March 2 TEXAS: Death Penalty Ruling Hits Texas Hard----Some are relieved, others angered, as the execution capital weighs the implications of no longer executing those who killed as youths. When Raymond Cobb's conscience couldn't take any more, when he couldn't shoulder being a member of his high school band and a murderer too, he confessed his crime like a child - not to the police, but to his dad. According to court documents, he told his father that he had broken into the neighbors' house in Huntsville, Texas, to steal a stereo. Surprised when Margaret Owings came home, he killed her. "I asked him, 'What about the little girl?'" Charles Cobb told detectives. "And he just said, 'She's dead.'" Cobb was 17 at the time. Kori Rae Owings was 16 months. He had buried her alive. On Tuesday, Cobb became one of 72 death row inmates whose sentences were commuted by the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling that the Constitution prohibits the execution of people who were under 18 when they committed their crimes. Across the nation, the court's decision sparked impassioned debate and prompted difficult questions: What special considerations do children deserve? Who is a child? And - perhaps the toughest of all - are some people beyond rehabilitation? Nowhere did the debate rage as fiercely as in Texas. Since the Supreme Court reinstated capital punishment in 1976, Texas has been responsible for about 1/3 of the nation's executions. Since then, of the 22 people who have been executed for crimes they committed when they were under 18, 13 were executed in Texas. Of the 72 inmates affected by Tuesday's ruling, 29 - about 40% - are from Texas. "This was the most horrendous thing I have ever seen," said David Weeks, the Walker County, Texas, district attorney who secured a death sentence against Raymond Cobb, who is now 28 and has been on death row since 1997. Cobb told police that he had been surprised when Margaret Owings lunged at him inside the home. He stabbed her, he said, then dragged her body to a wooded area to bury her. He discovered the child sleeping inside the house and carried her outside as well, apparently unsure of what to do with her. He said the child "fell in the hole," and once that happened, he said he put the mother's body on top of the child and buried them together. "The way he carried out the crime tells you more than what his physical age was," Weeks said. "There are people younger than 18 out there who are as scary as anybody you can come across. They're just wired differently. If ever there was a crime that the death penalty was designed to punish, that was it." That would have been the easy way out, said Jim Marcus, executive director of the Texas Defender Service, a nonprofit group that represents death row inmates. "No one is trying to minimize these tragedies. The question is: Is the person who committed the crime someone who is morally culpable as an adult?" he said. "I don't think any reasonable person would argue that 7-year-olds or 12-year-olds should be subjected to the death penalty. You don't have to ask why. It's just intuitive. Once you accept that premise, what is the cutoff? Today the Supreme Court said that it is 18." The 1st time Barbara Acuna's heart was broken was when her son, Robert, a 17-year-old, was accused of murdering two neighbors who once paid him to mow their lawn. The 2nd time, she said from her home in Baytown, was when she learned that the Harris County district attorney would seek to execute her son. "He lived here at home," she said. "He wasn't old enough to vote. He wasn't old enough to rent a car. He was considered a juvenile in every other legal aspect. And then all of a sudden he was old enough for them to go after the death penalty." Several death penalty opponents also noted that the 29 people on death row in Texas who were sent there for crimes they committed as juveniles include a disproportionate number of minorities. 9 are African American, 12 are Latino and 1 is Asian American. 7 - or 24% - are white, though Texas is more than 70% white. Walter Long, a defense attorney from Austin who has worked on numerous death penalty cases, represented Napoleon Beazley, an African American who was 17 when he shot and killed a man during a carjacking. During Beazley's trial, prosecutors pointed out that he had watched the film "Boyz N the Hood" before the killing. Beazley was executed in 2002 at age 25. "They said he felt himself to be a little gangster," Long said. " 'Boyz N the Hood' does not take a positive view of gangs. It was just a way to seize on his race and prejudice the jury." Many law enforcement officers, however, condemned Tuesday's ruling. Harris County Dist. Atty. Chuck Rosenthal said the state Legislature had already determined that the appropriate cutoff for the death penalty was 17 - a law that has been on the books for nearly 150 years. "There is a line in Texas," he said. "What I think the opinion really says is that 5 Supreme Court justices believe that their moral judgment is superior to that of the Texas Legislature. When the Supreme Court gets into line-drawing, they are overstepping their bounds." Charley Wilkison, political and legislative director for the Austin-based Combined Law Enforcement Assns. of Texas, the state's largest law enforcement organization, said the law enforcement community feared that juvenile crime could increase because of the court's ruling. "For some individuals in Texas, and elsewhere, there is a great deal of a chance that at some point you are going to wind up in prison," he said. "At that point, the death penalty is the only real deterrent. It would stand to reason