The “Stark Reality” Is That Anthony Kennedy Is a Weasel
In his opinion striking down the death penalty for juveniles, Justice Anthony “Whatever Makes the New York Times Editorial Board Happy” Kennedy says:
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.
His opinion, and the vapid L.A. Times editorial praising it, scream out for fisking. Unfortunately, I don’t have the time at this moment.
But I’d better hurry. I may not have much longer to say what I am going to say. I am angry, and “evolving standards of decency” might be inconsistent with my expressing my views. After all, the “stark reality” is that the United States is the “only country in the world” that has the First Amendment. That fact alone calls my freedom of expression into question in the eyes of the Anthony Kennedys of this world.
” 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.”
Doesn’t somalia?
“After all, the “stark reality” is that the United States is the “only country in the world” that has the First Amendment”
Lots of countries give official sanction to free expression. The UN declaration of human rights includes it. Of course de-facto that means nothing, because no supreme court is enforcing that, but at least ‘official sanction’ is there.
Also, a recent european court of human rights ruling overturned a british defamation verdict (and probably their entire pro-plaintiff defamation system) on the grounds, at least partially, of free expression. This is the McLibel case.
actus (ebc508) — 3/2/2005 @ 7:43 amNot company I especially like being linked to, but can you say “Iran?” Just read the news for the past 6 months.
Due process here is a bit different than there, but it’s rather easy to prove Kennedy wrong on the “facts” he uses to support this rather blatant rewriting of the Constitution. It’s the place of the Congress (and the voters via ratification) to amend the Constitution, not the Supreme Court. But I guess the Supreme Court has already reinterpreted that section too…
Dan S (67f35e) — 3/2/2005 @ 8:02 amWell, in McCain-Feingold, at least, Kennedy was on the right side:
Kevin Murphy (6a7945) — 3/2/2005 @ 8:11 amThe “stark reality” is that “international” doesn’t include all or even most countries, only the ones Justice Kennedy thinks are cool, and then only on the issues that make them cool. To test my theory, try passing a ballot initiative in California that declares Lutheranism and Catholicism the two official religions of the state, both of which will now be funded not by passing around the offering plate on Sunday, but by having the FTB collect a “church tax” on all their members. Then, when the ACLU does the right thing (for once) by challenging it in court, defend on the basis that official churches conform to the “overwhelming weight of international opinion.”
Xrlq (e2795d) — 3/2/2005 @ 11:29 amI’m always fascinated how the Tribe Casinos have a hyper-right to free speech. Their gambling winnings have been mostly tax free, and they’ve been able to dump over $100 million into campaign ads over the years. When the Gov. and citizens who oppose unlimited gambling expansion raise money, they get contributions from people who’ve already been forced to pay heavy taxes.
Then they run ads showing the benefits from their charities, while ignoring that all that tax-free money came from gambling losses from people who live nearby.
Ladainian (91b3b2) — 3/2/2005 @ 11:41 amPerhaps the good Justice Kennedy can point out to me the passage in our Constitution that states our laws are to be judged upon what our neighbors think.
That’s missing from my copy.
Charlie on the Pennsylvania Turnpike (23eb22) — 3/2/2005 @ 11:53 amTwo points on this case, Patterico, one original.
First, Michael Medved today noted that the reasoning used to arrive at the finding itself was that a juvenile’s mind is not yet sufficiently formed to have a sufficient mens re to justify execution, because there is still the ability for it to reform. So Medved asks, by this same reasoning, couldn’t the Court tomorrow likewise strike down the sentence “life without possibliity of parole” for offenders who were juveniles? And if so, then how can we be sure that, for example, Dylan and Kleibold won’t simply be let go on, say, their twenty-fifth birthdays?
Second point, this one mine: are we not also the only country in the world that elects a president via the electoral college, which gives disproportionate power to the smaller states? This particular method has come under major attack recently by the Left, which sees a mass “democratic” election (a national plebescite) as giving more power to the urban population centers and therefore benefitting leftist candidates.
How long, I wonder, before some enterprising Democrat files a case in federal court using Justice Kennedy’s decision above as authority to declare unconstitutional Article II of the Constitution?
Dafydd
Dafydd (df2f54) — 3/2/2005 @ 1:16 pm“Second point, this one mine: are we not also the only country in the world that elects a president via the electoral college, which gives disproportionate power to the smaller states?”
