The Pantagraph (IL)

August 92004

Editorial

Changing U.S. atti­tudes toward the death penal­ty are reflect­ed in a case under con­sid­er­a­tion by the U.S. Supreme Court. The jus­tices have the oppor­tu­ni­ty to decide whether it is uncon­sti­tu­tion­al to exe­cute peo­ple who were under age 18 when they com­mit­ted their crimes.

Actually, the court ruled on that issue 15 years ago in Sanford v. Kentucky, when it allowed the prac­tice for 16- and 17-year-olds. A year ear­li­er, it had ruled against exe­cu­tion of those who were under 16 when they com­mit­ted their crimes.

But in deter­min­ing what con­sti­tutes cru­el and unusu­al pun­ish­ment,” which is pro­hib­it­ed under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the court has the author­i­ty to look at cur­rent atti­tudes in soci­ety rather than be ruled by the Founding Fathers’ intent more than 2 cen­turies ago.

And soci­etal atti­tudes are chang­ing.

The Supreme Court should out­law exe­cu­tion of mur­der­ers who were under 18 when they com­mit­ted the crime.

Illinois already requires that a per­son be at least 18 at the time of the crime to be eli­gi­ble for the death penal­ty, as do 18 oth­er states and the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment. 12 states have no death penal­ty.

However, 14 states set the age at 16 and 5 allow exe­cu­tions for crimes com­mit­ted when a per­son was 17.

Even though 19 states allow the death penal­ty for crimes com­mit­ted as minors, only sev­en states have car­ried out such exe­cu­tions since the death penal­ty was rein­stat­ed in the United States in 1976.

In the past four years, only four coun­tries oth­er than the United States have exe­cut­ed peo­ple for com­mit­ting crimes as juve­niles: China, Congo, Iran and Pakistan. Those nations are hard­ly role mod­els for human rights.

Although one might argue there is lit­tle dif­fer­ence between a per­son who com­mits a heinous mur­der a few days before his 18th birth­day and one who does so a few days after that birth­day, there needs to be an arbi­trary cut­off some­where.

The Supreme Court put that cut­off at age 16 in 1988. But med­ical pro­fes­sion­als, who are among those argu­ing for a change in U.S. prac­tices, say it should be high­er.

Organizations such as the American Medical Association argue that ado­les­cents do not have suf­fi­cient emo­tion­al matu­ri­ty and rea­son­ing abil­i­ties to sub­ject them to the death penal­ty. They are bet­ter qual­i­fied than judges or oth­er politi­cians to make such dis­tinc­tions.

The Supreme Court should take this oppor­tu­ni­ty to ban exe­cu­tion of juve­nile offend­ers as cru­el and unusual punishment.

Sources

The Pantagraph (IL)