Bradylama
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
What upsets me is that we should base our notions of justice on "Everybody else is doing it."
Many people scream "liberal activism." I scream "bullshit."
Supreme Court says no killing teens!
- Thread starter welsh
- Start date
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
What upsets me is that we should base our notions of justice on "Everybody else is doing it."
Many people scream "liberal activism." I scream "bullshit."
welsh
Junkmaster
So you are implying that American notions of justice on superior to everyone else's?
Or perhaps the US should understand morality through it's own introspection?
Or perhaps the US should understand morality through it's own introspection?
A discussion on objective tests of maturity, from Slate.com. Thought people would like to know.
Given this information, I don't think its unreasonable to do a brain and psych profile on all juveniles who are on trial for their life, as it were. But if we can do it on suspected criminals, what's to stop society from performing this sort of test on everyone, at every age? If I were an insurance company about to underwrite a policy for your new Masarati, I would love to see if your prefrontal lobe is developed like an adult's before signing. Or for that matter letting you vote, drink, screw or sign contracts.
The realm of genetic and 'maturity' testing is scary. I wonder how I'd hold up.
Given this information, I don't think its unreasonable to do a brain and psych profile on all juveniles who are on trial for their life, as it were. But if we can do it on suspected criminals, what's to stop society from performing this sort of test on everyone, at every age? If I were an insurance company about to underwrite a policy for your new Masarati, I would love to see if your prefrontal lobe is developed like an adult's before signing. Or for that matter letting you vote, drink, screw or sign contracts.
The realm of genetic and 'maturity' testing is scary. I wonder how I'd hold up.
Bradylama
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
welsh said:
Bingo.
As much as we'd all like to hold hands and sing as one world like in the old Coca Cola commercials, nations and cultures are still very different from each other.
Laws that would fly in Europe or Asia wouldn't fly in the United States for a very good reason. We wouldn't accept them. They don't adhere to American concepts of freedom, justice, what have you.
We're talking about a Constitutional Ruling. Something which is made on a very real piece of legislation (the Constitution). International Law, or the laws of foreign nations, should not be considered in making a Constitutional Ruling, because the Constitution wasn't written for Germans or Koreans.
Luckily, Bradylama, when it all boils down to it all those complaints about international pressure are little more than straw hat arguments.
I do think international pressure had something to do with it, but this is not relevant to the public. Fact is, there are abundant reasons to abolish the execution of underaged criminals (heck, I'm against capital punishment as a whole, but that another matter) and it's fun that right-wingers could grab on to the one paragraph stating that international pressure might have had something to do with it and whine like little beeatches, but it really is hardly relevant to the case as a whole.
It is relevant as a case of precedence, I suppose, and it is good that people complain about it if they think it is bad precedence.
Hmmm, that said, keep one thing in mind, legislation isn't something people make up. It is and has been for a long time a matter of lead-by-example. The American Constitution wasn't "made up" without international influences, it was modelled on the influence of the people living in America at the time, mostly British, which is why the two constitutions are so alike, but also Dutch and French.
This is partially another case like that. The fact is that the US constitution isn't the end-all be-all of law-giving, even for the US. The US is changing constantly and a lot of that change comes from international influences. It is very hard to keep at it that you should keep archaic laws based on a centuries-old constitution just because that's your constitution.
I do think international pressure had something to do with it, but this is not relevant to the public. Fact is, there are abundant reasons to abolish the execution of underaged criminals (heck, I'm against capital punishment as a whole, but that another matter) and it's fun that right-wingers could grab on to the one paragraph stating that international pressure might have had something to do with it and whine like little beeatches, but it really is hardly relevant to the case as a whole.
It is relevant as a case of precedence, I suppose, and it is good that people complain about it if they think it is bad precedence.
Hmmm, that said, keep one thing in mind, legislation isn't something people make up. It is and has been for a long time a matter of lead-by-example. The American Constitution wasn't "made up" without international influences, it was modelled on the influence of the people living in America at the time, mostly British, which is why the two constitutions are so alike, but also Dutch and French.
