are mature enough to choose abortion because they have "abilities similar to adults in reasoning about moral dilemmas." But the APA does a 180 just in time for Ropver v Simmons, in which it told the court that minors just are not mature enough to be elligible for capital punishment.
:hitout:

3) The majority carries on to assure us that not only does it not give a damn what we, its own citizens, think of the issue, but, that it does give a damn what the citizens of foreign countries think. Scalia:

"The Court begins by noting that “Article 37 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, [1577 U. N. T. S. 3, 28 I. L. M. 1448, 1468-1470, entered into force Sept. 2, 1990], which every country in the world has ratified save for the United States and Somalia, contains an express prohibition on capital punishment for crimes committed by juveniles under 18.”

Scalia goes on to point out that in this enthusiasm for international law, the Court has been curiously hesitant to adopt some other prevailing opinions in the international community today. For instance, no other country has such a rigid division between church and state, and few other countries practice the exclusionary rule (excluding evidence found to be the product of an illegal search). And the United States is one of only six nations that allows abortion on demand. But don't look for the majority to invoke internation standards if another Roe v Wade makes it back in front of the Supreme Court, oh no!!!

“To invoke alien law when it agrees with one’s own thinking, and ignore it otherwise, is not reasoned decisionmaking, but sophistry.”

I wonder what Justice Scalia would think of allforums.

Originally posted by Karankawa
Christopher Simmons, age 17, high school junior, wanted to murder someone. It’s unclear just why the young Mr. Simmons wanted to murder someone, but it is clear that he did. He had a specific plan: commit burglary, find victim, tie up victim, throw victim off bridge. He enlisted two friends to help him.

He assured them that they could “get away with it” because they were minors.

Well, in an age where most people just talk about their dreams, Chris Simmons took the initiative and followed through. He and his comrades broke into the home of Shirley Crook, covered her eyes and mouth with duct tape, threw her in the back of her own minivan, and drove to a state park.

The trio then resecured her bindings, wrapped some electrical wire around her legs, walked out onto a railroad trestle, and dumped the living woman into the waters of the Meramec River, where she drowned.

Mrs. Crook’s husband came home, found his bedroom in disarray, and reported his wife missing. Fishermen found her body. Christopher Simmons, having bragged about killing the woman because the “bitch seen [sic] my face,” was arrested. He quickly confessed, even agreeing to carry out a physical reenactment of the murder.

The State sought the death penalty, and with the help of testimony from the victim’s family, fished what they wished. Simmons appealed, appealed, appealed, and finally the Missouri Supreme Court overruled the sentence. Though the U.S. Supreme Court had held in Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U.S. 361, 106 L. Ed. 2d 306, 109 S. Ct. 2969 (1989) that there was no constitutional bar against the juvenile death penalty, the Missouri Court ruled times have changed since then, and apparently the Constitution with them. (Also the Missouri Supreme Court has somehow achieved the power to overrule the supposedly sovereign Federal Supreme Court’s rulings by its own initiative.)

Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, apparently agreed. Execution of minors was unconstitutional.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a scathing dissent that pointed out a number of problems with the majority opinion.

1) The majority pointed out that 47% of states that use the death penalty also have law making execution of minor illegal. When Stanford v Kentucky was written, 42% of the states that use the death penalty had laws prohibitting minors' execution. So a whole 5% swing and 15 years somehow allowed the Supreme Court to change their decision.

