On Killing Kids

Recently the supreme court ruled that it is unconstitutional to execute persons under 18 years old. Capitol Punishment has always been an issue that raises heated debate. However, I am not going to argue the particular merits of capitol punishment this morning but rather I am going to express my concerns as to how the court decided this case.

Essentially, the court said that capitol punishment for juveniles violates the 8th amendment which states that people should be free from cruel and unusual punishment. The interesting thing is that they didn't use the cruelty portion in the clause to void the law but rather they found the practice of executing juveniles to be unusual and therefore unconstitutional. They came to this conclusion by looking around the world and seeing that most other countries do not execute juveniles. Using this argument is a slippery slope. Suppose for a moment that most countries decided to lower the age of sexual consent from 16-14 years old. (This is actually being argued in some countries already) Would it then be unusual for us to imprison pedophiles that prey on 15 year olds? Would the court declare our laws that protect kids under 16 as unconstitutional? This may sound like a stretch but strange things happen when we allow others to become the moral arbiter of our laws. The implications for this case are wide because it sets a judicial precedent to use other countries laws to judge our own.

My other problem with this decision is that it creates a fictional line of culpability. It basically says that a kid who is 17 years and 11 months old should be held less accountable for his crime than someone who committed his crime on his 18th birthday. Do people change that much in one month? Are all 18 year olds more mature than all 17 year olds? Why draw the line at 18? Why not 21? One could argue that 21 one year olds have a much higher degree of appreciation for their crimes. Whatever age you choose it is completely arbitrary and this is the problem. No longer is punishment decided on the individual merits of the case and the maturity level of the individual criminal. I am far more comfortable having jury members, who have sat through the case, deciding a person's fate instead of having a universal law imposed capriciously.

When you see through the court's faulty reasoning, you begin to realize that this decision is simply an excuse to impose the judges own moral opposition to executing juveniles. Isn't this the exact same thing that the Democrats are worried about with the Bush judicial nominees? That they will somehow make new law based on their opposition to abortion or gay rights or whatever. I guess in this case it's okay because they agree with the final decision. However, If the law needs to be changed, it the duty of legislature and not the courts to make law. The people of each state should decide the moral implications of capitol punishment for juveniles instead of unaccountable judges.

My problem with this case is not the final conclusion. In fact I agree that we should not execute juveniles. However, I have very serious reservations with the method they used to reach their conclusions and fear the consequences of this judicial precedent.