St. Petersburg Times

April 25, 2004

Editorial

When the Florida Legislature pro­posed a con­sti­tu­tion­al amend­ment to pro­tect the death penal­ty, the mea­sure had the inci­den­tal effect of allow­ing peo­ple to be exe­cut­ed for crimes they com­mit­ted at the age of 16. Sponsors said they did­n’t want to do that and promised cor­rec­tive leg­is­la­tion. That was three years ago. Voters rat­i­fied the con­sti­tu­tion­al amend­ment a year lat­er. The bill that was promised has yet to pass.

Missouri’s attor­ney gen­er­al, mean­while, has cit­ed Florida’s ret­ro­grade action in a brief urg­ing the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold a Missouri law that sim­i­lar­ly allows the exe­cu­tion of 16- and 17-year olds.

Missouri’s own Supreme Court threw out that law on the premise that a nation­al con­sen­sus has evolved against the exe­cu­tion of juve­niles. Half the death penal­ty states as well as the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment exempt juve­niles. (The New Hampshire Legislature has vot­ed to make that the 20th state to do that, but the gov­er­nor has said he will veto the bill.) Since 1976, only 7 states have actu­al­ly exe­cut­ed pris­on­ers who were juve­niles when they com­mit­ted their crimes.

But Missouri’s attor­ney gen­er­al says what Florida vot­ers did in 2002 helps prove that the Missouri court mis­read the nation­al mood.

That is the wrong inter­pre­ta­tion of what Florida did. The Legislature all but ignored the age ques­tion in its hys­ter­i­cal haste to do some­thing — any­thing — to stop the Florida Supreme Court from bar­ring the use of the elec­tric chair or even shut­ting down the death penal­ty alto­geth­er. The Legislature itself retired the elec­tric chair. Now, it needs to keep the promise that was made.

The Florida Senate appears will­ing to pass SB 224, by Sen. Victor Crist, R‑Tampa, and oth­ers, which sets 18 as the min­i­mum age, though it has been approved by only 1 of the 2 com­mit­tees to which it was referred. In the House, 2 com­mit­tees approved a com­pan­ion bill, HB 63, after it was amend­ed to set the min­i­mum age at 17, but there is still anoth­er com­mit­tee to go and House Speaker Johnnie Byrd is not thought to be fond of the bill. Time is run­ning out.

But if Byrd were to think more deeply about it, he might see the under­ly­ing prin­ci­ple of that bill in the same light as his insis­tence that a minor’s par­ents should be noti­fied before she has an abor­tion. The com­par­i­son is not an orig­i­nal thought with us; it’s the view of James A. Smith Jr., edi­tor of the Florida Baptist Witness, in Thursday’s edi­tion.

​“In both mat­ters,” he wrote, ​“the prin­ci­ple is the same. The law should rec­og­nize that minors must be treat­ed dif­fer­ent­ly (as it does in oth­er laws relat­ed to minors). In the case of minors seek­ing abor­tions, at the very least, par­ents must be informed about such an impor­tant and life-chang­ing med­ical pro­ce­dure — no mat­ter how polit­i­cal­ly cor­rect abor­tion is. In the case of cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment, the law should rec­og­nize the dif­fer­ence of minors’ moral cul­pa­bil­i­ty — no mat­ter how polit­i­cal­ly incor­rect it may be to shield minors from the death penal­ty.” Executing minors, Smith said, ​“can­not be considered just.”

Sources

St. Petersburg Times