Lee Boyd Malvo, the teenage partner of assassin John Allan Mohammed that terrorized the East Coast over a year ago has been sentenced to life in prison. He was 17 at the time he took part in the shootings.
This brings to light a question that was argued before the Supreme Court a couple of weeks ago. Should 16 and 17 year old murderers be sentenced to death? While the Supreme Court has ruled that the death penalty does not, in and of itself, constitute cruel and unusual punishment (Gregg v. Georgia, 1976), they are re-visiting the practice of applying capital punishment to teen offenders.
http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=scotusexecute14&date=20041014
Why might the Court reverse itself? In a recent decision, Atkins v. Virginia (2002), the Court ruled that it WAS a violation of the 8th Amendment to execute offenders that are mentally retarded. Does it logically follow that teens should not be given the ultimate punishment?
What do you think? Should the Court revise the meaning of “cruel and unusual punishment” with respect to juvenile offenders or do you think this is a matter best left up to the Congress and the individual states to decide?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I think that the death penalty is wrong in every case.
- Keith Isbell
Post a Comment