that gangs will recruit underage people to commit murders. The selling point, the spin inside the gang, would be: 'You do it. Because you won't get the death penalty.'" (source: Los Angeles Times) ************************* Courts ruling gets Brownsville man off death row A U.S. Supreme Court ruling over a case from Missouri got a Brownsville man off Texas death row on Tuesday. Jose Ignacio Monterrubio was 17 years old when he and his older cousin Sixto Monterrubio raped, beat, stabbed and then strangled a female classmate from Rivera High School in September 1993. The 2 men buried the body of 16-year-old Carla Villarreal in a shallow grave near the airport. The body was found 1 month later. Sixto Monterrubio was sentenced to life in prison. Under state law, Jose Ignacio Monterrubio was tried as an adult and received a death sentence in October 1994. Citing the Eighth Amendment against cruel and unusual punishment, Supreme Court justices said in a 5-4 decision Tuesday that it is unconstitutional to execute juvenile murderers. Texas was one of 20 states where the death penalty was applied on capital crimes to offenders between the ages of 15 and 18. The courts decision nullifies death sentences for Monterrubio and 71 other murderers who were under 18 when they committed their crimes. The ruling also prevents any future 16- and 17-year-olds from being eligible for execution. First Cameron County District Attorney John Blaylock said his office will review the Supreme Courts ruling to see how it would apply to Monterrubios case. "We'll verify if the ruling is retroactive or proactive," Blaylock said. "Then well be able to make a comment." According to federal court records, Jose Ignacio Monterrubio had lost a death sentence appeal in February 2004. At press time Tuesday, Monterrubio remained on the Texas Department of Criminal Justices official list of 445 death row inmates. According to court records, Sixto Monterrubio had asked for a forensic DNA testing. Judge Roberto Garza with the 138th state District Court denied the request 2 weeks ago. (source: The Brownsville Herald) ******************** No death row for juveniles Since that terrible Christmas Day in 1994 when Ginger Rode found her brother Elmer brutally murdered in his Beaumont home she has found some comfort knowing that the person convicted of the crime was facing his own mortality on Texas' death row. But after a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, her brother's killer may one day go free. 28-year-old John Dewberry was only 17 at the time of the crime, and a closely divided Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that it's unconstitutional to execute juvenile killers. "I have been looking for justice for my brother, and now that has been taken away from me," Ginger Rode said by telephone Tuesday. The 5-4 decision throws out the death sentences of 72 murderers nationally and 28 in the state of Texas who were under 18 when they committed their crimes. Texas is one of 19 states that allows the death penalty for juveniles. Dewberry, along with Whitney Lee Reeves, now 23, are the 2 juvenile offenders from Jefferson County currently on death row. The executions, the court said, violate the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment. "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 wrote. The ruling continues the court's practice of narrowing the scope of the death penalty, which justices reinstated in 1976. Executions for those 15 and younger when they committed their crimes were outlawed in 1988. 3 years ago justices banned death sentences for the mentally retarded. "First there was a national consensus against to not allow the death penalty for the mentally retarded," Jefferson County District Attorney Tom Maness said. "Now there is a national consensus against the death penalty for 17 year olds. In the past it had been a state's decision. Now the Supreme Court has made the decision." Dewberry, born on Jan. 30, 1977, was convicted for the Dec. 25, 1994 robbery and murder of 57-year-old Elmer G. Rode Jr., a former registrar and dean at Lamar University in Beaumont. Rode was tied up with a telephone cord and belt inside his home and shot in the back of the head. His home was ransacked and burglarized. Dewberry and 19-year-old brother Chris were later convicted. John Dewberry received the death penalty and Chris Dewberry received life in prison with the possibility of parole after 40 years. Reeves, born Aug. 21, 1981, and an accomplice killed a 14-year-old girl and her 40-year-old father on Aug. 20, 1999 with a 12-gauge shotgun at the victims' apartment in Beaumont. Reeves was within a few hours of his 18th birthday at the time of the crime. The apparent motive for the shooting was that the girl had previously testified at a grand jury hearing. Her testimony resulted in charges of aggravated sexual assault of a child being filed against Reeves' accomplice. Maness said it is likely that Reeves and Dewberry will now receive a life sentence for capital murder. "That means they goes back into the general prison population," Maness said. "They can play baseball on Sunday and get other privileges. And they may be eligible for parole after serving 40 years." Maness said the Jefferson County District Attorney's office will voice their opposition to the parole of Dewberry and Reeves. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor cast one of the dissenting votes Tuesday, arguing that a blanket rule against juvenile executions was misguided. Case-by-case determinations of a young offenders' maturity is the better approach, she wrote. "The court's analysis is premised on differences in the aggregate between juveniles and adults, which frequently do not hold true when comparing individuals," she said. "Chronological age is not an unfailing measure of psychological development, and common experience suggests that many 17-year-olds are more mature than the average young 'adult."' Ginger Rode said she was very unhappy with the Supreme Court decision. "I feel like the Supreme Court did not consider the victims," she said. "You have to look at each case. You can't group John Dewberry in with those that were not mature enough to know what they were doing. Basically I feel like they told me my brother's life is not important, that a 17-year-old cold-blooded killer means more." Rode said that Dewberry went to her brother's home with the intention of killing him and the burglary was just an afterthought. She said the Jefferson County jurors made the decision based on the facts and evidence of the case. "It's like this puts a knife or gun in the hands of any juvenile that is having thoughts of murder," Rode said. "It gives them an open door and let's them think they can beat the system." But death penalty opponents quickly cheered Tuesday's ruling. "Today, the court repudiated the misguided idea that the United States can pledge to leave no child behind while simultaneously exiling children to the death chamber," said William F. Schulz, executive director of Amnesty International USA. "Now the U.S. can proudly remove its name from the embarrassing list of human rights violators that includes China, Iran, and Pakistan that still execute juvenile offenders," he said. The Supreme Court has permitted states to impose capital punishment since 1976. 22 of the people put to death since then were juveniles when they committed their crimes. The court was called on to draw an age line for executions 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. Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Anthony Kennedy supported the decision Tuesday, while Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Sandra Day O'Connor dissented. (source: The Port Arthur News) LOUISIANA: Supreme Court Decision Takes Caddo Parish Man Off Death Row Vickie McGraw was on the way to her boyfriend`s apartment but never made it. Instead, she was robbed, raped, and killed... Aaron Wilson was 17 years, 11 months old at the time of the crime. A jury convicted him... As he gets off death row, his victim`s family must relive the crime. Victim's assistance director Leone Fitzgerald says, "Now, it's all been brought back up again, they're having to think about it again. So it`s a very emotional thing for them to have to deal with." For years, the Supreme Court has tried to determine when a juveniles mind set became like an adult. While Tuesday`s decision changes the fate of more than 70 inmates nationwide, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said each circumstance should be judged on a case-by-case basis. In Wilson's case, one of the original prosecutors says he acted like a man then and deserves the death penalty like one now. ADA Suzanne Owens said, "mentally, he`s all there. Emotionally, he`s all there. he had a supportive, loving family. He had a good background, he had gone to school and he just chose to act in a way that society can not tolerate. "He's getting off the hook?" Yes, in my opinion." Wilson's family didn't answer our request for an interview but owens does sympathize with his family. "They're still suffering that loss, no matter what Mr. Wilson's end is. The McCraw family has lost their loved one and the Wilson family has lost their loved one all because of some very very bad actions." The US Supreme Court has allowed states to put people to death since 1976. 22 of the people put to death since then were juveniles when they committed their crimes. Texas executed the most, 13, and also has the most on death row now - 29. (source: NewsChannel 16 TV News) **************************** Execution decision affects 2 EBR cases A U.S. Supreme Court ruling Tuesday that bans the execution of juvenile killers will force a Baton Rouge prosecutor to change his plans for a high-profile case. Nevertheless, serial-sniper suspect Lee Boyd Malvo will still stand trial in Baton Rouge for a 2002 shooting, and the trial could occur much more quickly, attorneys in the case said Tuesday. "I've been resolute to extradite Lee Boyd Malvo from Virginia for first-degree murder, and I intended to seek the death penalty," First Assistant District Attorney John Sinquefield said. "That hasn't changed my resolve." Sinquefield said the only difference will be the penalty he seeks. "I will seek the maximum penalty of life in prison," Sinquefield said. Malvo, now 19, and John Allen Muhammad, 43, have been indicted on first-degree murder in the killing of Hong Im Ballenger in September 2002. Ballenger was shot outside the Beauty Depot on Florida Boulevard during a robbery. Authorities contend the Baton Rouge shooting was part of what prosecutors have described as a nationwide sniper shooting spree masterminded by Muhammad. Muhammad has already been sentenced to death in the slaying of Dean Harold Meyers in Manassas, Va. Malvo's Baton Rouge court-appointed attorney, David Price, said the Supreme Court decision is consistent with a national trend. The court recognized the "evolving standard" marked by the many states that have eliminated the death penalty for people under 18 years of age, he said. "I'm pleased with the decision and I think it is correct because it recognizes a trend across the country to do away with the death penalty for those young people," Price said. Price said the decision also recognizes research