|
|
March 1, 2005, 10:01PM Sounding Board for ReadersCourt stops execution of young murderersCopyright 2005 Houston Chronicle
To the victim, it doesn't make any difference how old the murderer is. Capital punishment should not be age-dependent. But we need to be absolutely, undeniably certain of guilt.
Ron Clarke
I commend the Supreme Court for this historic decision. Considering the mistakes of our infamous crime lab, we Houstonians know better than most that innocent people can and have been sentenced to death -- a fact even more horrifying when it applies to someone whose life has really just begun. If this decision keeps our bloodthirsty state from executing one innocent young adult then it will be worth the possibility of a guilty one getting to live as well. Brian K. Carter
If the crime committed has the possibility of punishment by death, that sentence should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis regardless of age. Jim Homer
Another example of the court exceeding its authority. States have laws in place concerning minimum age for execution. This court had to look to foreign, unsigned treaties to find support for their opinion. Can you say, "Legislate from the bench?" Richard Avery
It is a positive step for the Supreme Court to take. It should also revisit the execution of the mentally ill. Of course, death-penalty crimes are very heinous, but a mandatory life-without-parole option can guarantee the offender is never back on the streets. It's ironic that as the United States talks of barbaric behavior around the world, we still elect to kill our own citizens. I think today's ruling is a positive step in the right direction. Brent T. Wallace
What is society trying to do with the death sentence? If it is taking the unforgivable criminal out of society then it should be for children and adults alike. If the death sentence is for punishment, then children have a different "set of rules" anyway and it is a good ruling. Nancy Key Pearson
I find the logic of the court's ruling to be somewhat faulty when it comes to the intent of the law. Laws are enacted to, among other things, protect society. While I appreciate the fact that youth are impetuous, youth who murder are intolerable. While the standard argument is death sentences don't deter crime, I cannot recall anyone being murdered by a dead person. Impetuous or not, any 17-year-old who kills will become a 35-year-old who kills. They are a threat to society and have forfeited their right to live in that society. However, there should be irrefutable proof of guilt before anyone is executed for any crime. Tom Pugh
I applaud the humanity shown by the court. However, the sharp division points out how important (from any viewpoint) the next nominee will be. David C. Wigglesworth
In its 5-4 decision to throw out the death penalty for juvenile murderers and bar states from seeking to execute minors for future crimes, the Supreme Court has, once again, shown how easily it bows to pressure from the religious right when making decisions. Tampering with the rights of states to make their own decisions regarding their own prisoners is not what the Supreme Court needs to concern itself with. This decision to rescind the death penalty for anyone under age 18 may, in fact, cause juvenile homicides to increase since they will now have a free ride when it comes to committing murder. I can't believe I agree with Justice Antonin Scalia, but I do. "The court thus proclaims itself the sole arbiter of our nation's moral standards," Scalia wrote in his dissent. Today's juveniles are more street smart, harder, more gang-oriented than ever before and they have less parental supervision than ever before. Committing the ultimate act of violence against another human being will no longer carry the ultimate penalty. The Supreme Court has now wiped out the last shred of fear that might keep even one "youthful offender" from taking another person's life. William F. Schulz, executive director of Amnesty International USA proudly claims victory and says now the United States can be removed from the list of human rights violators. Murder is a violation of human rights no matter how young the perpetrator is. Murder ends the life of another human being no matter how young the victim is. Mr. Schulz is proud and so are the justices who voted to take the law into their own hands. There's an old saying: "Pride goeth before a fall." Mary Katherine Marion
It appears to me the Supreme Court is not familiar with reality in U.S. neighborhoods and made a big mistake. A teenager who commits murder is not just your "little ol' teenager." Why keep them in prison for life at taxpayers' expense. Execution is the only answer to permanently remove them from society. Evia Jeannine Hobbs Richards
I agree with the decision. Since our school system has devolved into a holding cell for prison, thanks to the self-fulfilling prophecies of our "conservative" lawmakers, why are we not surprised young people kill, simply emulating their elders? Who should be judged worse, the child or the society that taught it to kill? In a civilized society, certainly not the child. We broke 'em, we should at least try to fix 'em. Dale Napier
The U.S.Supreme Court's decision is furthering the attitude of not being responsible for one's action. Sadly over the years we have seen courts, schools, and parents rationalizing when a child does what society feels is a wrongful act. It has continued to a point where as adults they don't "suffer the consequences of their actions." At 7 years of age, a child knows right from wrong, and from that age forward a child should realize there is a penalty for the "consequences of their actions." That should be carried forward to 15 years of age the death penalty for heinous acts of murder, because at that age they should know the taking of a person's life is heinous. (Especially taking the life of more than one.) Can anyone deny that no longer do we do not believe we should "suffer the consequences of our actions?" Has there been a time in our history where so many corporations or individuals have committed so many millions of dollars of fraud on their fellow man, and cry if they are punished? How many times do we hear, "He had a bad childhood. His family was poor?" Can we go back to the morals of the "Greatest Generation?" No way! It is too late to undo the damage created by the inaction of the parents, teachers and finally the courts. Today's 15- or 16-year-old is equal to at least an 18- or 19-year-old of previous generations. Let the death penalty stand. Consequences of their actions. Edward Gibbons
