Hello, I have a question that I need answered for a paper I'm writing and I would appreciate any US citizens willing to help me with correct and current information.

Is it within the law to sentence juveniles to death within any of the US states as of this moment? Is it practiced? What is the most recent juvenile death sentence?
By that I mean persons16 and 17 years old.

I would especially welcome links to state laws allowing it, if there are such.

Thank you!

p.s. My information is old, dated 2003, published in 2005.

There is none.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62584-2005Mar1.html

Thanks!

No problem.

March 1, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court abolished the death penalty for minors

Now they need to look at juvenile life without parole


A new report by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch (HRW) found that at least 2,225 prisoners in the United States are serving life without parole for crimes they committed as minors. The sentence is rare elsewhere in the world — a total of 12 child offenders are serving life terms in Israel, South Africa and Tanzania. But in the United States, two decades of mandatory sentencing laws and increasing prosecutorial discretion to try children as adults have created an entire population of young prisoners who will live the rest of their days behind bars.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/Spring_2006/Discarded_Lives_Children_Sentenced_to_Life_Without _Parole/page.do?id=1105357&n1=2&n2=19&n3=392

Well the problem with your figures is that the population in U.S is that much larger than the ones in your quote. I am sure if you crunched the numbers you will see what i am referring to.

About time by the way, then with Sudan they were the only counties in the world still practicing it.

This was written in 2003 and publicized before the Supreme Court ruling


The United States stands virtually isolated concerning the execution of criminals under the age of eighteen, especially in comparison with other democratic nations. How can the United States justify its policy? Although international opinion is not completely determinative in interpreting the United States Constitution, it should be a strongly considered factor. [FN198] Additionally, radical changes have occurred within the international climate since Stanford. Almost all countries have banned juvenile execution based upon treaties and conventions condemning the practice. [FN199] No special set of *725 circumstances exist by which the United States could defend its position to the rest of the world. The United States continues to violate a jus cogens norm against the execution of juveniles who are sixteen-years-old at the time of their crimes. [FN200] No longer is the issue of juvenile execution merely restrained to opinions. The United States will now be judged by international courts all over the world. The United States cannot continue to justify derogations of treaty clauses through reservations. Instead of stubbornly adhering to geo-centric jurisprudence, the Supreme Court should hear the global cry to end the death penalty when applied to juveniles.

SPARE THE DEATH PENALTY, SPOIL THE CHILD: HOW THE EXECUTION OF
JUVENILES VIOLATES THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT'S BAN ON CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT
IN 2005

Copyright © 2003 South Texas Law Review, Inc.; Carrie Martin

John:

No the problem is those other figures (and thats a sum, not an average) are the only other figures. :)

By the way, thanks again, you were a real help! :)

Innocent kids die every day Avatar- hundreds of them....thousands of them. Your concern for a 17 year old who commits multiple murders is, perhaps, misplaced.

My paper isn't about kids really, I was just looking for instances where major state actors have ignored jus cogens norms and use that info as a part of one argument.

jus cogens norms

Whats that?

Innocent kids die every day Avatar- hundreds of them....thousands of them. Your concern for a 17 year old who commits multiple murders is, perhaps, misplaced.

Oh, I know! Just at the and of last year I witnessed the defence of one such individual. He har robbed little kids of their mobile phones and bikes, kidnapped and raped two teenagers, one of them retarded, and also robbed an appartment.

Disgusting, disgusting individual, living horror really. His defence lawyer had trobule even writing on his behalf.

However I believe that we don't have the moral authority to judge over life and death. Gladly all of Europe agrees and has eliminated capital punishment.

jus cogens norms

Whats that?

jus cogens

Principles of international law so fundamental that no nation may ignore them or attempt to contract out of them through treaties. For example, genocide and participating in a slave trade are thought to be jus cogens.

http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/Term/13FB4261-D05C-44FE-A8554A5F5134FC55/alpha/J/

Ah well in that case, this thread may help you Avatar.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=77752

Or not?

jus cogens norms

Whats that?

That is a very good question! And one of the harderst theoretical questions you can ask to an international law specialist.

To give a short answer

Within the category of general principles of law, there are also peremptory norms of general international law, defined as "a norm accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character." [FN124] These peremptory norms are called jus cogens. [FN125] The importance of rules with the status of jus cogens is that they cannot be abrogated by treaty, [FN126] and states cannot avoid them through persistent objection. [FN127] The concept of jus cogens is generally accepted in the international community; however, there is little agreement on which particular rules have achieved that status. [FN128] An example of rules that are generally accepted as jus cogens are the principles contained in the United Nations Charter that prohibit the use of force except in self-defense. [FN129]
Add to it also slavery, torture, genocide and widespread rape.

Ah well in that case, this thread may help you Avatar.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=77752

Or not?

Not really, and I already have that info, but thanks for remembering it anyway!

However I believe that we don't have the moral authority to judge over life and death. Gladly all of Europe agrees and has eliminated capital punishment.

But then the does the criminal have moral authority?

In the case you desribed would you consider the perpetatrator to be sane? Are those the actions of a sane person? No they are not.

Yet you would convict someone and sentencing them to long prison term who, at the time, for all intents and purposes was criminally insane. So then your moral authority is an illusion. By the same token would you want that person to be rehabilitated by therapists and psychiatrists AND to be able to come live with you? Society has to deal with this burden but at the same time has to protect the public.:)

The question is Avatar, what is more important, more tangible - justice or morality?

