How is 17 old enough to get the death penalty and too young to have consensual sex?

libfreeordie on June 26, 2012 at 10:52 AM

If you’re old enough to kill, you’re old enough to get the death penalty.

Your rhetorical question is frankly stupid.

The decision essentially ignores all that and says, “no mandatory life sentence without parole.” Which means you can apply a life sentence without parole under the right circumstances — which have already been considered when it was decided to try the juvenile as an adult.

Sorry, but the reasoning on this one is incoherent. It’s not as bad as it seemed at first report, but it still amounts to seriously shoddy thinking. The restriction on cruel and unusual punishment really does not apply in this case. There is nothing about the punishment that is cruel or unusual. They just don’t like that trying a juvenile as an adult leads to … adult punishments for the juvenile.

Look at Clown Kagen’s reasoning. SHE will decide WHO laws should apply to, and who it shall not apply to.

Where in the constitution does it say the UNEQUAL implementation of ANY law is acceptable?

Now before you claim I’m a bleeding heart. Listen. Twenty years ago, bar fights if they included bottles could be prosecuted as assault with a deadly weapon, a Felony. Today, those same people can’t work in many fields except manual labor. Then we minimize the number of Manual Labor jobs, by prohibiting them from working at Docks, Ports, or other shipping facilities where “security” is an issue. By Federal Law no less.

The individual made a mistake, was punished, and now can’t get a job, can’t do anything but return to crime. They are responsible for their actions. We are responsible for OUR actions too. We did not forgive them, and will never do so. Minor Drug offenders end up in prison for long mandatory sentences.

And if you commit 1st degree murder, the punishment should be mandatory execution.

How is 17 old enough to get the death penalty and too young to have consensual sex?

libfreeordie on June 26, 2012 at 10:52 AM |

Most states meh at 17 years olds having sex.. And most 17 year olds have a conscience and aren’t a sociopath/psychopath..but those said same 17 year olds can’t see past their hormones to see the consequences of sexual activity…

Face it, consent laws aren’t about the 17 years old and how responsible they are.. the are about the degenerate adults who would take advantage of the 17 year old..

And this law again is the court overreaching from the bench.. Penalties are decided by state legislature..

This sentencing judgement call clearly belongs to the states and not to liberal Supreme Court justices. As Alito points out, the majority decision shows that Eighth Amendment cases are “no longer tied to any objective indicia of society’s standards”. As Alito further noted, 17-year-olds committed an average of 424 murders and non-negligent homicides per year between 2002 and 2010, some extremely cruel & heinous. I think that in the opinion of most people some of these 17 year old cruelty-loving psychopathic killers should be put down like the deviant animals they are.

But now the Constitutional prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment has come to mean any punishment that, in the abstract, jars the very sensitive and tender feelings of the liberal mush heads on the Court. Disgusting.

Because our age-of-consent is badly in need of revision so that an 18 y/o isn’t in danger of being busted as a pedophile for banging an 17 y/o partner.

MelonCollie on June 26, 2012 at 11:05 AM

We have the oddest agreements….

How is 17 old enough to get the death penalty and too young to have consensual sex?

libfreeordie on June 26, 2012 at 10:52 AM

Because our age-of-consent is badly in need of revision so that an 18 y/o isn’t in danger of being busted as a pedophile for banging an 17 y/o partner.

This is one of the premier conservative blogs. If you’re going to show up a day late with commentary, rest assured that the entire conservative blogosphere has already dealt with your banal slant in some fashion or another.

Seems like a kid could go on a gang rampage, kill all sorts of people, and get basically nothing as a sentence.

And it may set a path for some states to take off the kid gloves where appropriate while leaving room for lenience when deserved.

Too bad this reasoning doesn’t apply to public schools with their idiotic “no tolerance” policies that get innocent kids suspended for making pencil drawings of guns or pointing with their fingers and saying “bang”.

jeffn21 on June 26, 2012 at 9:22 AM

The ruling doesn’t preclude life without parole, it just doesn’t mandate it for the 14 yr old involved in a murder after being bullied into going to rob a convenience store by his gang member cousin. Punishment is due, but come on. Not every minor who commits murder has killed a family of four in cold blood.

A big reason for the explosion in juvenile sentences was because gangs were using minors as hitmen back in the ‘90s.

Sekhmet on June 26, 2012 at 8:46 AM

Yep. They’re almost perfect for the task: willing to do ANYTHING to prove themselves, mentally vulnerable to suggestion…and when the cops nab them they can easily get a confession because they’re scared little kids.

Rational Thought on June 26, 2012 at 8:50 AM

+1. Exactly. I don’t laws that hamstring a judge’s ability to decide sentencing…but our society has become such a bunch of lily-livered wusses that such laws do have merit. I’m kinda torn on this decision, truth be told.

Easy fix.

“I hereby sentence you to 500 years imprisonment. You will be eligible for parole after serving 25% of your sentence. Take him away.”

evilned on June 26, 2012 at 9:20 AM

*evil grin* I like the way you think!

Easy fix.

“I hereby sentence you to 500 years imprisonment. You will be eligible for parole after serving 25% of your sentence. Take him away.”