that the brains of juveniles are not yet fully developed; therefore, juveniles should not be held to the same standard of behavior as adults. "There is no question (Malvo) was under the control of the older individual (Muhammad)," Price said. The Tuesday ruling could have another influence on Malvo's Baton Rouge case, Price said. The trial likely will happen more quickly. Price said Malvo has been convicted in one Virginia case and sentenced to life in prison. In addition, Malvo has pleaded guilty in other cases and received life sentences, but Virginia prosecutors were holding off on one or two cases until after the Supreme Court decision that came Tuesday, Price said. Malvo will likely be allowed to plead guilty to the remaining charges in Virginia. It will then be up to Virginia authorities to decide whether Malvo next goes to Louisiana, Maryland or Alabama for prosecution in the remaining cases, Price said. There is only one other case awaiting trial in East Baton Rouge Parish that could be affected by the Supreme Court ruling. That case involves Alex Hammond, now 19 years old, who was indicted on a count of 1st-degree murder in the May 2002 killing of Corey Carter. Prosecutor Mark Dumaine said at the time of Hammond's indictment that Hammond and a co-defendant, Marcus W. Rowley, 24, are accused of killing Carter in a robbery. Carter was found dead in his Plank Road apartment. He had been bound with tape and shot in the head, Dumaine said. Hammond and Rowley are accused of stealing a handgun, $25 and a gold chain, the prosecutor said. The trial in that case is scheduled for June 20. East Baton Rouge Parish Public Defender Mike Mitchell said a slim majority of the Supreme Court has begun to take a more-careful look at capital punishment. 3 years ago, the court blocked the execution of mentally retarded people and now it has blocked the execution of people under 18 years of age. "I hope this is an indication of the idea that we are getting to the point where, in a civilized society, we get to the point where we don't have the death penalty at all," Mitchell said. "For a civilized society to be executing people is unacceptable." Prisons can keep even the most-evil killers safely away from the public, said Mitchell, whose office is assigned to many capital cases in East Baton Rouge Parish, including serial-killer suspect Derrick Todd Lee. (source: The Advocate) USA: "United States: The Death Penalty Abolished for Minors" In a clear victory for the opponents of capital punishment in the United States, the Supreme Court yesterday abolished the death penalty for criminals who were under 18 at the time of the act. By 5 votes to four, Americas highest court felt that the execution of minors was cruel and unconstitutional, referring to the eighth amendment to the Constitution, which forbids cruel and unusual punishment. "Our society considers minors less guilty than adult criminals," wrote Anthony Kennedy, explaining the Courts opinion. The decision in effect cancels the death sentences handed down against 70 inmates in the United States, all minors when they committed their crimes. Until now, 19 of the 38 states applying the death penalty continued to execute minors. In 1988 already, the Supreme Court had forbidden the execution of minors under 16, but certain states applied the death penalty for minors who were 16 and 17 at the time of the crime. The Supreme Court based its decision on the case of Christopher Simmons, who was 17 when he kidnapped his neighbor and threw her off a bridge in Missouri in 1993. Last year the Missouri Supreme Court had overturned the death sentence against Simmons, also citing the 8th amendment to the Constitution. The state prosecutors appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The announcement brought numerous reactions in the camp of death penalty opponents, some of whom felt that this decree marked a new step in the questioning of capital punishment. In 2002 the Court had decided to abolish executions for the mentally retarded, citing "evolving community standards." According to Diann Rust-Tierney, director of the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, "the judges have confirmed that public opinion has changed concerning the death penalty and that the execution of minors is considered an inhuman practice by a majority (of Americans)." In a dissent, one of the most conservative Supreme Court justices, Anthony Scalia, felt that "all that will lead to someday raising the question of the acceptability of the death penalty." (source: Liberation (Paris) ) Ruling correctly exempts 16- and 17-year-olds The United States joined most of the world Tuesday in finally ending the execution of killers who were under 18 when they committed their crimes. By a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court ruled, correctly, that executing 16- and 17-year-olds violates the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment. The decision ended the shameful practice in 19 states and throws out the death sentences of about 70 juveniles. The United States had been almost alone in permitting the execution of minors. Only six other nations allow it, and those countries, including Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and China, have practically abandoned the barbaric practice. Tuesday's decision is consistent with earlier Supreme Court rulings that outlawed executions of the mentally retarded, and of those 15 and younger when they committed their crime. The idea underpinning these rulings is simple: Maturity and mental capacity help determine a legal level of responsibility. Society doesn't extend adult rights to 16- and 