I’ve just finished reading the Roper v. Simmons decision (PDF) that was handed down yesterday, ending the United States’ practice of killing children.
The majority in the 5-4 ruling pointed out that “the United States is the only country in the world that continues to give official sanction to the juvenile death penalty.” There is a caveat, though — seven other countries have killed children since 1990 — Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Nigeria, Democratic Republic of Congo, and China. Every one of them other than the U.S. has since ended the practice.
We’re #1! We’re #1!
Within the U.S., the majority also points out, a minority of states permit the state killing of children. Only six states have actually executed children since 1989, and only three in the past decade. One of those three is, of course, Virginia. It couldn’t be more clear that Virginia is way out of step with both national and international norms by continuing to kill kids.
Justice O’Connor wrote a dissent, pointing out (rightly) that the majority failed to review the juveniles that have been executed recently and demonstrate that they lacked the capacity to make a rational decision in committing their crime.
There was also a dissent filed by Justices Scalia and Mini-Me, and it’s easily summed up: I insist that we kill some children.
Up until yesterday, the United States was the only nation in the world that still killed children. Iran, Yemen, Nigeria, China — they’d all moved ahead of us in this element of human rights. There’s no need to cite precedent or interpret law here (though it’s obviously the court’s job to do so, and I don’t disagree with that). It’s wrong to kill children. That’s that. End of story.
One of my college professors explained that his was the only consistent view on abortion, the death penalty, and eating meat – he was against them all, as they all involve killing. Perhaps he’s right, the outcome of this case is not nearly so objectionable as the continued method of analysis.
It seems so disorderly to me to say that the Constitution has changed in the last 15-20 years, by attempting a head count of the states and foreign countries. Even if Justice Kennedy is asking the right question, if reasonable minds can disagree on the answer about how the American public and the world feels about the death penalty (or sodomy or gay marriage), I think the burden of proof must be higher before not-so-old Supreme Court precedents are overturned. I doubt that the world has entered the age of enlightenment since 1989, when the same court ruled the opposite way on the very same question presented by the Roper v. Simmons case.
The points that you bring up were raised well by Justice O’Connor, and they do bear repeating. I thought that he did quite a solid job of explaining the awkwardness of the majority’s rationale. Were this a chess game, O’Connor would have won. Consequently, I’m glad that the SCOTUS is not played in the manner of chess, as life-and-death is too important to leave to a game.
This is indeed good news. I don’t wish to repeat my thoughts in your blog, but I am amazed that people support the death penalty for persons of any age. I hope this brings us one step closer to eliminating the practice.
I will say that Steve brings up an interesting point about the contradictory position that many on the left and right take with regard to the death penalty and abortion. It is rare to see a consistent endorsement or abolitionist view of both practices. I have yet to read a convincing argument for why one should stand while the other should be embraced.
I do agree, this is indeed good news. However, one part of Scalia’s dissent caught my attention when he writes, “The Court thus proclaims itself sole arbiter of our Nation’s moral standards.” Is there any reason to worry that later down the road we could see the court use this same reasoning to reverse the decision on abortion or other issues whenever they feel a national moral consensus?