Whats the hook that you’ll use to challenge it? here it was “cruel and unusual”, how will you challenge the electoral college — which is explicitly set up in the constitution?
actus (e137d7) — 3/2/2005 @ 1:33 pmActus, there’s always a hook for those who want one badly enough. In this case, why not just rule that to the extent it violates the principle of one man, one vote, the Electoral College violates equal protection? If two constitutional provisions conflict, the newer provision wins every time.
Or, if that doesn’t suit your fancy, the Court could take the Abortion Amendment, the Sodomy Amendment, the Costco Amendment, the Police Can Steal Your Car If Your Husband Hires A Hooker Amendment, the Affirmative Racism Amendment, the No Free Speech Before An Election Amendment, the Ha Ha Just Kidding About Bearing Arms Amendment, and the new Death Penalty For Juveniles Amendment, exhume the Dred Scott and Plessy Amendments, and roll them all into one comprehensive “Anything Five Of Us Like Is Constitutional And Anything Five Of Us Hate Is Unconstitutional” Amendment. That’s pretty much the law now (assuming, of course, that we still count Supreme Court rulings as “law”).
Xrlq (e2795d) — 3/2/2005 @ 2:40 pm“In this case, why not just rule that to the extent it violates the principle of one man, one vote, the Electoral College violates equal protection? If two constitutional provisions conflict, the newer provision wins every time.”
Sounds good. But is one man one vote the law? I don’t think so. Thats still not a hook.
actus (e137d7) — 3/2/2005 @ 2:58 pmPerhaps his ruling was based in part upon the relatively new scientific findings about the adolescent brain. The ABA seems to have come down on the same side as Kennedy.
From Time, May 2004:
Thom (4f3db1) — 3/2/2005 @ 3:59 pm…What Giedd’s long-term studies have documented is that there is a second wave of proliferation and pruning that occurs later in childhood and that the final, critical part of this second wave, affecting some of our highest mental functions, occurs in the late teens.
…No matter how a particular brain turns out, its development proceeds in stages, generally from back to front. Some of the brain regions that reach maturity earliest–through proliferation and pruning–are those in the back of the brain that mediate direct contact with the environment by controlling such sensory functions as vision, hearing, touch and spatial processing. Next are areas that coordinate those functions: the part of the brain that helps you know where the light switch is in your bathroom even if you can’t see it in the middle of the night. The very last part of the brain to be pruned and shaped to its adult dimensions is the prefrontal cortex, home of the so-called executive functions–planning, setting priorities, organizing thoughts, suppressing impulses, weighing the consequences of one’s actions. In other words, the final part of the brain to grow up is the part capable of deciding, I’ll finish my homework and take out the garbage, and then I’ll IM my friends about seeing a movie. …That is especially so because the brain regions that put the brakes on risky, impulsive behavior are still under construction. “The parts of the brain responsible for things like sensation seeking are getting turned on in big ways around the time of puberty,” says Temple University psychologist Laurence Steinberg. “But the parts for exercising judgment are still maturing throughout the course of adolescence. So you’ve got this time gap between when things impel kids toward taking risks early in adolescence, and when things that allow people to think before they act come online. It’s like turning on the engine of a car without a skilled driver at the wheel.” …
In light of what has been learned, it seems almost arbitrary that our society has decided that a young American is ready to drive a car at 16, to vote and serve in the Army at 18 and to drink alcohol at 21. Giedd says the best estimate for when the brain is truly mature is 25, the age at which you can rent a car. “Avis must have some pretty sophisticated neuroscientists,” he jokes. Now that we have scientific evidence that the adolescent brain is not quite up to scratch, some legal scholars and child advocates argue that minors should never be tried as adults and should be spared the death penalty. Last year, in an official statement that summarized current research on the adolescent brain, the American Bar Association urged all state legislatures to ban the death penalty for juveniles. “For social and biological reasons,” it read, “teens have increased difficulty making mature decisions and understanding the consequences of their actions.”
http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,994126,00.html
Hmmm, does anyone think that Shirly Crook’s family think its a bad deal to execute brats who committed murder while not being at least 18 years of age?
russ (5f8988) — 3/2/2005 @ 4:28 pmactus:
The McLibel case verdict wasn’t changed. What the Euro court ruled was that the defendants had been entitled to government provided representation in their case.