Scalia writes:

"In urging approval of a constitution that gave life-tenured judges the power to nullify laws enacted by the people’s representatives, Alexander Hamilton assured the citizens of New York that there was little risk in this, since “the judiciary . . . has neither FORCE nor WILL but merely judgment.” The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961). But Hamilton had in mind a traditional judiciary, “bound down by strict rules and precedents which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them.” Id., at 471. Bound down, indeed. What a mockery today’s opinion makes of Hamilton’s expectation, announcing the Court’s conclusion that the meaning of our Constitution has changed over the past 15 years – not, mind you, that this Court’s decision 15 years ago was wrong, but that the Constitution has changed. The Court reaches this implausible result by purporting to advert, not to the original meaning of the Eighth Amendment, but to “the evolving standards of decency,” ante, at 6 (internal quotation marks omitted), of our national society. It then finds, on the flimsiest of grounds, that a national consensus which could not be perceived in our people’s laws barely 15 years ago now solidly exists. Worse still, the Court says in so many words that what our people’s laws say about the issue does not, in the last analysis, matter: “In the end our own judgment will be brought to bear on the question of the acceptability of the death penalty under the Eighth Amendment.” Ante, at 9 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court thus proclaims itself sole arbiter of our Nation’s moral standards – and in the course of discharging that awesome responsibility purports to take guidance from the views of foreign courts and legislatures. Because I do not believe that the meaning of our Eighth Amendment, any more than the meaning of other provisions of our Constitution, should be determined by the subjective views of five Members of this Court and like-minded foreigners, I dissent."

2) Scalia also tosses a grenade at the American Psychological Association. He points out that inn an abortion case before the Supreme Court in 1990 (Hodgson v Minnesota), the APA said a "rich body of research' showed that by age 14 or 15 people are mature enough to choose abortion because they have "abilities similar to adults in reasoning about moral dilemmas." But the APA does a 180 just in time for Ropver v Simmons, in which it told the court that minors just are not mature enough to be elligible for capital punishment.
:hitout:

3) The majority carries on to assure us that not only does it not give a damn what we, its own citizens, think of the issue, but, that it does give a damn what the citizens of foreign countries think. Scalia:

"The Court begins by noting that “Article 37 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, [1577 U. N. T. S. 3, 28 I. L. M. 1448, 1468-1470, entered into force Sept. 2, 1990], which every country in the world has ratified save for the United States and Somalia, contains an express prohibition on capital punishment for crimes committed by juveniles under 18.”

Scalia goes on to point out that in this enthusiasm for international law, the Court has been curiously hesitant to adopt some other prevailing opinions in the international community today. For instance, no other country has such a rigid division between church and state, and few other countries practice the exclusionary rule (excluding evidence found to be the product of an illegal search). And the United States is one of only six nations that allows abortion on demand. But don't look for the majority to invoke internation standards if another Roe v Wade makes it back in front of the Supreme Court, oh no!!!

“To invoke alien law when it agrees with one’s own thinking, and ignore it otherwise, is not reasoned decisionmaking, but sophistry.”

I wonder what Justice Scalia would think of allforums.

alien law violates the constitution, but there is the fact of what does a "minor" mean?

Originally posted by Karankawa
Christopher Simmons had a specific plan: commit burglary, find victim, tie up victim, throw victim off bridge. He enlisted two friends to help him....
The trio then resecured her bindings, wrapped some electrical wire around her legs, walked out onto a railroad trestle, and dumped the living woman into the waters of the Meramec River, where she drowned.....The State sought the death penalty, and with the help of testimony from the victim’s family, fished what they wished.

Given the fact that he confessed, my recommendation would be that the accused --immediately after the guilty verdict was announced--- should be removed to a private courtyard behind the courthouse and executed --within minutes-- in the most painless manner available.

I cannot imagine any use for people like him in this society.

(I am not extremely liberal on ALL issues.)

Originally posted by Freethinker
should be removed to a private courtyard behind the courthouse and executed --within minutes-- in the most painless manner available.

I didn't see that one coming.

Personally I'm not a major fan of executing minors, and really not a huge fan of the death penalty, but I have to agree with Scalia. Whether executing minors is cruel and unusual pretty much depends on personal opinion and therefore to me isn't really a matter for the courts.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
I didn't see that one coming.

Personally I'm not a major fan of executing minors

IMO, if he is adult enough to premeditatedly kidnap a woman, wire her wrists immobile, and throw her from a bridge and drown her, he is adult enough to be executed like the callous fiend he is.