17-year-olds because they don't possess the same maturity and judgment. Nor should they suffer the same consequences, especially death. Even the most ardent supporters of the death penalty ought to approve of the Supreme Court's decision. Evolving community standards might eventually force the high court to reconsider the constitutionality of the death penalty itself. Poor people and minorities make up most of those on death row. Since the new science of DNA technology, the public generally recognizes that a disquieting number of death row inmates were actually innocent -- and that others not affected by DNA technology may also be. For now, the Supreme Court continued to narrow the scope of the death penalty by making the right decision on the case before it. Executing children is unquestionably cruel, unusual and unconstitutional. (source: Editorial, Detroit Free Press) ************************** Justice In Limiting Death Penalty No sentence is adequate for murder. But as the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday, the death penalty should be reserved for the most ruthless and culpable criminals -- not for those who may be too young or too mentally disabled to fully understand their crimes. In a 5-4 decision, the high court outlawed the death penalty for convicted murderers who were younger than 18 at the time of the crime. The decision leaned upon a 2002 ruling to outlaw the death penalty for people who are, as the court put it, mentally retarded and less capable of reason. "When a juvenile commits a heinous crime, the state can exact forfeiture of some of the most basic liberties," the majority ruled, "but the state cannot extinguish his life and his potential to attain a mature understanding of his own humanity." This week's court ruling may appear, heaven forbid, like judicial activism. But in truth, the justices merely followed the lead of the majority of states and affirmed changes in the "national consensus" on the death penalty. A majority of states, including Oregon, already outlaw the death penalty for juveniles. The remainder of states apply it rarely -- even in execution-happy states such as Texas, Virginia and Oklahoma. About 70 people sit on state Death Rows for crimes they committed as juveniles. Most of them are also serving life sentences: The ruling erases their death sentences, but it won't free them from prison. In a way, life in prison is a tougher punishment for these younger criminals than execution. It gives them more time to realize what they threw away. (source: Editorial, The Oregonian) *************************** Juvenile death penalty abolished In a seminal 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court strikes down capital punishment for those who commit crimes under age 18. The US Supreme Court has struck down the juvenile death penalty, embracing a constitutional challenge that the nation's evolving standards of decency have rendered the practice cruel and unusual. In a landmark decision announced Tuesday, the justices ruled 5 to 4 that state laws authorizing capital punishment for 16- and 17-year-olds who commit murder violate the Eighth Amendment and are henceforth unconstitutional. The action reverses the death sentences of 72 convicted murderers who committed their crimes as juveniles. Juvenile justice advocates hail the ruling as a major advance for American society. "This is a great day," says Marsha Levick of the Juvenile Law Center in Philadelphia. "It confirms that America's standards of decency have indeed evolved and that children are different," says Stephen Harper, a professor of juvenile justice at the University of Miami. The high court said a national consensus had emerged in opposition to the execution of juveniles. Dissenting justices said the fact that 20 states authorize the death penalty for juveniles is proof that no such consensus has emerged. The ruling in a case called Roper v. Simmons means the death penalty still applies to anyone age 18 and older. But juries can no longer be asked to assess whether defendants who committed their crimes between ages 16 and 18 were mature and culpable enough at the time of the crime to warrant society's harshest punishment. Instead, teens who commit even the most heinous crimes will face a maximum punishment of life in prison. "The differences between juvenile and adult offenders are too marked and well understood to risk allowing a youthful person to receive the death penalty despite insufficient culpability," writes Justice Anthony Kennedy for the majority. "The age of 18 is the point where society draws the line for many purposes between childhood and adulthood," Justice Kennedy says. "It is, we conclude, the age at which the line for death eligibility ought to rest." Kennedy was joined in the majority opinion by Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer. The rationale The majority justices extended to the juvenile death penalty the same analysis used in a 2002 landmark ruling invalidating the death penalty for persons with mental retardation. The justices said youth, like a mental disability, can so reduce a criminal's blameworthiness or culpability as to require a constitutional bar against capital punishment. "An unacceptable likelihood exists that the brutality or cold-blooded nature of any particular crime would overpower mitigating arguments based on youth as a matter of course," Kennedy writes, "even where the juvenile offender's objective immaturity, vulnerability, and lack of true depravity should require a sentence less severe than death." In a dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor criticizes the majority for usurping