While I've never been an avid proponent of the death penalty, I have been a strong supporter of state's rights. This seems like a definite infringement on those rights by the Supreme Court. Indeed, as we rely more and more on the government to take care of us, we find more and more of our liberties disappearing. Dustin Windsor
A person over the age of 13 knows right from wrong. Committing murder, is not a game! A person who commits murder, while doing a crime, knows what he/she is doing. This person should have to pay for their acts. Aaron Poscovsky
It's a crying shame we have minors on death row. However, execution for crimes are determined by several factors surrounding the crime. In Texas, inmates on death row must meet certain criteria before the punishment of death is handed down. If conditions aren't met, then execution is not an option and an alternate punishment is delivered. We have prison systems. We are a state that upholds execution. If a person commits heinous crimes and is eligible for confinement within our adult prison system then all forms of punishment should apply to that offender. Crime in any form is atrocious. The U.S. Supreme Court once ruled that acts of violence in any form was unconstitutional and punished those who commit such acts accordingly. Our judicial system has evolved into a world of omission and excuses for offenders. What about the victims? Well, it's just being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Once again, our system defends the offender. The Supreme Court wants to create an age for offenders at which the line for death eligibility rests? What about a line for the victims at which life eligibility exists? Kristi Wallace
I believe that juvenile offenders are only going to become more bold if they face no deterrent. And like it nor not, the death penalty is the ultimate deterrent. If someone is old enough to pull the trigger and knows right from wrong, then he/she should be old enough to face the consequences. Edie Goodwin
The Supreme Court is going too far in taking power from the states and legislating morality. Too bad the victims of these juveniles didn't get to choose whether or not to be executed. Marilyn Braley
The death penalty is our embarrassing link to the more barbaric times of lynching and beheading in an effort to appease or rather seek revenge for the victim. We all find noble the victim or the family of a victim who looks to the perpetrator and forgives. Our base instinct is to seek revenge, usually with a mob mentality, but I don't believe this accurately reflects the society we want to be. It seems to me that the further we venture from brutality and the more we covet rehabilitation and redemption the less likely we will have to deal with the decision to end someone's life. Definitely a step in the right direction. Penny Barrett Hornsby
Ultimate power -- the power of life over death -- is fearful until it is wrestled away. Shouldn't we concern ourselves more with how to condemn this power, rather than who is allowed it? It seems that until this question is resolved we need all tremble. Ben Vera
Once again, the Supreme Court decides our nation's moral standards. I wish the court would explain where in the Constitution it forbids or implies that execution of killers, who were under the age of 18 at the time the crime was committed, is unconstitutional. This is a states' rights issue. Whether you feel it is right or wrong, it is not a Constitutional issue but an issue for the citizens of each state to vote on. John Lainhart
The decision of life and death ultimately lies in the hands of God, but our lawmakers and juries have the task off judging one on his/her deeds, then assessing punishment for that crime. If we are to rid our society of hardened criminals who linger for years on death row, decisions must be made to proceed with their untimely deaths. If the death penalty is not enforced, overcrowding in penal institutions will become overwhelming. I have not understood why an individual is given a death sentence, then allowed to remain on death row for 10-20 years or more. Has anyone stopped to examine the extreme costs related to housing a single inmate? I feel that age has nothing to do with it when that person commits adult crimes. Let the punishment fit the crime! Charline R. Thompson
The Supreme Court decision is a giant step forward in the evolution of our civilization. Juveniles do not have the maturity of adults, and their decisions reflect that lower level of judgment. This is a great day for Texas and the United States. I applaud the Supreme Court for pulling us forward when legislatures fail to do the right thing. We need to continue moving toward the day when all executions will be abolished. We should respect all human life by recognizing that some people make terrible mistakes but we are not going to stoop to their level and commit premeditated murder. We are going to take the high road. Jimmy Dunne
In my opinion murder is murder and knows no age or mental capacity. The result is that someone has unjustly lost his or her life at the hands of a dangerous person. That person needs to be removed from society at the least burden to society. A murderous person is rarely capable of being rehabilitated for reinstatement into society. Maturity does not occur as a result of turning the page on a calendar. If a person is capable of taking a life then the price they pay should be extreme. Give some rights back to the victims and the capital crime rate just might decrease. Nick Glorioso
|
|
|||||