IMO, if he is adult enough to premeditatedly kidnap a woman, wire her wrists immobile, and throw her from a bridge and drown her, he is adult enough to be executed like the callous fiend he is.
Not to the government. By the way, while it is an adult thing to do("Daddy did it, why can't I Mommy?"), it's still very immature. He isn't seen by the government in any way shape or form an adult, he shouldn't be seen in the court system as one, regardless of what he did. At 17 he is still considered a child and has no say in the governing body, that precludes the ability of the government to make decisions that cost him his life as the government currently has no sovereign hold over him. (Simple political theory, a governing body gains it's rights to rule from those governed, if they don't allow a say from a group then they have no ethical, moral, political, etc. right to govern them)

I hate the way the Supreme Court has run with the 8th Amendment. The way they decide "cruel and unusual" seems completely arbitrary and contrary to the way legal opinions should be handed down.

I don't understand how the Court has gone on to ignore the "and" in "cruel and unusual." Legal writings (including the Constitution) are very careful in how they employ "and" and "or." "And" is used to convey inclusivity. Therefore, normally, "cruel and unsual" would mean that the punishment would have to be both cruel AND unusual. Cruelty alone would not be enough to invoke the protection 8th amendment.

Anyways, that's the way it should be interpreted IMO. Particularly since any punishment could easily be considered "cruel."

In short, I think the Supreme Court has really goofed in its intepretation of the 8th amendment, and now that amendment is being used to promote political platforms.

Originally posted by Blibblob
Simple political theory, a governing body gains it's rights to rule from those governed, if they don't allow a say from a group then they have no ethical, moral, political, etc. right to govern them

By that standard, the governmental would have no authority over convicted felons, people with diminished capacity or foreign nationals. The right to vote is not a realistic way to make your ethical, moral or political determination

IF he did orchestrate and enlist the help of two other in commiting this wanton violence I think he should be executed.

I am against the death penalty because I see no excuse for murdering innocent victems. This is not the case. He has confessed and seems to be an extreme danger to society. Life in prison seems far more cruel then execution. I disagree with FT I think he should be given a year to think about what hes done then be executed.

By that standard, the governmental would have no authority over convicted felons, people with diminished capacity or foreign nationals. The right to vote is not a realistic way to make your ethical, moral or political determination
You're drawing your conclusion from your incomplete understanding of political theory. I was speaking very specifically about minors only and drawing only a small bit of the requirements behind governing bodies. I could go into detail if you would like, or you could read John Locke's The Two Treatises of Civil Government, Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Social Contract(or the theories in them), and reacquaint yourself with the Declaration of Independence, which covers the rights of government. In short(as I have said before), a criminal has broken the laws he previously agreed with(by living under the government and recieving those benefits) and thusly is really no longer a part of society. To return to society(really no choice in the matter, this is speaking of a purely democratic state), he must face society's consequences(which cannot go far enough to require him to relinquish his inaliable rights(my disagreement with capital punishment in general)). Foreigns chose to visit the society and must follow society's rules. Since they are merely visiting they have no say, they aren't a part of society. Regarding diminished capacity I cannot say, to be honest I'm not exactly sure what that means, and it may very well be the government overstepping it's bounds. What may make everything I previously said pointless may be me reminding you that I said "decisions that cost him his life". Also, it would be an inaliable right, something I don't think any person or organization has the right to remove from any person for whatever reason... ever.

Sorry Blib. Didn't have the supplemental reading guide to decipher your first post. Mistook it for self-explanatory original thought.

IMO, if he is adult enough to premeditatedly kidnap a woman, wire her wrists immobile, and throw her from a bridge and drown her, he is adult enough to be executed like the callous fiend he is.


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Blibblob
Not to the government. By the way, while it is an adult thing to do ("Daddy did it, why can't I Mommy?"), it's still very immature. He isn't seen by the government in any way shape or form an adult

I am fully cognizant of that fact.