This is partially another case like that. The fact is that the US constitution isn't the end-all be-all of law-giving, even for the US. The US is changing constantly and a lot of that change comes from international influences. It is very hard to keep at it that you should keep archaic laws based on a centuries-old constitution just because that's your constitution.
Bradylama
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Seeing as how many of these "archaic laws" guarantee my civil liberties, I'd rather keep them unsubject to change.
But freedom is out of vogue, apparently, when it inconveniences someone.
I also like how many of you have tried to pin me as being a Right Wing nut because your liberal sensibilities can't accept my statements as anything but. Apparently you all failed to notice how I agreed with the Supreme Court's decision, but disagreed with the manner in which it was reached.
This case would have had a very compelling constitutional argument to be able to reach the Supreme Court. Kennedy didn't even have to mention "International Opinion" save for a political pat on the ass. Supreme Court Justices aren't supposed to be politically considerate. Its called Impartiality of the Courts.
But freedom is out of vogue, apparently, when it inconveniences someone.
I also like how many of you have tried to pin me as being a Right Wing nut because your liberal sensibilities can't accept my statements as anything but. Apparently you all failed to notice how I agreed with the Supreme Court's decision, but disagreed with the manner in which it was reached.
This case would have had a very compelling constitutional argument to be able to reach the Supreme Court. Kennedy didn't even have to mention "International Opinion" save for a political pat on the ass. Supreme Court Justices aren't supposed to be politically considerate. Its called Impartiality of the Courts.
Bradylama said:
And many limit civil liberties too, ones that you might once find important.
Are you claiming the US law is perfect? Or at least, if not perfect, so good that it should not be subject to change?
And since it is subject to change, I don't see why you should disregard good international examples as a good reason for change. You expect the rest of the world to do so when it comes to the US' values, so why exactly can't the US do the same?
Bradylama said:
Straw man. Stuff it.
Bradylama said:
I do not agree such an accusation, I was speaking of the situation as a whole. I had read and absorbed the meaning of your post.
Bradylama said:
I remember that once someone here (CC?) accused the courts of being undemocratic for not accepting the people's will in a case. I pointed out that its not their job to be democratic. It's their job to be constitutional.
They were pretty damn constitutional here, ey?
bob_the_rambler
Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?
I hate to be pessimist but it really dosnt matter, if you dont kill them now you will see them again later and want to kill them then. a teen that has murdered and then goes to jail to be surrounded by criminals is not going to be a productive member of society and will most likely just end up on the streets later committing crimes.
im not saying this is true for every case, but can you really think that a teenager that murdered his whole family and raped his next door neighbors dog will ever be a productive person?
im not saying this is true for every case, but can you really think that a teenager that murdered his whole family and raped his next door neighbors dog will ever be a productive person?
bob_the_rambler said:
Yes. The purpose of prison, before Republicans got 'tough on crime' (which is just a euphemism for 'who cares about them as long as they aren't on the streets') was rehabilitation. Prison is as much about atoning for your crimes and learning how to be a productive member of society. Going into prison at 17 and coming back out at 37 would leave you an entirely different person, a person who is either broken and hardened in the criminal lifestyle or ready to take on the role of a productive citizen, its all in the attitude of the jailors and society.
Cite your source. And what a heartless, condescending and arrogant attitude. Try empathy once in a while Bob. Imagine how you'd feel if you knew that society had given up on you, and you had no hope of ever being happy. In that case I can't think of a better reason to continue being a criminal, whereas if I felt someone actually gave a damn about me, I'd think twice and try to walk the straight and narrow.
20 years of 'get tough on crime' and' the war on drugs' have gotten us precisly nothing but lower street prices for narcotics, racist mandatory sentencing guidelines and record numbers of people in prison- most of them minorities.