the role of state lawmakers and jurors in deciding the issue. "The rule decreed by the court rests, ultimately, on its independent moral judgment that death is a disproportionately severe punishment for any 17-year-old offender," Justice O'Connor writes. "I do not subscribe to this judgment. Adolescents as a class are undoubtedly less mature, and therefore less culpable for their misconduct, than adults," she says. "But the court has adduced no evidence impeaching the seemingly reasonable conclusion reached by many state legislatures: that at least some 17-year-old murderers are sufficiently mature to deserve the death penalty." The decision stems from a Missouri murder case involving a teen sentenced to death for tying up a woman while burglarizing her home. He then dumped her - still bound and alive - into a river. Christopher Simmons was 17 at the time of the crime. While planning the burglary and murder, Mr. Simmons told his friends that even if he was caught, nothing would happen to him because he was a juvenile. The Missouri Supreme Court struck down Simmons's death sentence, citing a 2002 decision by the US Supreme Court barring execution of the mentally retarded. The Missouri high court applied the ruling in the context of a juvenile death-penalty case, even though the US Supreme Court itself had not yet extended its 2002 ruling to juveniles. In taking up the Missouri case, the Supreme Court agreed to explore two questions. First, can a lower court like the Missouri Supreme Court extend US Supreme Court precedents into new areas prior to the high court itself doing so? Key question Second, the justices agreed to examine whether a national consensus has emerged that the juvenile death penalty is a form of cruel and unusual punishment barred by the Eighth Amendment. Kennedy did not address the Missouri Supreme Court's actions in his opinion. In a dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia raised the issue, saying the Missouri high court had engaged in a "flagrant disregard" of Supreme Court precedent by applying the court's analysis in the 2002 case to the juvenile death-penalty case before the high court itself had done so. "Allowing lower courts to reinterpret the Eighth Amendment whenever they decide enough time has passed for a new snapshot leaves this court's decisions without any force," Justice Scalia writes. He also criticized the majority opinion for including references to international opposition to the juvenile death penalty. "Only seven countries other than the United States have executed juvenile offenders since 1990," Kennedy writes. "Since then each of these countries has either abolished capital punishment for juveniles or made public disavowal of the practice." Anticipating criticism, Kennedy adds, "The opinion of the world community, while not controlling our outcome, does provide respected and significant confirmation for our own conclusions." Scalia was undeterred in his dissent. "To invoke alien law when it agrees with one's own thinking, and ignore it otherwise, is not reasoned decisionmaking, but sophistry," he says. (source: Christian Science Monitor) ******************* Court stops execution of young murderers 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----Humble ** 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----Rice Military/Memorial area ** 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----1960 area ** 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----Stafford ** 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----Klein ** 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----Lake Jackson ** 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----Houston ** 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----Kingwood ** 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----Southwest Houston ** 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----Hockley ** 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----Braeswood ** 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--Sugar Land ** 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--Northwest Houston ** 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----Sharpstown ** 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----Pasadena ** 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----Houston ** 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----Clear Lake ** 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--Missouri City ** 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--Montrose ** 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----Sugar Land ** 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----West Houston ** 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----West Houston ** 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----Cinco Ranch (source: Opinions, Houston Chronicle) ********************* SPARING THE YOUNG----High court ban on executing juveniles is a needed restraint on Texas' death penalty conveyer belt On Texas' death row, 28 Texas inmates await execution for crimes they committed before they were 18. For them, the U.S. Supreme Court decision announced Tuesday brought the promise of continued life, though likely one spent behind bars. As with the high court's ruling two years ago outlawing the execution of mentally retarded criminals, the latest action rolls back the constitutional boundaries of capital punishment within the United States and removes another controversial aspect of the death penalty. Among those inmates receiving permanent reprieves are 2 men slated to die in June for the brutal gang initiation killings of 16-year-old Elizabeth Pea and