Simply put, laws are designed to protect 'juveniles' even as it gives them fewer rights. Except for possibly military service, most states would prevent a 17-year-old from legally engaging in dangerous activity.

It is pretty obvious to anyone in the system, from prosecutors and defense attorneys to judges, that the system of capital punishment is broken. The latest figure I heard was 113 death row inmates exonerated in 30 years. Considering DNA evidence is a relatively new, many of these exonerations were done in time consuming reexaminations of crimes. I am sure that some kind of triage was done due to lack of resources, so there is no telling how many others on death row were wrongly convicted.

Now some governors, including GWB, have stated publicly that they believe that no innocent person has been executed. Considering these exonerations, it becomes clear that innocent individuals were sentenced to death row, so the idea that it is impossible or even unlikely that no innocent person was executed becomes less believable.

Taking into account the fact that the system may be flawed, and the legal concept that juveniles are entitled to extra protection under the law, it is not a stretch to say that it is more important to prevent a juvenile from being wrongly executed than an adult, since the adult at least had the right to vote for the government and laws which were being applied against him.

Are such legal technicalities arbitrary since they only take into account age and do not measure maturity? Yes, but that is the only system we have. The law does make exceptions, such as when children emancipate themselves from their parents, but this has to be requested by the juvenile. The system also can make exceptions by declaring adults mentally incompetant, which is why the court disallowed executing the mentally retarded.

Does this leave the law open to abuse? I have already heard prosecutors talking about the recruitment of juvenile assassins in the same way that 'baby bandits' were recruited for bank robberies. Of course, the adults doing this recruiting are engaging in criminal conspiracy and in the case of murder have a better chance of ending up on death row than the juveniles committing the acts.

I personally do not want to see a news story about some 17-year-old kid being executed and later found innocent. The truth is that there is no penalty for wrongful imprisonment and/or execution without proof of misconduct. In many cases, exonerated individuals can have decades of their lives taken away and end up with a bus ticket and a few hundred dollars. The state never admits it was wrong.

That statement is so accurate so many times over. Defense lawyer sleeps through the trial in TX, his client gets the death penalty, and that is called competant legal representation? People on death row *proven* by DNA not to be guilty - and the system refuses to even look at that evidence. The Gov of IL found the system so defective in his state as to completely reverse his opinion and suspend the death penalty.

Frontline (PBS) made the defects in they system woefully obvious. So how do advocates of the death penalty respond? They advocate the status quo. And that is the problem. They system is obviously broken. And yet those who advocate the death penalty make no effort to even acknowledge the system is broken.

The death penalty is being eliminated not so much because it is barbaric. It will be eliminated because those using the death penalty have so violated their obligations. The death penalty is a valuable tool to solve or prevent crimes IF it is used accordingly. But to be effective, how the death penalty is used must be performed by extremely careful logic. And yet we don't do that. Too many prosecutors use the death penalty only for revenge - even refusing to consider future evidence that proves the human innocent.

The problem with the death penalty is in how too many in the system use it. After all, a man can be put to death even when his own lawyer sleeps through the trial? Worse still, this is not the only example of questionable justice in TX that has killed people - then refuses to learn whether they made a mistake.

Honestly, I think its pretty difficult to make a case that eliminating the death penalty for juveniles weakens the penal system. The idea that it will lead to the recruitment of juvenile assasins is absurd.

I'm fine with it.

Taken to the extreme, your viewpoint would be that there should be no minimum age for the death penalty. In theory, (I'll admit it's not likely at all, but in theory,) you could have a 4 year old being put to death if a court found that individual worthy of it. Correct? Or is there some minimum age? Why?

have you ever met a 4 year old who could qualify for the death sentence with... what do they call it - special circumstances? they look at the individual situations so although i don't think a minimum age is necessary, i can't fathom a situation where a 4 year old would be eligible for the death penalty.

You never met my youngest nephew, aged 4. The last time my Sis and her two kids (one being him) came up for a visit, I seriously considered bringing some volatile substance home from the lab and letting him inhale enough fumes to knock him out for 36 hours!

and to add a little fuel to the fire...

how is it that a 16 year old girl has the mental capacity and maturity to have an abortion without parental notification, but the same girl wouldn't have the mental capacity to be held responsible for her criminal actions in regards to the death penalty?

one side or the other of that equation doesn't jive. and this case doesn't argue the legality of the death penalty - it is the application of the legal death penalty to those under the age of 18.

also - in what other supreme court case has one of the justices relied upon international law and national consensus in making a decision. i thought the supreme court was only supposed to apply the constitution, etc... in deciding these matters.

Well, the Constitution uses the adjectives "cruel" and "unusual", whose meanings when applied to punishment definitely evolve over time.

right HM, but they weren't deciding on the death penalty. only the age at which a crime must be committed after, in order to be sentenced to death.

And they decided it was crueler and more unusual to execute a child than an adult, and there was already a legal definition of a child. A cutoff age isn't a perfect definition of childhood, but it's all we've got.

any comment on how that definition of childhood then applies back to parental notification on abortion?

There was a recent intersting paper to do with neurological functioning of teenagers that demonstrated solid proof that they simply aren't capable of the same level of reasoning, particularly in stressful situations as adults.

There's my gasoline for the pile.

I'm not sure what the details were on the parental notification ruling.

There are lots of different rights/privileges/responsibilities granted as a person grows up.

Abortions (puberty. aka 12-13)
Driving (15 years old in some places)
voting/draft/jury duty/enter into contract/ etc (18)
Drinking (21)

I think 18 should be the age of legal adulthood for as much as possible. I would support both driving and drinking being moved to age 18. With abortion, biology is the determining factor. A girl will become able to reproduce at 12-13 regardless of what a legislator would like. I think a special case needs to be made for that situation, even if the girl still isn't as mentally mature as I would like. If she's old enough to get pregnant, she's old enough to consent to an abortion.

I saw the same study Jaguar. Can't find it now though, of course. Previously they thought the brain was fully mature at 19-21, now they are saying 24-25. Big big difference. anyone who had a few years between high school and college could have told you that without spending millions on the research.

I don't really care that much about the juvenile death penalty itself. i am more concerned with the idea that a supreme court justice has relied upon international law and national consensus in a ruling.

I am confused on how a person can be too immature to be held accountable for their actions in regards to the death penalty, but mature enough to decide upon a surgical procedure without parental notification. (notice I say notification, not consent.)