www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Supreme Court Forbids Execution of Youths!

March 1st, 2005

High Court Ends Death Penalty for Youths

By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - 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, violate the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment.


The ruling continues the court's practice of narrowing the scope of the death penalty, which justices reinstated in 1976. The court in 1988 outlawed executions for those 15 and younger when they committed their crimes. Three years ago justices banned executions of the mentally retarded.


Tuesday's ruling prevents states from making 16- and 17-year-olds eligible for execution.


"The age of 18 is the point where society draws the line for many purposes between childhood and adulthood. It is, we conclude, the age at which the line for death eligibility ought to rest," Justice Anthony Kennedy (news - web sites) wrote.


Juvenile offenders have been put to death in recent years in only a few other countries, including Iran (news - web sites), Pakistan, China and Saudi Arabia. Kennedy cited international opposition to the practice.


"It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty, resting in large part on the understanding that the instability and emotional imbalance of young people may often be a factor in the crime," he wrote.


Kennedy noted most states don't allow the execution of juvenile killers and those that do use the penalty infrequently. The trend, he said, is to abolish the practice because "our society views juveniles ... as categorically less culpable than the average criminal."


In a dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia (news - web sites) disputed that there is a clear trend of declining juvenile executions to justify a growing consensus against the practice.


"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,'" he wrote.


"The court thus proclaims itself sole arbiter of our nation's moral standards," Scalia wrote.


The Supreme Court has permitted states to impose capital punishment since 1976 and more than 3,400 inmates await execution in the 38 states that allow death sentences.


Justices were called on to draw an age line in death cases after Missouri's highest court overturned the death sentence given to Christopher Simmons, who was 17 when he kidnapped a neighbor, hog-tied her and threw her off a bridge in 1993. Prosecutors say he planned the burglary and killing of Shirley Crook and bragged that he could get away with it because of his age.


The four most liberal justices had already gone on record in 2002, calling it "shameful" to execute juvenile killers. Those four, joined by Kennedy, formed Tuesday's decision: Justices John Paul Stevens (news - web sites), David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg (news - web sites) and Stephen Breyer (news - web sites).


Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, Justice Clarence Thomas (news - web sites) and Scalia, as expected, voted to uphold the executions. They were joined by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (news - web sites).


The 19 states allow executions for people under age 18 are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Utah, Texas and Virginia.

Finally...something the USA can be proud of!

Praise to the Lord...all thanks to His Most Holy Mother!

In His GREAT mercy,
+Fr. Gregory

I have opposed capital punishment since my early teens - and that's been a long time ago. But I do realize that some of these 17-year-olds are career criminals who definitely need to be locked away where they can do no harm to anyone else. They are hardly innocents.

From a moral standpoint, I am glad of the short-term results of the court's decision, but ultimately I have to agree with Justice Scalia's comments. The decision was based upon practices in other countries, international opinion, and (in one account) on the need for youths to "achieve a mature understanding of their humanity." This is nothing more than judicial usurpation of the legislative role, and in no way constitutes constitutional scholarship.

It is precisely this kind of "legal reasoning" that underpinned Roe v. Wade, the overthrow of sodomy laws, etc. It is nothing more than choosing an outcome that the majority of the justices prefer, and then trying to make it sound as if there were high legal or constitutional principles at work.

The way to get rid of bad laws is to pray and VOTE in an informed ways in state legislative races. Trusting in a tyranny of the nine lawyers in robes is not, in the long run, a wise or safe approach to resolving moral issues.

Interesting point and argument.

Is it acceptable for Scalia to argue constitutional law over morality? Should he be denied communion for this?

djs,

That assumes that abortion and capital punishment are equivalent. Are they?

Well, it is interesting to note that Scalia has a history of criticizing Catholics when it comes to the Church's stand on the death penalty.

A very telling article is here: http://www.nhcadp.org/scalia_vs_pope_catholic_judges.htm

Scalia on the one hand has said that those judges who believe and follow the Catholic Church's teaching have no right to be on the bench. Why? Because they would be going what is against the law of the land.

Why do I believe there is hypocracy going on?

On the one hand, Catholics who hold Catholic views should be allowed to be on the benches. When it comes to abortion, despite it being the law of the land, Scalia certainly thinks the method to overcome abortion is to put those who oppose it on the benches! Indeed, DJS is correct in saying that Scalia is in reality not helping the Catholic cause, but hindering it far more than many of the politicians criticized during the election, because he is trying to dictate which parts of the Church's teaching should be held by those in key positions, and getting the so-called conservative to agree with him against the Church.

Scalia did not say that those who oppose the death penalty have no right to be on the bench. He said, "In my view, the choice for the judge who believes the death penalty to be immoral is resignation rather than simply ignoring duly enacted constitutional laws and sabotaging the death penalty."

