|
|
Latest Column:
Stopping
the Meltdown
What Beltway Republicans Need To Do
..........
CaliforniaRepublic.org
opinon in
Reagan country
..........
..........
Jon
Fleischman’s
FlashReport
The premier source for
California political news
..........
Michael
Ramirez
editorial cartoon
@Investor's
Business
Daily
..........
Do
your part to do right by our troops.
They did the right thing for you.
Donate Today
..........
 ..........
..........
tOR Talk Radio
Contributor Sites
Laura
Ingraham
Hugh
Hewitt
Eric
Hogue
Sharon
Hughes
Frank
Pastore
[Radio Home]
..........
|
|
Contributors
J.F. Kelly, Jr. - Contributor
J.F.
Kelly, Jr. is a retired Navy Captain and bank executive who
writes on current events and military subjects. He is a resident
of Coronado, California. [go to Kelly index]
 Supreme
Folly
The growing internationalism of the SCOTUS left wing…
[J. F. Kelly, Jr.] 3/10/05
The Supreme Court decision (Roper v. Simmons) to eliminate
the death penalty for 16-and-17-year-olds overturns laws in nineteen
states that currently permit such executions. The ruling comes
at a time when the number of horrendous crimes committed by this
segment of the population continues to shock the nation. Given
the glorification and graphic portrayal of violence in video
games, movies and television and the spreading influence of gangs,
the removal of the death penalty option will undoubtedly lead
to more murders by persons in this population segment. Gangs
and terrorist groups can now be expected to utilize members of
this age group, eager for the acceptance of older members, to
carry out acts of murder and terrorism now that the death penalty
is off the table for them.
The court was deeply divided on the issue. Writing for the
majority, Justice Kennedy found that the execution of 16- and
17-year-olds is wrong and unconstitutional. More alarmingly,
he cited the preponderance of international opinion against the
death penalty for juveniles. One struggles to understand the
relationship between foreign opinion and the constitutionality
of state laws in America. Since most foreign nations oppose the
death penalty for anyone, regardless of age, can we expect future
court rulings against the death penalty altogether?
The narrow decision struck down laws that were
a result of a public outcry against very adult crimes being
committed by
very young hoodlums who were out of control. It continues a liberal
agenda by which un-elected judges and justices substitute their
own moral and cultural values for those of a clear majority of
the public. “The court thus proclaims itself sole arbiter
of our nation’s moral standards,” said Justice Scalia
in his scathing dissent.
Granted, the execution of a person so young
is a harsh and troubling punishment. Indeed, the death penalty
is harsh at any
age. That’s why it has been imposed on 16- and 17-year-olds
only in response to premeditated, vicious crimes like the case
in question. Christopher Simmons, at the age of 17, told his
friends that he wanted to commit murder and, moreover, that he
could get away with it because he was a minor. Shortly thereafter,
he broke into a home, bound his terrified female victim in duct
tape and wire, drove to a bridge and threw her into the water
to drown helplessly.
Youth and immaturity cannot excuse this well-planned, deliberate
and monstrous deed. It is no less awful that it was committed
in the year prior to his eighteenth birthday. A16- or 17-year-old
that plans and executes such a hideous crime forfeits any further
claim on youth and innocence. This was a big boy crime and must
be treated as such. Society must be protected from such monsters.
Life in prison without the possibility of parole does not rule
out he possibility of escape or a future Supreme Court decision
that could declare even this punishment cruel and unusual. It
should never be possible for anyone with the mental capacity
to plan and execute a murder to believe that he or she will not
have to face the death penalty.
Thanks to Justices Kennedy, Breyer, Ginsberg,
Souter and Stevens, we will have to live with this most recent
example of the Supremes
striking down state laws designed to protect peaceful citizens
because they did not fit within the justices’ magnanimous,
liberal model of social justice. We will have to live with it,
that is, until justices can be appointed and confirmed who will
stick to interpreting our Constitution instead of worrying about
how our laws are perceived by the international community or
whether they reflect appropriately evolving cultural and moral
standards.
Eventually, society will get fed up and demand
that somebody be held accountable for vicious, premeditated
crimes committed
by juveniles of any age. If the perpetrators are to be excused
because of age, then someone must be held responsible. Here’s
a novel thought. How about the parents or legal guardian? I’m
not talking here about civil liability. I’m talking criminal
responsibility. Perhaps—just perhaps—it would make
prospective parents just a little more aware of the responsibilities
they incur when they create a child. These are not responsibilities
that they should be allowed to walk away from because their child
is out of control, or they are too busy working to exercise proper
supervision, or the parents have split up, or the kids don’t
have a proper role model or whatever.
Unfair, you say? Well, life and the responsibilities
it places on us are not always fair. Life certainly wasn’t fair to
young Mr. Simmons’s innocent victim who was tied up like
an animal and thrown into the water to die a horrible death. tOR
copyright
2005 J. F. Kelly, Jr.
§
|
|
|
