·support our
troops, support Bush, support Cheney, support victory in Iraq, support victory in Afghanistan,
Clinton Liebrary, http://PoliSat.Com
, PoliSatDOTcom, Salute America's Heroes, Fallen Heroes Fund, oppose Gore's Global Warming theory, support milblogs, Michael Yon, Pat Dollard, BlackFive, MilBlogs, MilBlogging, Michael Yon, Mudville Gazette, HotAir.Com, JawaReport, PajamasMedia , VictoryCaucus , VetsForFreedom ,
FreedomsWatch , DayByDayCartoon , WrennCom.Com , Video , Political Satire, Politics, News, oppose MoveOn.Org, oppose Code Pink, oppose DailyKos, oppose ANSWER, support PoliSat.Com, support WrennCom.Com, ·
Supreme Court allows death penalty for victims of juvenile killers-- Effects of that 5-4 decision will increase the number of victims of murderous schemes by under-18 offenders who'd risk killing victims.
One struggles in vain to find good judgment in the 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court to arbitrarily
rule that no one under eighteen is capable of sufficient moral judgment to face the risk of evidence
to rebut a presumption that they lack such judgment with respect to whether they should be deemed
potentially liable for the death penalty upon proof of sufficient aggravating circumstances.
One recognizes that the setting of any age limit for the purpose of a legal classification
unavoidably will-- in some small but irreducible percentage of cases-- seem, if not be,
arbitrary. One recognizes also that in setting such age limits for the purpose of preventing
death or injury, a legislature would want to err on the side of minimizing such risks-- thus, the
fact that many teenagers may be capable of being competent drivers years before the age limit
established by law exemplifies a context in which the legislature may sensibly apply an arbitrary
age-limit threshold rather than a rebuttable presumption that teens below a specified age could
qualify for a driver's license.
However, common sense dictates that the goal of minimizing the risks of innocent people being
murdered by criminals under eighteen (in contrast to being killed by incompetent drivers below the
age-limit for driving) would require the legislature to err on the opposite side in
establishing the age below which a murder would be too young to be deemed sufficiently morally
responsible to face the risks of possible liability for the death penalty on the basis of evidence
sufficient to rebut a presumption of the absence of such level of moral responsibility.
Instead, the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision maximizes the risks of innocent deaths by
arbitrarily making it a conclusive presumption that no one under eighteen is capable of such moral
responsibility. Thus, the Court has given the "green light" to gang rituals
requiring teens to commit murder as an initiation rite into the gang. The Court has relieved
hardened criminals under age eighteen of the fear that committing murder might expose them to the
death penalty. This is not only judicial legislation rather than adjudication, but it's also
dangerous legislation that will, of necessity, lead to an increase in the number of, rather than to
minimize the risks of, murders by criminals under eighteen.
Death
Penalty for Common Sense.
The
penalty ordering death
for viciously ending the breath
of innocent lives
no doubt has comprised
deterrence of some who'd cause death.
This
argument doesn't depend
on science but mere common sense
that some, if not many,
with motives for killing
would choose to subdue them with sense.
That
some aren't deterred by the fear
that death is the sentence they'd hear,
does not mean that many
do not avoid killing
for fear that such sentence they'd hear.
So
therefore, one cannot deny
that fear of such death has comprised
--though not without erring--
a factor deterring
the murder of innocent lives.
And
thus, we know rules to exclude
that death be a sentence to choose
would add to the till
decisions to kill
that folks fearing death wouldn't choose.
But
rules for deciding the age
when choices for murdering made
could not be perceived
as choices conceived
by grown-ups, of course, must be made.
It's
true rules we're forced to devise
on "age" to save innocent lives--
like rules setting higher
the age to be drivers
though younger ones safely could drive.
In
contrast, procedures devised
the save the most innocent lives
from murderous rage,
presumptions on age
should err on the opposite side.
And
thus the Supreme Court's decision
by fiat requiring excision
of rules to rebut
that not-yet-adults
could not deserve death needs rescission.
Effects
of that Five-Four decision
will increase the number of victims
of murderous schemes
by under-eighteen
offenders who'd risk killing victims.
--Jim
Wrenn, Editor at PoliSat.Com.
To
send this to a friend, paste the Links Box below into your email or go to PoliSat.Com's "Email
a Friend" page.
Links
Box for:
Mar.
3, 2005 #01 Daily Update at PoliSat.Com,
where satire is alwayscommentary, but commentaryisn't always satire.™
Title:
Death Penalty for Victims of Juvenile Killers..