Jennifer Ertman in 1993. Efrain Perez and Raul Villarreal, both 17 at the time, were among 5 members of the Black and White gang sentenced to death for sexually assaulting and then killing the girls as they walked home in northwest Houston. The victim's families deserve sympathy for their pain and loss, and might desire closure and retribution. However the Supreme Court is right to draw a definitive line on capital punishment. As Villarreal told the Chronicle's Mike Tolson during a death row interview last year, "I just don't think I was mature enough to make a wise decision, especially under the pressure of what was going down at the time." The ability of adolescents to be responsible for their actions is at the heart of the Supreme Court decision. The swing vote belonged to Justice Anthony Kennnedy, who argued in the majority opinion that juveniles differ from adults in their lack of maturity and susceptibility to negative influences and peer pressure. Their character is not as fixed as that of an adult, Kennedy reasoned. He concluded that all those factors combine to make underage violent criminals less culpable for their acts than adults. The court majority also drew on the fact that since only 19 states allow the execution of juveniles, the practice is in the minority and imposition of such sentences constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment." Likewise, most nations find the state-sanctioned killing of defendants for crimes committed as juveniles beyond the bounds of civilized behavior. Justice Kennedy acknowledged "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." Texas leads the nation in putting prisoners to death, and Harris County contributes most to the ranks of those given the ultimate sentence. With over 450 inmates on Texas' death row, the latest Supreme Court action has limited impact on the state's power to take a life as punishment for a crime. University of Houston Law Center professor David Dow, founder of the Texas Innocence Network, calls the latest ruling a small step in the right direction toward ending capital punishment in the United States. He points out that the Supreme Court is following the lead of the states in banning the execution of juveniles and the mentally retarded, while the question of what happens to death row inmates who are mentally ill remains undecided. Gov. Rick Perry, a staunch supporter of capital punishment unrestrained by limits on age and mental condition, promptly promised Texas would abide by the ruling and vowed to sign legislation that would rewrite Texas law to conform to the Supreme Court ruling. Regardless of one's opinion of capital punishment for adults, all Texans can welcome the fact that they will no longer share with a handful of tyrannical Third World countries the barbaric practice of executing people for crimes committed as juveniles. (source: Editorial, Houston Chronicle) ********************* Justice used science to arrive at decision----Justice Anthony Kennedy's landmark decision to spare young killers draws on scientific research as well as the law. The briefs read like doctoral theses on adolescent development, with charts and graphs and references to longitudinal studies. They're as much about science as they are about the law, and in the Supreme Court's decision to outlaw executions for child killers, they played a pivotal role. As much as Justice Anthony Kennedy relied on constitutional analysis to reach the court's ruling in Tuesday's landmark decision, he also banked on volumes of research -- much of it recent -- that was submitted to the court by the scientific community to persuade the justices that youthful minds are fundamentally different. 'REAL SCIENCE' "We've seen extraordinary strides in research and in the technological capacity to conduct that research, and that has fundamentally changed the way we view youth," said Marsha Levick, the legal director at the Juvenile Law Center, a national advocacy group for juvenile offenders. "There's real science to draw on now, and I think it's an important moment in legal and constitutional history that the court now recognizes that." As more is learned about the brain, Levick said, its development is better understood. When the court last considered juvenile executions in 1989 and left 16- and 17-year-olds eligible, much of that data wasn't available. But now, new research -- some involving magnetic resonance imaging of the brain -- has shown that critical parts of the mind develop later than previously believed, robbing even late-year teenagers of the impulse control and decision-making ability of people just a few years older. "Emerging from the neuropsychological research is a striking view of the brain and its gradual maturation, in far greater detail than seen before," the American Psychiatric Association said in its brief to the court. "Although the precise underlying mechanisms continue to be explored, what is certain is that, in late adolescence, important aspects of brain maturation remain incomplete, particularly those involving the brain's executive functions." BEST EVIDENCE Kennedy said the evidence in the studies led to the conclusion that the punitive justifications for the death penalty apply to youth with lesser force than adults. It also obliterates the justification for the death penalty's retributive motivations. Levick said the high court is not the first to use research to justify different treatment. "Most states won't let them get tattoos, or get married, or even go to a tanning salon without parental consent," Levick said. "It's indisputable that nationwide we now think of youth as distinct." (source: Miami Herald)