That does not mean it is fair that he should be allowed to commit the henous crime to which he confessed and be spared execution because of being 1 year "too young".

Originally posted by Blibblob
, he shouldn't be seen in the court system as one [a person too young to be eligible for execution) , regardless of what he did.

We disagree.

Originally posted by Blibblob
At 17 he is still considered a child and has no say in the governing body, that precludes the ability of the government to make decisions that cost him his life as the government currently has no sovereign hold over him. (Simple political theory, a governing body gains it's rights to rule from those governed, if they don't allow a say from a group then they have no ethical, moral, political, etc. right to govern them)

If that were the determinant, then I ---as a person with absolutely ZERO political representation in this country due to my extremely liberal viewpoint--- am also a person whom the government currently should have ***no sovereign hold over***.

There is not ONE politician in the US federal Government past or present who I support or have supported for office, from the lowliest Representative to the President, who is serving in political office. I pay income taxes in 5 figures, and have for decades, yet I have ZERO political representation in Washington D.C.

I guess that means that the USGovernment --IOW, a governing body--- has no ethical, moral, political, etc. right to govern me.

That does not mean it is fair that he should be allowed to commit the henous crime to which he confessed and be spared execution because of being 1 year "too young".
I entirely agree. However, with the current system in place, he should not be granted the consequences of an adult with full civil rights.

I guess that means that the USGovernment --IOW, a governing body--- has no ethical, moral, political, etc. right to govern me.
Read the second, longer, post of mine. However, if you do not wish to give consent to those governing bodies, don't, and leave. Now read exactly what I said, because that's how I meant it. If the government "[doesn't] allow a say from a group then they have no ethical, moral, political, etc. right to govern them".
Declaration of Independence:
"...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Take note still, that the government is to protect this concept: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". Life is in there. Where does the government derive it's right to commit murder?

Originally posted by Blibblob
[Where does the government derive it's right to commit murder?

For me, i guess i'd say THAT is covered under the ---""laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness"--- segment of that statement.

Having a coldblooded killer among us affects our *safety*.

Is it too much to ask that we--as a group of people living together-- should be free to determine--- "This person is proven beyond any doubt to be dangerous to the safety of our society. We can either execute him, or keep him confined for 50 or 60 years. The confinement will cost the taxpayers many times more than an execution. Ergo, execution is the preferable alternative."...........??!????

[note; for those who will counter by saying the cost of an execution is as much as keeping a person jailed for 50 years, if that IS true, then we are carrying out the executions in the wrong way]

Originally posted by Blibblob

If the government "[doesn't] allow a say from a group then they have no ethical, moral, political, etc. right to govern them".


Life is in there. Where does the government derive it's right to commit murder?

Death penalty aside, does the government then have the right to utilize ANY punishment against "non-voting" lawbreakers?

For me, i guess i'd say THAT is covered under the ---""laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness"--- segment of that statement.
Having a coldblooded killer among us affects our *safety*.
Wrong. Try understanding the concept of unalienable(often spelled as inalienable, unalienable is how it is spelled in the Declaration of Independence) right. It shall not be infringed upon, ever, for any reason whatsoever. Just because it's done does not make it right. A government is to protect unalienable rights, not infringe upon them to protect other's unalienable rights. That one is simple. There is no deep complexity in that. Unalienable rights may not be infringed. Humans are punished for doing so, a government should be too.



Death penalty aside, does the government then have the right to utilize ANY punishment against "non-voting" lawbreakers?
Technically no(depends on the law, driving is on roads owned by the government, consent to the government is given by being on the road, same with similar laws), the individual who was affected by it though would, of course, always. But if the victim was either too harsh, breaks the laws he agreed to(to the constitution it doesn't matter who the person is, if they're in the country's boundries they're protected), etc then society has the right to punish. Thing to note though, all societies step the bounds of their rights, and if nobody says anything then they are now within their rights.
(difficult synthesizing modern and real applications of political theory)