In other words, if the judge feels that upholding the law from the bench is immoral, then he should resign, not simply usurp a legislative authority that is not properly his. We call people who set the law of the land on their own personal whims dictators. It matters not if they wear khakis in Baghdad or black robes in Washington D.C. In our government, laws are supposed to be crafted by legislators and approved by executives, both elected by the people.

And Scalia is not being inconsistent by saying that the only way to end abortion is by having like-minded judges appointed to the court, since the court has already usurped the legislative role by ruling in favor of abortion. Scalia would argue that the court had no business interjecting its personal moral beliefs in the area of abortion, and likewise has no business doing so in the case of capital punishment. But once it has already done so in the case of abortion, the only way to undo the damage is to have a future court repudiate the earlier Roe v. Wade decision.

I support capital punishment for adults. I do not support it for children.

The appeal to international law is very troubling. Our rights do not come to us from international law nor should international law be used as a basis for determining constitutional matters in the United States. On what basis do they justify this appeal to this particular international law? On what basis will a future court use for not using other international law as a precedent? One can easily imagine many international laws that are scary (suppose a future court decides to use the precedence of Iranian law, which permits the execution of homosexuals? Or the precedence of the pro-euthanasia laws of some of the countries of northern Europe?). On what basis does the court presume to pick and choose? We must return to a strict interpretation of the Constitution according to the letter of the Constitution. The proper way to address this issue is through the legislatures, not through an activist court.

These questions are based upon false assumptions.

The Church supports the right of a state to use capital punishment at the same time it asks that the state to always show mercy and not use capital punishment. One may believe in the use of capital punishment and remain a Catholic in good standing. This is not an issue of placing constitutional law over morality and there is no basis for a suggestion of denying Communion.

djs� obvious reference is to recent discussions in our country over denying communion to pro-abortion politicians. The Church has a long history of excommunicating those who knowingly and voluntarily procure abortion; assist in performing an abortion, and etc. The question the bishops have been discussing is whether a politician who voluntarily engages in pro-abortion legislation (or support for abortion and other anti-life issues) can be denied Communion. One may not be pro-abortion and remain a Catholic in good standing.

DTB et al.,

I think that this issue should be discussed on its own merits, not simply by direct comparison to abortion. I think that we are all fully aware of the distinction between the intrinsic immorality of abortion and the non-intrinsic immorality that captial punishment can assume. And frankly after many posts on such matters I taken aback by the suggestion that I am unaware of the distinction or making some false assumption. :rolleyes: This issue I raised has nothing to do with the relative immorality of one sin vs another. Instead, I am asking about this:

Application of the moral principles regarding cooperation in evil has led many to the idea that a legislator or executive must put moral law above the idea of limiting their actions because of their limited role within our liberal democracy.

Now, how does this apply to judges?

Scalia's argument in the case of juvenile capital punishment - putting aside his more general remarks about capital punishment - includes criticism of other judges for acting on impulses, which include moral impulses, that he sees as not being within the realm of the state-sanctioned criteria by which cases should be adjudicated. This is an argument that judges should avoid "judicial activism" even, perhaps, if that avoidance implies cooperation with evil, at some level. What level would be legitimate in Catholic thinking?

The idea that a judge should resign in the face of a conflict between moral principle and activism is interesting. It, of course, implies a nasty descent: principled judges are likely to eventually reach a conflict that makes them resign; but unprincipled ones never do. This is not, IMO, a good solution.

I disagree. You raised the premise of denying communion to Justice Scalia. Since denying communion to those in public life has been discussed recently only with regard to abortion such a comparison must be part of the debate.

You have not yet made an argument how you see support of capital punishment as a non-intrinsic immorality. If you state that support for capital punishment �can assume� �non-intrinsic immorality� you must provide context.

Look at the Roe v Wade decision. The �right� to abortion was not created upon the letter of the Constitution. It was created by judges acting on their personal moral impulse to allow unrestricted abortion. In this decision regarding capital punishment of children Justice Kennedy appealed not to the Constitution but to the general consensus, both here in the United States and in whatever part of the world he considers to be civilized. Instead he should have appealed to the text of the Constitution since that is the authority for interpreting United States law. Justice Kennedy overstepped his authority by making his decision on consensus and international law rather than upon the letter of the Constitution. That is an example of placing one�s personal morality upon the nation through judicial activism. [The state and/or federal legislature is the proper vehicle for setting penalties for crimes. The Court should rule on consitutionality based upon the Constitution, not international law or general consensus.]

Need I suggest that if Justice Kennedy can appeal to worldwide consensus of opinion or international law on this issue they a future judge could then legitimately appeal to consensus or international law on other issues? Suppose a future Muslim Supreme Court judge appeals to the laws in countries ruled by Islamic Law and decides that the execution of apostates from Islam (or the execution of homosexual individuals, or of wives that husbands don�t like, etc.,) is now legitimate because a worldwide consensus has developed and there is precedence in Islamic Law?

A difficult question.

One can roughly compare this (at least as a starting point) to someone who does not believe in taking up arms in any situation joining the military. Such an individual can morally choose such a course. He can also join the military and serve in noncombatant roles. But it would be immoral for him to voluntarily join the general infantry and then, once on the battlefield, indicate that he is opposed to taking up arms. [Once one voluntarily commits to a course of action changing one�s mind can be immoral.]

Regarding judges and the death penalty, I think there would be a few ways to examine this.

1. A judge who is against the death penalty who seeks and obtains a judicial position in order to strike down laws against the death penalty (regardless of what the Constitution says).

2. A judge who is against the death penalty who seeks and obtains a judicial position but would recuse himself on cases regarding the death penalty.

3. A judge who is against the death penalty who seeks and obtains a judicial position but is willing to rule on death penalty cases on the basis of the letter of the U.S. Constitution.

Since there is a well-established respect by the Church for the state to inflict capital punishment for appropriate cases (even while seeking mercy) Judge #1 would be wrong, in my opinion, to seek a position on the court from which to actively change the law. I don�t see any issues with Judges #2 and #3 (unless the court in question dealt only with capital punishment cases, in which Judge #2 would be wrong).

djs, can you provide a less broad context for your question (i.e., examples of specific evils) so that we may better discuss it?

See my comments on Judge #1 above.

Your suggestion that principled judges will eventually reach a conflict that could only be resolved by their resigning is very broad. It needs development and support.

I do agree that unprincipled judges never seem to resign.

Dear Administrator,

I'm inclined to agree with you - so I will.

In terms of the judicial process, I found what you said interesting from the Canadian context.

For instance, judges here do indeed look at what other judges have decided in other jurisdictions within: a) the Commonwealth; b) the U.S. courts c) almost any other court around the world that has treated a similar subject, irrespective of the type of government involved.

Also, judges here do indeed attempt to interpret "changing public standards" as they are currently (according to them).

So a judge here can say that he or she feels that community standards regarding this or that aspect of pornography have changed (or not) and this will figure into the final judgement.

What constitutes your "Constitution?" What number of documents are included under that title? What about previous judgements in the U.S. etc.?

Alex

I disagree. The recent discussion involved fundamental principles of moral culpability in the cooperation with evil. That is the question that I raised. You of course may answer any question that you like.

The distinction in the teaching of the church is clear and has been rehashed in many, many threads. You and I have discussed this ourselves on these threads. I stipulate to it and want to move on the judicial dilemma.

A discussion of reasonble criteria for adjudication is not what I was asking about, although it is an interesting and debatable
question.

Yes, that's my question.

This is a good point, and I don't have a good specific example. But ISTM that Scalia already introduced the abstract idea that strict-constitutional jurisprudence should be adhered to over activism, even moral activism. Maybe not, but I think that such a hypothetical question might be approached by Catholic moral theology.

Well I suppose they might die before that happens. On the other hand, there are those who think that every law, inherently, includes a moral aspect, and thus every legal decision involves a moral one. So conflicts could well arise sooner.

In defense of Scalia his view of the death penalty is the catholcism he grew up with. The church has done a total 180 on this issue in fact as recently as the first edition of the cathechism the death penalty was given a pass the language was extremely modified in the second edition to exclude the death penalty unless your pretty much in the third world.
Not to mention prior to vatican 2 the death penalty was actually encouraged by the catholic church. The church claims to never have reversed her teachings and for the most part they have a solid case on moral issues but the death penalty is problematic in that area it seems the church has gone as it possibly can under the direction of JOhn Paul 2 to reverse the teachings of all the Popes before himwe have to remeber their was a catholcism before John Paul 2 and in the case of the death penalty other Popes taught radically differently on this subject that the current pope. So it would make sense to catholics who remember that the church used to support the death penalty that naturally the beleive they are within catholic teaching to support the death penalty. IF you weigh the evidence of tradition the majority tradition is pro capital punishment. WE have become a church so influnced by John Paul 2 that we forget the teachings that he has seemingly changed.
IT is quite possible though not likely the next pope might go back to a more moderate postion on the death penalty and allow it in certain cirmcumstances other than inadequate prisions.

ANd I am speaking as a person is against the death penalty but upon reading older opinoins on this subject I have to conclude the church has changed her postion on this subect.

Tobit, I am very surprised that you see current teaching on capital punishment as being in diametric opposition to earlier teaching. Can you support this claim with earlier teaching?