Aaron (b0e2e1) — 3/2/2005 @ 4:31 pmEqual protection is the hook. That no court to date has ruled that equal protection translates into one man one vote is immaterial. As recently as two days ago, cruel and unusual was no bar to juvenile executions (executions of juveniles, that is, which are not to be confused with executions conducted in a juvenile fashion).
Xrlq (6c76c4) — 3/2/2005 @ 5:33 pmToom, the ABA has also ruled that 12 year olds are competent to understand and weigh the decision to undergo major surgery and deliberately end the life they’d engendered also.
’12 year olds competent’ v ‘17.99 year olds incompetent’.
I was thinking the Second Amendment would be a clearer case than the First Amendment… but discussing revoking it would get a lot more ‘Hey! What an idea!’ comments.
Al (00c56b) — 3/2/2005 @ 6:05 pmThe Arrogant Stupidity of the US Supreme Court
Congrats to all you “young sculls full of mush”. Yes, all you babys under the age of 18. As of yesterday March 1st, 2005, the US Supremes have deemed you to be too stupid to know the difference from right or wrong. Indeed, if you are 17 and a half and in your senior year of high school and preparing to enter college or a trade, try to remember that the Supremes have ruled that you and your younger brothers and sister are still and forever officially stupid. Of course until you turn eighteen. Then by some metamorphous (on the day of your 18th birthday) you will be transformed into an intelligent human. All that you have learned from your parents, your teachers, your pastors, even your older brothers and sisters about the things that are “right”,”truthful”
and “just”, have all been thrown out the window. YOUR ARE STILL STUPID.
Now, in all fairness to the other side, (those of you under the age of eighteen), the Supreme Court of this great land wants you to understand that if you intend on committing a capital crime, please remember to do this before your eighteenth birthday.
Take a permanent ink marker and write it somewhere on your body, right next to the “brand” that says “THE SUPREME COURT HAS DEEMED ME STUPID”
This is, (in my opinion) one of the most shameful decisions ever made by the highest court in our lifetime.
Ken Crumley (ef875a) — 3/2/2005 @ 6:12 pmThis was a
gooddecision. I always wanted to live in a country where a five -four vote would supercede any secret ballot or any ballot for that matter by those that actually live in the USA.When can we start chiseling off the 10
Nanuk (0359a3) — 3/2/2005 @ 6:41 pmCommandmentsSuggestions off of our federal courthouses ?“Equal protection is the hook.”
you mean “equal protection of the laws.” what laws are being applied unequally? the electoral college in the constitution?
actus (e8ffe9) — 3/2/2005 @ 7:14 pmLots of countries give official sanction to free expression. The UN declaration of human rights includes it. Of course de-facto that means nothing, because no supreme court is enforcing that, but at least ‘official sanction’ is there.
I didn’t say the U.S. is the only country with any freedom of expression. I said that the United States is the only country in the world that has the First Amendment. And I don’t just mean that in a smart-assed literal way. No other country protects freedom of expression the way we do here.
Better bring ourselves in line with the international community . . .
Patterico (756436) — 3/2/2005 @ 7:19 pmSo what explains Kennedy’s 12-14 year old thinking? Arrested brain development?
I assume those who think 13-17 year olds do not understand death, murder and other mayhem are recalling their own youth? But now they get it?
Perhaps all adult murderers will now be found to have “maturational delay” on a physical basis, too, since this allegedly explains why minors murder?
And what miracle occurred in the minors who do not murder?
J. Peden (ffccb8) — 3/2/2005 @ 10:14 pmFirst, a correction: the Columbine killers were Klebold and Harris. Sorry — though “Dylan and Klebold” is in fact what Medved said; so I plead the Sgt. Schultz defense.
Second, I am now remembering my childhood. Well, my minority. The part of it right before my adultery. I am remembering when I was fifteen, sixteen, seventeen years old. I am interrogating myself:
Big Dafydd: Little Dafydd, do you know what death is?
Little Dafydd: Uh… yes. Why do you ask?
BD: Do you know that some things are right and some are wrong?
LD: Are you going somewhere with this?
BD: Just string along, and I’ll buy you a Dr. Pepper. Did it ever cross your mind that killing innocent people is one of those things that is “wrong?”
LD: Why, yes. I have to say, that has actually occurred to me.
BD: So if you were mad at your girlfriend, would you realize it was wrong to kill her?
LD: I have a girlfriend?
BD: Look, just pretend!
LD: Jeez, that’s what I do every night.
BD: IF you had a girlfriend, you repulsive little geek, and IF you were mad at her, would you know that killing her was wrong?
LD: Why yes, you portly, graying entity. I know that killing people is wrong. Duh!
Is anybody here in this comments section willing to stand up and say “when I was seventeen, I had no idea that there was anything wrong with killing innocent people?” Sixteen? Thirteen? I’m pretty sure I knew this at age six.
What is going through Anthony Kennedy’s cement-filled head? Does he believe that he, himself would have been unclear that murder was wrong and evil, even when he was a minor? Or does he believe he was especially enlightened, and the rest of us benighted sods need his helping hand to guide us?
Ayn Rand used to complain all the time about a rhetorical trick called “dropping context.” I could understand the argument that a juvenile brain might not be able fully to distinguish right from wrong… when we’re talking about cheating on a history test (though I have to confess, I made it all the way through twenty years of schooling without once thinking it was all right to cheat). Or maybe they would have a hard time ratting out a friend who was embezzling money from his employer.
But the context here is not just killing, not just unlawful killing, not just murder, but murder with special circumstances, murder that is so egregious, depraved, and evil that a jury unanimously recommends the ultimate penalty, and the judge who heard the entire case and all the evidence agrees. A murder (or group of murders) so heinous that the death penalty was finally sustained at the various appellate levels. That is the context, for God’s sake.
I believe Kennedy deliberately dropped the context so he could stir up enough mud that people would become confused and forget what we were talking about. It’s one thing to say that kids may be irresponsible enough to drive too fast and head down to the levy to drink a 40-oz bottle of old panther piss.
It’s entering a realm of utter absurdity to assert that any reasonable teenager would think killing someone was legally or morally acceptable to society. Anyone who asserts that is either a liar or deluded enough to be locked up himself.
Dafydd
Dafydd (df2f54) — 3/3/2005 @ 12:23 amDafydd: I certainly agree that the age of six is not an unusual time for a very profound awareness of death to exist, and not at all a solipistic one. Both my sister and I had it, and anecdotally: once I was walking along with two six year olds at mile 9 of a 12 mile hike! They started to get irritable and commenced to talking about death. After some of the usual “adult” considerations, they finally agreed they couldn’t do anything about it anyway and decided to have a “race” over the last 2 1/2 miles. I didn’t say a thing the whole time, and agreed with their resolution of this mess.
This argument about undeveloped brains is laughable. Let the jury decide in the penalty phase about capacity and awareness, etc., certainly starting at about age 14?
J. Peden (ffccb8) — 3/3/2005 @ 2:51 am“Better bring ourselves in line with the international community . . . ”
Is there a command that we have the “usual” level of free expression? Or even the usual definition?
But its not just a matter of following de-facto the international community, is it? its looking at what they officially sanction.
Me, I’m fine with saying that we ought to reject the free expression attitude of Somalia, no matter how much some backward legislature in our country wants to implement it.
actus (e8ffe9) — 3/3/2005 @ 5:23 amAnd we should pattern ourselves after more enlightened countries, like Germany or France or England, where freedom of expression is far more limited than ours. Right?
Patterico (756436) — 3/3/2005 @ 5:54 amBecause the point is to bring ourselves in line with the enlightened countries.
Patterico (756436) — 3/3/2005 @ 5:55 am“And we should pattern ourselves after more enlightened countries, like Germany or France or England, where freedom of expression is far more limited than ours. Right? ”
I don’t see where we have the command to have the usual, de-facto level of free expression. In the present case we did have the command to have the usual level, and then looked at official pronouncements, not practices. Officially, free expression is protected by the Declaration of Human Rights.
I think it overgeneralizes to call this case simply ‘pattern ourselves after other countries’
actus (e137d7) — 3/3/2005 @ 7:22 amI know many aspects of this site are legal in nature and I’m no lawyer so many of the legal aspects of cases like this are beyond my expertise or interest.
BUT I do have an opinion based not on what the reasoning behind the courts decision is but based on the result of the decision.
How can we lobby so feverishly for the end of or common sense applied to our abortion laws yet be so anxious to apply the death penalty to a SIXTEEN YEAR OLD CHILD! I know I know there’ll be people who talk about the terrible crimes they committed but these CHILDREN were done long before that crime was committed. I don’t propose we let them go free either (far from it) but I refuse to give up on a 16 year old. My wife has been in social work for 15 years (yes believe it or not a CONSERVATIVE social worker) and I see/hear first hand the way some of these kids are raised and it is beyond belief….Many of them never had a chance! And to the people who THINK that a teenager KNOWS the fact that murder is wrong…..who taught them this or any other life lessons? Their crack addicted mother or father they’ve never even met? Or the completely bureaucratic, LEFT run, BROKEN, corrupt social services we provide?
And to Dafydd how many 12 mile walks do you think these murdering 16 year olds were EVER taken on by their parents? Or for that matter who has spent any quality time with these children? Oh I know their just evil pure and simple. It’s not like at 16 suddenly someone thinks “I’ll go kill today”. It starts LONG before that. And the idea that a child at 15 or 16 can just shrug aside such an F’d up childhood and become normal and understand the greater belief or common sense morality of a society is just plain ignorant.
The answers, if there are any, are not for this discussion….I’m just disgusted by the fact that any rational human being could argue that killing a 16 year old is right by any reasoning applied be it religious or just personal choice. And where does it stop 15? 14 or AROUND 14? What about 8? Hell lets just develop a DNA identifier that targets these kids while their mother is pregnant and we could just kill them there….oh wait.
Tripp (71cab3) — 3/3/2005 @ 8:11 amTripp:
1] Let the jury decide.
2] I can justify both opposition to abortion and support for the death penalty on the grounds of self-defense, at least to myself.
3] What is your wife’s solution? Has she seen any results from interventions?
Another anecdote: in my neck of the woods, a quite large 15 year old just murdered his quite small 11 year old step brother – shotgun blast to the face. My 17 year old daughter knows the family fairly well, having known the victim and the mother for about 5 years. She knows the 15 year old, and spent at least a day with the family just after the killing.
The 15 year old was not abused, but had some problems leading to Social Service “intervention”. “Lifeways” could not tell that this 15 year old is a sociopath! From what my daughter described, I could have seen it in about 5 minutes.
He cannot be treated. Let the jury decide. But the legal system has already let him out on bail to the custody of his father, who still lives with the victim’s mother!!!!! Are they crazy? He is a cold-blooded killer. I suspect “Lifeways” to see and have played him as a victim. I know one of the hochos at Lifeways. He’s a classic batterer, always claiming that the Patriarchy is the source of all problems to justify his own battering.
So we have the 15 year old on the street right now! Say what? Would an “adult” be out on bail? I’ve advised my daughter to avoid this family like the plague. Next thing we know, the mother will have killed him or the converse. But, never fear, Lifeways is on the case.
J. Peden (ffccb8) — 3/3/2005 @ 10:14 amFrom Iowahawk.com:
Boman (69f4f1) — 3/3/2005 @ 10:35 am“In a far-reaching decision, the Supreme Court this morning ruled 5-4 that all U.S. marriage dowries ‘must include 3 non-diseased oxen.’
…..In a scathing and sometimes caustic dissent, Judge Antonin Scalia wrote that ‘Holy, Freakin, Shit.'”
There is more.
Tripp, the SCOTUS has placed this entire decision beyond the reach of the voters of the U.S.
The voters of the U.S. need not consider this issue any more. It doesn’t matter how many voters support the death penalty or how many disapprove of it.
It doesn’t matter what their opinions are.
Five people have just made sure that the millions of U.S. voters no longer have *any* say in this matter.
Bostonian (a37519) — 3/3/2005 @ 1:44 pm“The voters of the U.S. need not consider this issue any more. It doesn’t matter how many voters support the death penalty or how many disapprove of it.”
Technically, they could still enact a constitutional amendment.
actus (ebc508) — 3/3/2005 @ 2:26 pmI am not a lawyer but I was #1 in my college Poli Sci class. We learned that the Constitution was the basis for *all* law in the US. That is the *American* Constitution – not the French or the Russian or the Cuban.
Rod Stanton (da951e) — 3/3/2005 @ 2:59 pmAnd to Dafydd how many 12 mile walks do you think these murdering 16 year olds were EVER taken on by their parents?
Tripp, it was not I who said anything about a 12-mile hike; that was J. Peden.
But let’s run with this anyway. I am quite certain that a disproportionately large percent of juveniles who commit murder suffered through bad parenting.
So what? So did millions of other kids, including me, and we didn’t become murderers. You could go on to blame poverty for crime, a high libido for rape, and an aesthetic appreciation for the colors red, orange, and yellow for arson. But the fact remains that the vast, vast majority of poor people don’t steal (at least in the U.S.), nor do the vast majority of “highly sexed” individuals turn to rape, nor do us folks who think fires are pretty burn down buildings.
The question is, do you hold individuals responsible for their actions, or do you not?
I might let you get away with saying that a four or five year old isn’t responsible for murder, even if he shoots his three year old sister, because he probably doesn’t know what death is and may not know the distinction between right and wrong as a general thing (other than if he does some things, he gets in trouble).
But your entire argument collapses like a Jenga stack when the context of the decision is restored: a sixteen year old understands just as well as an eighteen year old that slaughtering twelve fellow students and a teacher or sniping at motorists as they drive along the highway is evil; it’s the ultimate evil: deliberately taking the life of an innocent. If Klebold and Harris hadn’t committed suicide at the end of their rampage (which itself indicates they knew just how monstrous their murders were; they wouldn’t be taken alive), they should have been executed. And John Lee Malvo should be executed, not merely held for a while until he is “rehabilitated” in the mind of some board of parole, then let loose.
I know I know there’ll be people who talk about the terrible crimes they committed but these CHILDREN were done long before that crime was committed. I don’t propose we let them go free either (far from it) but I refuse to give up on a 16 year old.
First of all, Tripp, they are not “children.” This attitude is exactly the problem: you insist upon infantalizing a kid old enough to drive and almost old enough to enlist in the Marines.
If you think they’re just “children,” then why do you support giving them life without possibilty of parole? Or perhaps you don’t… in which case, you are literally saying that after some time (time enough for that elusive “rehabilitation” we hear so much about), we should just “let them go free.”
Your position is utterly untenable. Either you consider a sixteen year old responsible for his actions, or you do not: if you do, then he should be subject to the same penalty as an adult would risk for the same offense. If not, if he’s really just a “child,” then he should be held only to the standard of a child breaking a window or sneaking cookies from the cookie jar, and even prison time is wrong: we should “let them go free.”
And if he’s just a child, no driver’s license. No unsupervised internet or television time. Must have his hand held by a parent or guardian when he crosses the street. And certainly he cannot be a child at sixteen and an adult at eighteen; that’s psychologically ludicrous, and I think you know it: do you think it’s like flipping a light switch?
There can be no fits-all solution to this. That is why we have juries who weigh the individual facts in each particular case — evidence which I’m sure Patterico will confirm includes testimony about the mental and emotional level of the particular defendant in question at the time he committed the crime.
Which is just exactly the system we used to have, before Justice Kennedy bought into that infantilizing argument of yours that teenagers are “just children” and shouldn’t be presumed to know that murdering people is unacceptable behavior.
Dafydd
Dafydd (df2f54) — 3/3/2005 @ 5:39 pmI wasn’t even the parent. The parents were statistically “poor”. The hikes might even be considered “abuse” of six year olds, who aren’t considered developed enough to handle such tasks. We’d better ask Kennedy.
J. Peden (ffccb8) — 3/3/2005 @ 10:49 pmhow can we be sure that, for example, Dylan and Kleibold won’t simply be let go on, say, their twenty-fifth birthdays?
Well, that would be kinda tough, since they, y’know, killed themselves and all that. But hey, maybe the activist judges on the Supreme Court will grant themselves super-ressurection powers so they can bring back juvenile murderers just to set them free. Because, of course, liberals really want all criminals to go free. Especially murderers. Why, I get moist as a cupcake just thinking about putting a murderer back out on the street. Good thing I have the Supreme Court to carry out my devious wishes for me, so that way I don’t even have to lift a finger. Ain’t this country great?
Mike C (fc1b9f) — 3/5/2005 @ 9:12 amMike, why talk about the idea of wimpy sentences for juvenile gangsters as though it were so far-fetched? The very same “international” (referring not to all nations, of course, just the ones the Politburo wants us to copy) treaties condemning the the death penalty for juveniles also condemn life without parole for juveniles, and the countries pushing it aren’t to keen on life without parole for adults, either. Mexico, for example, refuses to extradite anyone facing LWP in the states, as their Politburo has ruled that even LWP is cruel and unusual punishment, no matter how egregious the crime may have been.
Xrlq (c51d0d) — 3/5/2005 @ 9:23 pm