Bradylama
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
In the Constitution? Before the 1900's, there were none. In fact, prohibition was the first constitutional ammendment that outright restricted civil liberties.
Not that it shouldn't be subject to change completely. Just that ammendments to the Constitution should in no way restrict the civil liberties of a United States citizen. The Supreme Court's decision perfectly embodies this ideal. But its not the decision I have a problem with.
Pshaw. I don't care about how the EU wants to treat its citizens. I don't live in the EU. So obviously my views shouldn't have a bearing on the decision making process of the Union, or the decisions themselves.
Or by, "you," I'm sure you mean the US.
Sorry about that.
Yes, the decision was constitutionally correct. But what bothers me is that referencing foreign law violates the impartiality of the court.
You said before, Kharn, that the Constitution was inspired by ideals written by Europeans, and that the writers themselves were European. Is it not true, though, that these very ideals were not even embraced by Europe?
By referencing decisions made by courts that aren't based on American Law, you are essentially allowing opinion to enter into the decision making process. The job of a Supreme Court Justice is not to consider the opinion of others. That's why they have lifetime appointments, so that they are immune from having to adhere to the power of a constituency. They are supposed to be seperate of party politics.
By considering the pressure of foreign opinion, the Supreme Court Justices have essentially violated the impartiality of the court.
This bothers me.
bob_the_rambler
Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?
Your right it is condescending i just have a problem with criminals, repeat offenders that started their criminal escapades in their youth, and have been to jailed for rape and murder in their youth just to grow up and as an adult repeat old patterns of crime.
My family has recently suffered from one such offender, who had a rap sheet of assault and rape in his youth and walked free to hurt in his adulthood. my source is my own perceptions of a event that happened very close to me.
My family has recently suffered from one such offender, who had a rap sheet of assault and rape in his youth and walked free to hurt in his adulthood. my source is my own perceptions of a event that happened very close to me.
Ah yes, the attitude of 'it happened to me once, so EVERYONE MUST BE LIKE THAT ONE DUDE!'.bob_the_rambler said:
There are two great words for that: prejudice and generalisation, neither of those words are positive.
Bradylama
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Because some rapists are really good people. On the inside. 
MethidParadox
Still Mildly Glowing
I wish a 12 year old would kill of 15 people, just to prove a point.
Mmmmm, death
Mmmmm, death
TheWesDude
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
1) i agree with the point that even considering outside influences is very bad. our courts are supposed to be interpreting and passing judgements based upon OUR laws, not those of others. only when an issue has a significant amount of abiguity should they even be considered, and only if they have similarly abigous laws/statuets.
2) i think that if a "minor" commits the crime of an "adult" nature, then they should be treated as adults, irregardless of age, and only accounting for significant mental defeciencies. and being a child isnt really enough of one. but that should be decided on a case-by-case basis... if there is someone the court observes to be a significantly defecient person, they should be treated as such and jail most likely isnt the best place for them.
3) i think "jail" as it exsists in the US isnt really a good thing. they get too many things that even the poor in the US dont have access to. jail is supposed to be a place of punishment and/or retribution and/or rehabilitation dependant upon the crime, which should be decided as the sentance.
that being said, i think mandatory minimums are a very bad thing. anything that restricts, or makes impositions upon the sentancing judgements of our judges is a bad thing. if a man gets found guilty of manslaughter, he should be able to go to jail for 1 year, or 100 years; depending upon the circumstances.
2) i think that if a "minor" commits the crime of an "adult" nature, then they should be treated as adults, irregardless of age, and only accounting for significant mental defeciencies. and being a child isnt really enough of one. but that should be decided on a case-by-case basis... if there is someone the court observes to be a significantly defecient person, they should be treated as such and jail most likely isnt the best place for them.
