I think the reasoning behind the the decision in Roper v. Simmons was a little shifty. Writing for the majority was Justice Anthony Kennedy in which he said [QUOTE}"The evidence of national consensus against the death penalty for juveniles is similar, and in some respects parallel, to the evidence Atkins held sufficient to demonstrate a national consensus against the death penalty for the mentally retarded"[/QUOTE] 20 states had laws that allowed for 17 year olds to be given the death penalty. I would say that 40% of our states having laws allowing this is anything but a national consensus against it. Justice Kennedy also cited international precedent in deciding this case If you want to relate this case with a "national consensus" and international abortion laws against it let's compare it to Roe v. Wade{/I]. Prior to the ruling of Roe v. Wade 21 states still had abortion laws on the books, dating back to 1868 (the passing of the 14th amendment) and 36 states had laws limiting abortion. Justice Rehnquist's dissent. Also only 56 of 191 countries, listed, allow abortion on demand and of those 56 only 28 (US included) allow abortion at any time. This means that only 15% of countries in the world allow abortion on demand without any restrictions. Summary of Abortion Laws around the World If the Supreme Court is going to use international precedent, as they clearly are in Roper v. Simmons, they should use it in all cases not just in specific ones. Same thing goes with national consensus if 40% of states have laws allowing people 15-17 to be given the death penalty they shouldn't call that a national consensus against it and if 40% is enough for a national consensus why not consider the 62% of states that had laws limiting abortion before Roe v. Wade?
I don't think the Supreme Court should use international precedent in any cases. I'm disappointed in this justice, as he was a conservative Reagan appointee. From the Missouri Supreme Court: I don't think societal standards have evolved that much since 1989 to warrant such a decision. I disagree with it and believe that the Missouri State Supreme Court as well as the U.S. Supreme Court are wrong. What is the difference between a 17 and 18 year old?
I don't think they should use international precedent either but if international precedent is used then they shouldn't pick and choose certain ones to follow and others to ignore, like abortion. I am also disapointed in Justice Kennedy, however it just goes to show that Presidents may appoint someone that they think agrees with them ideologically but you never knew for certain. I think we need more men like Rehnquist and Scalia on the court and even hope that Scalia is tapped to be Chief Justice when Rehnquist resigns.
i definately agree with it. if you place the individual's right's above society then society will quickly erode. Furthermore, just because the US abolishes the death penalty does not make us anymore civilized than any other culture. As long as man exists there will always be a death penalty. That may come as a shock to some but think about it for a second.
yeah kill those bastards, they shouldnt sell products to willing consumers engaging in free trade. i hate it when people want to buy products and other people actually have the nerve to sell them what they want. down with freedom.
It's not like they are selling girl scout cookies. Plus, my tax dollars wouldn't be wasted on them enjoying butt sex in prison.
It's not precedent. It's persuasive authority, and they're explaining the sources of law that they looked to in order to reach their conclusion. Precedent would be a previous case that they would be expected to follow (stare decisis.)
but your tax dollars would be wasted catching them, convicting them, and fighting all the crime the illegal drug trade causes. the drug war costs billions and billions and billions and not only causes violence in america, but also massive drug wars and killing and kidnapping in other countries. i dont want any drugs, so i do not buy any. problem solved. even if you want to keep drugs illegal, the death penalty for dealers is crazy. the death penalty is for violent criminals, not people who sell products in voluntary transactions. drug dealers are not dangerous.
I understand your argument, Martin, and even agree with it to a certain extent, but you lost a little credibility with that last statement. Please explain why you feel that way so I can try to understand where you're coming from because alot of people can post alot of examples that contradict you on that one.
