The University of Utah's Independent Student Voice

The Daily Utah Chronicle

The University of Utah's Independent Student Voice

The Daily Utah Chronicle

The University of Utah's Independent Student Voice

The Daily Utah Chronicle

Write for Us
Want your voice to be heard? Submit a letter to the editor, send us an op-ed pitch or check out our open positions for the chance to be published by the Daily Utah Chronicle.
@TheChrony
Print Issues
Write for Us
Want your voice to be heard? Submit a letter to the editor, send us an op-ed pitch or check out our open positions for the chance to be published by the Daily Utah Chronicle.
@TheChrony
Print Issues

The Supreme Court had no right to ban execution of minors

Last Tuesday, fi ve membersof the Supreme Court concludedthat cruelty dependson one’s birthday. According toRoper v. Simmons, minors maynot be executed due to the Constitutionalprohibition of “crueland unusual” punishment.Because it takes so long tobring about a death penalty case,minors haven’t been executeduntil well past adulthood, and16- and 17-year-old murderersaren’t exactly children. However,some pundits speak as if a greatbarbarism has been purged fromAmerica.Yeah, now we only execute 18-year-olds.Roper v. Simmons does almostnothing except harm democraticself-government.There’s nothing wrong with theSupreme Court’s new standard.It’s logical, consistent and noless arbitrary than any other agelimit. However, the Constitutioncouldn’t have inspired it.In 1988 and 1989, the court examinedthe executions of minorsand determined no national consensusexisted on their cruelty. Atthat time, 25 states allowed individualsto be executed for crimescommitted under age 18.Since no execution for individualsyounger than 16 had takenplace since 1948, the court decideda consensus had developedagainst such executions, therebymaking them unconstitutional.Now the court claims, less convincingly,that a consensus existsagainst capital punishment forthose younger than 18.Curiously, 20 states allowed executionfor crimes committed byminors-including Utah. Severalsuch executions have taken placein the last 10 years, and 12 stateshave such individuals on deathrow. This doesn’t seem like a consensus.It’s not even a supermajority.Three years ago in Atkinsv. Virginia (which banned executionsof the mentally retarded),the court downplayed these rawnumbers.So what was the court’s evidence?Five states banned thedeath penalty for minors in thelast 16 years, supposedly refl ectingan underlying consensus.Amazingly, the court claimed thepractice of foreign nations banningsuch executions “confi rms”our alleged national consensus.Essentially, the Supreme Courtrevised the defi nition for “crueland unusual punishment” using”evolving standards” withouta national consensus on thesestandards. The court’s opiniontherefore constitutes a predictionat best. More likely, it refl ectssubjective preferences for fi veunelected judges.The Constitution doesn’tprovide for speculation on futuremoral consensus. Moreover,controversial decisions canpolarize partisans and prevent aconsensus from ever developingdemocratically-as happenedwith abortion.Also, the court’s precedentsuggests that if a few states abolishthe death penalty, it mightcompel a ban nationwide. Now,every state’s decision becomesa potential citation for the deathpenalty nationwide. Now everystate is a needless national deathpenaltybattleground.The only thing the courtachieved on Tuesday was lettingmoderates feel good about banninga postage stamp-sized pieceof a ghastly [email protected]

Leave a Comment

Comments (0)

The Daily Utah Chronicle welcomes comments from our community. However, the Daily Utah Chronicle reserves the right to accept or deny user comments. A comment may be denied or removed if any of its content meets one or more of the following criteria: obscenity, profanity, racism, sexism, or hateful content; threats or encouragement of violent or illegal behavior; excessively long, off-topic or repetitive content; the use of threatening language or personal attacks against Chronicle members; posts violating copyright or trademark law; and advertisement or promotion of products, services, entities or individuals. Users who habitually post comments that must be removed may be blocked from commenting. In the case of duplicate or near-identical comments by the same user, only the first submission will be accepted. This includes comments posted across multiple articles. You can read more about our comment policy at https://dailyutahchronicle.com/comment-faqs/.
All The Daily Utah Chronicle Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *