The Supreme Court has nixed the policy in 19 states that allows the execution of murderers who were under 18 when they committed their crimes — seemingly ending a chapter in a long debate…and perhaps opening a new one.
In reality, this is unlikely to be a “feast or famine” style ruling: it’s highly unlikely this is going to mean the streets will suddenly be filled with juvenile killers. Most likely these 19 states states will merely substitute life imprisonment for the death penalty — and the never ending debate over rehabilitation versus punishment and deterrence will continue.
This is yet another blow to supporters of the death penalty, but they’re are as likely to give up their battle for it as the death penalty foes are likely to give up their battle against it (in other words: consider this a time out in a long-term battle):
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, were unconstitutionally cruel.
It was the second major defeat at the high court in three years for supporters of the death penalty. Justices in 2002 banned the execution of the mentally retarded, also citing the Constitution’s Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishments.
The court had already outlawed executions for those who were 15 and younger when they committed their crimes. Tuesday’s ruling prevents states from making 16- and 17-year-olds eligible for execution.
The court’s votes fell largely along expected lines:
The four most liberal justices had already gone on record in 2002, calling it “shameful” to execute juvenile killers. Those four, joined by Kennedy, also agreed with Tuesday’s decision: Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, as expected, voted to uphold the executions. They were joined by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.
In a dissent, Scalia decried the decision, arguing that there has been no 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 in a 24-page dissent. “The court thus proclaims itself sole arbiter of our nation’s moral standards.”
Death penalty aside: hasn’t that been how the Supreme Court has acted for years?
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.