No More Executing Juvenile Offenders

The Supreme Court narrowly (5-4) ruled that executing people for crimes they committed as minors was 'cruel and unusual punishment'. Interestingly enough, the court believes that a "national consensus" determines what constitutes 'cruel and unusual punishment'. Even the four Justices who dissented appear to concede this point; Justice Antonin Scalia objected on the grounds that such a consensus did not exist. This is not a new point of law, merely one of which I was ignorant: it apparently dates back to a 1958 ruling which states that as society matures, its standards of decency evolve. What is new, though, is that international opinion appears to have influenced the decision. The five judges who formed the majority and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor believe that international trends help define the meaning of 'cruel and unusual punishment.' The United States was - until today - one of the few countries to permit the execution of those under the age of 18, and the majority opinion holds that the views of the rest of the world confirm their conclusions.

My feelings on the whole issue are decidedly mixed. To begin with, I'm against the death penalty entirely. Gandalf sums up my feelings perfectly in this conversation - about Gollum - with Frodo: "Deserves [death]? I dare say he does! Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be so eager to deal out death in judgement."

On the other hand, a previous ruling had already prevented the execution of children aged 15 and younger at the time they committed the crime. The new ruling affects 16- and 17 year-olds, and was partially based on evidence that they are too immature to be held completely accountable for their crimes. This leaves me feeling uncomfortable: Is 16 too young to realize that murder is wrong? And the death penalty is usually reserved for juvenile crimes that are particularly brutal, or for serial offenders. In my opinion, 16 year-old criminals probably know enough to be responsible for the consequences of their actions, but I'm willing to concede I may be wrong; I don't know much about the typical American teenager convicted of such crimes. Still, one would think that if you can't be held accountable at 17 years and 6 months, half a year more won't make much difference. To be fair, though, the same could be said of any artificial boundary, and I presume juries make appropriate allowances.

Surely a cleaner solution would be to abolish the death penalty altogether? The Supreme Court probably won't have a role to play, because the Constitution (via the Fifth Amendment) allows for the existence of a death penalty. Either the Constitution could be amended again (which is unlikely), or the 38 states that allow capital punishment could ban the practice. It'll be an uphill battle, but with luck, we'll get there eventually.

So here's what I think:
1. The death penalty should be abolished.
2. I'm glad the Supreme Court abolished the execution of minors, but I feel that the reason advanced (that 17 year-olds are too immature to be held completely accountable) was somewhat specious.
3. The way to get rid of capital punishment isn't via the judiciary; instead, the various state legislatures should outlaw it.