3) i think "jail" as it exsists in the US isnt really a good thing. they get too many things that even the poor in the US dont have access to. jail is supposed to be a place of punishment and/or retribution and/or rehabilitation dependant upon the crime, which should be decided as the sentance.
that being said, i think mandatory minimums are a very bad thing. anything that restricts, or makes impositions upon the sentancing judgements of our judges is a bad thing. if a man gets found guilty of manslaughter, he should be able to go to jail for 1 year, or 100 years; depending upon the circumstances.
greatatlantic
It Wandered In From the Wastes
I don't think the Court based their desicion on international opinion. The constituition pretty explicitly bans "cruel and unusual punishment". I'm sure a lot of Americans would agree executing a juvenile is cruel and unusual. The fact that only seven other countries, countries that poster perfect for Axis of Evil status, have executed minors is proof that it is unusual.
As for American jails, they vary in quality, but its no picnic. Some common rooms might have satellite TV, but no inmate is ever going to be able to sit in a lazy chair with a beer and watch over 300 channels. There is also a steady rate of violence and male rape [shudder].
I agree with the desicion, since my moral standards tend to come straight from the Vatican. I have a hard time buying into this "retribution" argument death penalty supporters make. I do, however, understand the need for deterents, rehabilitation, and keeping dangerous people off the streets. All of which can be accomplished with life with out parole. That way you don't have to rely on someone else to kill another. Yeah, forget that State does the execution paradigm. Somebody has to flip the switch.
As for American jails, they vary in quality, but its no picnic. Some common rooms might have satellite TV, but no inmate is ever going to be able to sit in a lazy chair with a beer and watch over 300 channels. There is also a steady rate of violence and male rape [shudder].
I agree with the desicion, since my moral standards tend to come straight from the Vatican. I have a hard time buying into this "retribution" argument death penalty supporters make. I do, however, understand the need for deterents, rehabilitation, and keeping dangerous people off the streets. All of which can be accomplished with life with out parole. That way you don't have to rely on someone else to kill another. Yeah, forget that State does the execution paradigm. Somebody has to flip the switch.
Bradylama said:
Excuse me? That's bullshit. The right to vote was restricted, which is a restriction on civil rights. And I don't think homosexuals would agree that their civil rights are well-protected within the confines of the constitution.
Heck, ain't the right of free speech an amendment?
Bradylama said:
That's not the issue. Are you saying any amendment based on foreign law is one restricting civil rights? I have never heard such bullshit in my life. There are many European countries that protect certain civil rights better than America's consitution does, deal with it.
Brady said:
You're dead on there, you have no reason to concern yourself with the effects of EU's laws on EU citizens.
As a judge, you do have a reason or indeed a duty to consider EU laws, compare them to American laws and simply decide which one is best within the confines of the American Constitution. True, it is not the judge's job to amend the constitution, thank Frith, but judges can't notice everything and if they need international examples to be pointed out flaws in their own law-system, so be it
Or are you saying it's inherently flawed because someone else found it first?
Brady said:
Actually, I'd say the fact that President rather than the existing Supreme Court members appoint new Court Members mean it's an inherently flawed system. A lucky president can sit during loads of Supreme Court deaths and have half the council in his favour
Also, it's not about opinion, it is about example
Bradylama
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
That's just the thing, though. Voting has never been a right in the United States. It may be a right in The Netherlands, but around here one's ability to vote in elections can be revoked depending on the laws of one's state.
Amendments to the Constitution that ended Women Suffrage and enfranchised blacks did not guarantee them the right to vote, it guaranteed that the States could not deny them the ability to vote based on race or sex.
I'm trying to say that a further restriction of civil liberties is out of the question. Denying the ability to vote to convicts may fly, but attempting to do so based on sexual preference would raise all sorts of Hell.
Examples based on precedents not made in America.
Besides which, it is most certainly based on opinion. Kennedy said it himself:
"It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty"
You are right, though, that the President shouldn't be able to appoint Supreme Court Justices. Independance of the Justice System from Legislative and Executive powers is one of the cornerstones of court impartiality. But that isn't the subject at hand.
Dude you just ignored 85% of my message. I am incensed