Supreme Court decision: Death Penalty for Youths Ends

AKA2D '91 · #1 06-20-2002, 12:58 PM

NBC, MSNBC AND NEWS SERVICES
WASHINGTON, June 20 — A divided Supreme Court reversed itself Thursday and ruled that executing the mentally retarded is unconstitutionally cruel — a decision that reflects changes in public attitudes on the issue since the court declared such executions constitutional in 1989.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/769869.asp?pne=msn

Who knew that this was allowed? 18 states allow those mentally disabled to be executed? I wonder what states prohibit this practice.

sidebar: The word "retarded" is no longer used. Someone needs to give these journalists the heads up as to what is appropriated.

nikki1920 · #2 06-20-2002, 02:02 PM

Mentally retarded is defined as an IQ score below 70, I think. (trying to remember my psych/special ed classes) The actual term is "retarded" but the PC version is "mentally challenged". There are a lot of grey areas to consider, which is why they reversed themselves, I think. ITs a topic that will be and has been debated for a long time, b/c IQ can be subjective, and then there are racial implications, etc.

AKA2D '91 · #3 06-20-2002, 02:20 PM

I guess it depends on your area of the country. With all of the meetings, interviews, workshops we have to have ( Special Ed teachers/administrators/supervisors/community advocates/liasons, etc) we were told "disabled" (basically, tomato/tomata). Anything would sound better than retarded.

Honeykiss1974 · #4 06-20-2002, 02:38 PM

I am glad that FINALLY this issue is being addresses. I believe Texas was the last state to execute someone that was mentally disabled.

vanda · #5 06-20-2002, 03:54 PM

This subject has been going back and forth for years. Did any of you guys catch the HBO Documentary "The execution of Wanda Jean"? She too was deemed retarded but they still carried out the execution. I think those they think may be mentally disabled should be thoroughly evaluated because some are said to have tried to fake it. I believe Texas was the last to execute someone mentaly disabled and was about to execute another one but his new defense team took it to court because of his low IQ and his trial attorney fell asleep during the trial several times. Totally off subject but do you realize how many executions Texas carries out? It's unbelievable! I was at a website of scheduled executions and they were like a day apart. How can you adjust to something like that? That kind of job would be too much for me too handle.

strawberry_02 · #6 06-20-2002, 05:43 PM

I am glad that some things are finally changing. Some mentally disabled people cannot think totally in their right minds and honestly don't understand the capacity of what they have done. It stunned me greatly that a Black woman in Oklahoma who had a serious mental problem was executed. It was evident in talking with her and watching her and her family that they all had a problem. A lot of false evidence was presented in this trial and I don't think she got a fair trial and now she is gone. I saw her story on HBO. I think it was said but hopefully things will really start to change. For anyone interested here is a site you can go to for info on her story.

Don't get me wrong, I am a firm believer that if you do the crime you must do the time. But for some mental people I don't know.

Strawberry princess, you know me.
Lovely and educated, who else could it be.

http://www.hbo.com/americaundercover/wandajean/production_notes.html

nikki1920 · #7 06-21-2002, 12:43 AM

AKA2D: I concur with you. We are taught "mentally challenged", but they are referring to the psychological term. But I was surprised that they SAID 'retarded'.

AKA2D '91 · #8 03-01-2005, 02:06 PM

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._death_penalty

High Court Ends Death Penalty for Youths

14 minutes ago

By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the Constitution forbids the execution of killers who were under 18 when they committed their crimes, ending a practice used in 19 states.
The 5-4 decision throws out the death sentences of about 70 juvenile murderers and bars states from seeking to execute minors for future crimes.

pointNclick · #9 03-02-2005, 03:01 PM

I totally agree with this decision.

pNc

Exquisite5 · #10 03-02-2005, 03:22 PM

WOW- I am surprised this court got this decision right. I havn't read the opinion (is it even out yet), but if I recall correctly the decision was 5-4, I be that "5" was Justice O'Connor. God save the Court if she retires with Bush in office.

Peaches-n-Cream · #11 03-02-2005, 03:33 PM

The five were Stevens, Souter, Breyer, Bader Ginsberg, and Kennedy. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas joined Scalia in seeking to uphold the executions.

Quote:

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor filed a separate dissent, arguing that a blanket rule against juvenile executions was misguided. Case-by-case determinations of a young offenders' maturity is the better approach, she wrote.

"The court's analysis is premised on differences in the aggregate between juveniles and adults, which frequently do not hold true when comparing individuals," she said. "Chronological age is not an unfailing measure of psychological development, and common experience suggests that many 17-year-olds are more mature than the average young 'adult.'"

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._death_penalty

I just happened to attend a lecture about the death penalty last night so this decision was a major topic.

Exquisite5 · #12 03-03-2005, 12:17 AM

I stand corrected.

This is quite interesting to me. I am surprised by O'Connor here, but then though she is often more progressive than ol' Ronald would have liked, she is a Reagan appointee.

And can I just add right now I would pay $5,000 to pimp slap Clarence Thomas?

SummerChild · #13 03-03-2005, 05:29 PM

O'Connor wrote a separate dissent, but whatever - she didn't join the majority.
Justice Thomas *always* goes with whatever his daddy Scalia says. (shrugging shoulders)
For many years, he would not even cross-examine people who came before the Court and if you look at past Supreme Court decisions, you will notice that he rarely writes an opinion of his own. Usually he just co-signs with whatever way Scalia goes. He's a waste as far as I'm concerned. Even if he disagrees with what I think should happen in any given case (which would probably happen often), you have to respect independent thinking and I just don't see that.

SC

Quote:

Originally posted by Exquisite5
I stand corrected.

This is quite interesting to me. I am surprised by O'Connor here, but then though she is often more progressive than ol' Ronald would have liked, she is a Reagan appointee.

And can I just add right now I would pay $5,000 to pimp slap Clarence Thomas?