Actually he was not insane. He was admitted to be mentally handicapped, but not beyond being able to control himself or understand what he's doing.


But then the does the criminal have moral authority?
No, he doesn't. However if we become like criminals we are no better than them.


Yet you would convict someone and sentencing them to long prison term who, at the time, for all intents and purposes was criminally insane.
Insane people are ill and they get treated.

The question is Avatar, what is more important, more tangible - justice or morality?

Inseperable. Justice comes from our morality.

By the same token would you want that person to be rehabilitated by therapists and psychiatrists AND to be able to come live with you? Society has to deal with this burden but at the same time has to protect the public
If he is cured, sure. If he is not, he is being kept in the institution.
If that person has done something really bad, but found mentally ill, then the time spent at the institution is taken away from his prison sentence, and he still has to serve the remaining sentence, or, if it is life, he goes to prison for life.

Actually that's the same as when a person is sentenced to 20 years for murder, then comes out and lives as your neighbour. You might not even know that, but it happens all the time everywhere.

Actually he was not insane. He was admitted to be mentally handicapped, but not beyond being able to control himself or understand what he's doing.

Didn't his actions prove that he was beyond being capable of controlling himself? As far as understanding, the ability to understand that taking another life is wrong is pretty much established at...you know as funny as it may sound i am going to say time of birth. Basically, the ability to understand it is not fully developed but the capacity to NOT do the act is most likely present OR the capacity IS present, specifically the desire. Whatever happens in between is circumstantial- The notion that 'you (society) put this gun in my hand' may have dramatic effect but not everyone resorts to such acts.

Now a police officer using deadly force to avert another homicide of either himself or another 'innocent' person has made the decision to exert his 'moral authority' but this goes to imminent danger. And of course is understandable and i cannot see people arguing against this. Imagine someone with a gun against another persons head, the first thing they would think is 'kill this mf'er'

I honestly believe that murder committed in anger and without justification is not the actions of a sane person, of course this excludes justifiable homicide.


No, he doesn't. However if we become like criminals we are no better than them.

Reading Crime and Punishment? Dostoevsky was himself a criminal (well he was sent into a gulag) and probably seen people being treated unjustly. However, this view is\was prejudiced by his own personal experience and is not a barometer for what is fair and just.

And really science has not provided an answer, not by a long shot.

Edit: I am not saying i am for or against capital punishment but i can understand the concept. To me, as far as it is used in U.S it is something to contemplate before the crime is committed- because really AFAIK, in most states it can go either way - LIFE in prison or death. Which i believe is why it still exists in U.S., even viewed as part of the penalty phase.

Finally: It makes for good movies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Starkweather

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badlands_%28movie%29

Let the broken hearts stand
As the price youve gotta pay

No, he doesn't. However if we become like criminals we are no better than them.

Inseperable. Justice comes from our morality.

"A great rabbi stands teaching in the marketplace. It happens that a husband finds proof that morning of his wife's adultry, and a mob carries her to the marketplace to stone her to death. (There is a familiar version of this story, but a friend of mine, a Speaker for the Dead, has told me of two other rabbis that faced the same situation. Those are the ones I'm going to tell you.)
The rabbi walks forward and stands beside the woman. Out of respect for him, the mob forbears, and waits with the stones heavy in their hands. "Is there anyone here," he says to them, "who has not desired another man's wife, another woman's husband?"
They murmer and say, "We all know the desire. But, Rabbi, none of us has acted on it."
The rabbi says, "Then kneel down and give thanks that God made you strong." He takes the woman by the hand and leads her out of the market. Just before he lets her go, he whispers to her, "Tell the lord magistrate who saved his mistress. Then he'll know I'm his loyal servant."
So the woman lives, because the community is too corrupt to protect itself from disorder.

Another rabbi, another city. He goes to her and stops the mob, as in the other story, and says, "Which of you is without sin? Let him cast the first stone."
The people are abashed, and they forget their unity of purpose in the memory of their own individual sins. Someday, they think, I may be like this woman, and I'll hope for forgiveness and another chance. I should treat her the way I wish to be treated.
As they open their hands and let the stones fall to the ground, the rabbi picks up one of the fallen stones, lifts it high over the woman's head, and throws it straight down with all his might. It crushes her skull and dashes her brains onto the cobblestones.
"Nor am I without sin," he says to the people. "But if we allow only perfect people to enforce the law, the law will soon be dead, and our city with it."
So the women died because her community was too rigid to endure her deviance.
The famous version of this story is noteworthy because it is so startingly rare in our experience. Most communities lurch between decay and rigor mortis, and when they veer too far, they die."

Orson Scott Card - "Speaker For The Dead"

3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group
4 and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery.
5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?"
6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger.
7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."
8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there.
10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"
11 "No one, sir," she said. "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

John 8:3-11 (New International Version)

"Justice" is a rare and nebulous concept which bears little relation to the application of law.
Morality is another nebulous concept - and one which tends to vary from individual to individual. By whose morality is justice served?

Law exists primarily as a social safeguard. Each society might have different laws, different punishments according to their own view of "morality".

And just to get away from the USA for a short space of time, here is a part the price of yours :
http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020122&ct=1

Second story made no sense. sorry...